> On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:36 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Edwina, Pansemiotics carries the connotation of panpsychism. Physiosemiosis >> has no such connotation. And the term “pansemiosis” carries just the >> opposite of what you attribute, namely, the idea that the universe IS >> composed exclusively of signs. > > While I tend to read Peirce in terms of pansemiotics, I’d also recognize that > this borderline panpsychism is extremely controversial. It is well worth > doing what we can to separate Peirce’s semiotics from his ontological > commitments. However as I take you to be saying later, it’s hard to say the > universe is just signs (thirdness) since Peirce in various places obviously > sees firstness and secondness.
That was very poorly written on my part. Apologies. I meant to say that while I tend to read Peirce as verging on panpsychism, it’s quite controversial. As I later noted in that paragraph Peirce can’t really be a pansemiotician since that neglects firstness and secondness. However I think that his ontology is such that the three categories are basic ontologically. That claim (which I think Kelly Parker argues is a basic neoplatonic stance as well) is no less controversial than true panpsychism. While I think it is fruitful to think of basic ontology in terms of the three categories as fundamental, I think it’s very important and helpful to separate Peirce’s consideration of general semiotics from his ontology. If only to avoid the huge negative connotations anything smacking of panpsychism has in most philosophy departments. That said I think any physical phenomena will always be analyzable in terms of the three categories at a natural level. At which point it’s probably better to talk about quasi-minds and virtuality rather than bringing in the more controversial terms of cognition from biology. I’m not sure insects really have cognition but it’s worth talking like they do in many cases. Exactly how to make sense of mind in biology is far from clear to me. And talk of observers in physics is often taken as an ontological scandal some interpreters were involved in. I think Peirce’s approach is fruitful in that it avoids the need to engage with such considerations.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
