Jerry, List Richard Dawkins is traversing the globe preaching his gospel. It is the "life because genes because natural selection" narrative. And he is preaching his gospel in the absence of any axiomatic framework that hangs together (natural selection is a mechanism, not an axiomatic principle). He has no axiomatic framework. We do. The possible implications of the Peirce-biosemiotics paradigm are far-reaching... from politics, to religion, to sexuality, to biology and the mind sciences and even to physics and the thermodynamics of complexity. Yet, the indications are that The Establishment's genocentrism-based narrative has not entirely released its grip in our forums.
Peirce was not God. His semiotics was framed from a fairly anthropocentric perspective, given that his thinking originates from an Occidental paradigm that did not attribute consciousness to non-human entities. The introduction of biosemiotics into the Peircean narrative changes all that. So to get bogged down on the semantics of the original Peirce is not even what he himself would have wanted. I think, were he alive today, Peirce would welcome the expansion of his semiotics into a more general paradigm for the life sciences. And that means that he himself would be open to recontextualising some of his assumptions. sj From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 2015 11:10 PM To: Peirce-L Cc: Stephen Jarosek Subject: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality) On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: such as the need for an axiomatic framework, or a review of important principles. Interdisciplinary thinking requires such openness to ideas, as none of us can be experts on everything. Yes, the need for openness in thinking broadly is readily apparent. It would very helpful to your readers if you would clarify what you are seeking to communicate in either "an axiomatic framework" in the sense of the breadth of such a framework, or " a review of important principles". Is your concern about a general logic for interdisciplinary thinking? Or, about a semantic framework that encompasses a particular philosophy of logic or metaphysics or epistemology? These questions are phrased in such a manner as to give you full license tell the readers how such an open space can be constructed with minimal constraints. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
