Gary F - Nope - I don't think that you have effectively brushed the crumbs of Edwina off your hands and can go on your merry way. [There! I told her off didn't I. So much for her!] Why are you always so angry?
Icons don't commit themselves to any information or meaning - how can they - but they can only exist as that iconic relation if they are connected to some more stable semiosic relation both 'behind' and 'in front of' them. That 'flash' in itself has no meaning but when connected to another semiosic process (me as receiver) I can connect to the semiosic process of the redness of the flashing light. As Peirce said: commit themselves to nothing, but their connection (Thirdness) with experiential external Secondnesses constitutes information. So, an Iconic relation, to exist is 'committed to connectivity'. Otherwise, what's the point of it within the fullness of the semiosic capacities? Cheers, Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Fuhrman To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce List' Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 12:45 PM Subject: [biosemiotics:7077] iconic commitment (was: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6) ET: nowhere in my post did I disagree with Peirce that 'icons commit themselves to nothing at all'. Where do you come up with that conclusion? GF: The first sentence of your previous post said: "I think that Icons commit themselves to connectivity and thus continuity". Now you claim to have agreed with Peirce that 'icons commit themselves to nothing at all'. I think that's enough to show that any further comment would be superfluous, and any further attempt at dialogue along these lines would be fruitless. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 4-Oct-14 12:11 PM Subject: [biosemiotics:7075] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6 Gary F - nowhere in my post did I disagree with Peirce that 'icons commit themselves to nothing at all'. Where do you come up with that conclusion? Nor do I disagree with the 'fortuitous variations in reproduction' play a role in adaptation. I've constantly focused on the vital role of chance/Firstness. My comment was on the nature of the connections, where I pointed out that the function of Thirdness was not merely mediation but also continuity of type. It isn't easy for novelty to get Thirdness to change! Therefore, chance - if we consider it only as randomness (and I don't think it is)...is necessary restrained within the general constraints of Thirdness. Constructive deviations do not, in my view, emerge within random chance mutations -- and Peirce also rejected that evoluation/adaptation was guided only by mechanical randomness and held that an agapastic 'connected and informed' force was the key agent in adaptation/evolution). Chance or Firstness is a much stronger force than mere mechanical randomness. Its connectedness enables it to offer informed potentiality rather than mechanical uninformed randomness. As for my disagreement with your 'Man-as-Sinner' - we'll have to leave it at that. I disgree and point to the various research on complex adaptive systems which disagree with the one-way linearity of your view. I strongly promote CAS (complex adapative systems) functioning in all realms - biological as well as societal, economic, etc..and view semiosis as the basic process in the CAS....lots of articles on biology as a CAS and the saltational dynamics that take place. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Fuhrman To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce List' Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 11:50 AM Subject: RE: [biosemiotics:7072] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6 Edwina, I guess you don't agree with Peirce that icons "commit themselves to nothing at all" (MS 599, as quoted). You also seem to disagree with his suggestion that "fortuitous variations in reproduction" (or what you call "deviations from the norm") play a role in evolution analogous to the role of icons in cognition (and the role of chance as Firstness in Peirce's cosmology). This may well indicate a major difference between you and Peirce concerning Firstness as a mode of being. I'm more surprised, though, at your denial that this is an age of mass extinction in biology - the seventh in the history of the planet, by the usual count of evolutionary biologists, and the first to be caused mainly by a single species (guess who). What I hear from biologists is that biodiversity is in steep decline. I'd like to see your evidence that the complexity of the biosphere is increasing . but not at the cost of distracting the list from the main argument of NP. So I'll just leave it at that. gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 4-Oct-14 10:38 AM To: Gary Fuhrman; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce List' Subject: [biosemiotics:7072] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6 Gary F wrote: 1) "Icons, representing Firstness, commit themselves to nothing, but their connection (Thirdness) with experiential external Secondnesses constitutes information. The Dicisign is the kind of sign which actually makes such a connection. The generalized (and fallible!) commitment to that connection is what we call "knowledge" or "belief" and is represented by assertion as a speech act. The analogous commitment in biology is the adaptation of the species, which furthers the survival of its form (sometimes by modifying it)." I think that Icons commit themselves to connectivity and thus continuity- even though in themselves they convey no information; what is vital is their role of connectivity. And this connectivity is to Thirdness which functions as the general communal long term mode of identity. Therefore, this is not merely to promote adaptation of the species, which I suggest is informed more by deviations from the norm; it functions to promote continuity and robust stability of the species. Deviations emerge within connections with other Sign systems that provide their information to the 'home system'. 2) I don't think we live in a 'biological age of mass extinction'. Species always die and new ones or adaptations of the old, emerge. I'd say we are living in a biological age, as always, which operates as a complex adaptive system - and this complexity is increasing, which promotes both increasing decay and diversity. [I'd certainly agree with the 'information overload' comment!] Edwina
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
