Helmut,
Your idea of “self-defined bodies” is essentially the “autopoiesis” of Maturana and Varela, and the idea of final causation being intrinsic to animate bodymind is shared by Gregory Bateson and, I think, by Peirce. My book Turning Signs joins these concepts with Robert Rosen’s concepts of “anticipatory systems” and the Uexkullian “Innenwelt” as internal model, and identifies all this with semiosis (drawing very heavily on Peirce, of course). The central idea is that living beings are self-guided, relatively autonomous, and incorporate semiosic “guidance systems.” For more on this see especially my Chapter 3, http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/gds.htm. Gary f. From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] Sent: 9-Apr-17 00:32 Edwina, List, my point was, that a token is embodied, but a molecule has no clear borders (of it´s body), as it contains electrons, whose orbitals are borderless, and the gravitation (and other fields) of the molecule also is borderless. Borders in physical-chemical- world are defined by humans, eg. "75% probability of electron presence". In animate world, organisms have clear borders, their skin surface. Their body contains their needs-affairs of final causation. So maybe, if a token is embodied, it only appears in self-defined bodies, that would be in animate world of final cause? (...But, if in the supposedly inanimate physicalchemical world, there obviously is a token-type-relation, like law-logos, this again would mean, that the "inanimate" world is not inanimate). Best, Helmut
----------------------------- 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 .
