Mike,
I don’t see how it could get more specific than that, when Peirce says “All this is equally true of the manner in which the laws of nature influence matter. A law is in itself nothing but a general formula or symbol” (CP 5.107). If that’s vague, maybe that’s why Nathan Houser wrote that “there is some reason to believe that even the laws of nature are semiotic products.” Gary f. From: Mike Bergman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 9-Dec-17 18:51 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature Hi Gary f, List, I am generally familiar with the general references for laws and the tendencies to them. I guess I did not address my question well. Are there passages from Peirce where he specifically connects semiosis or signs to nature, other than the passing reference to crystals? I believe we can infer that Peirce likely believed the laws of nature to be subject to semiosis, but is it anywhere stated something like that? I found the connection of CP 5.105 'law of nature' to signs or semiosis in the context of my question to be unclear, though suggesting it was helpful. I read on and found CP 5.107 a little more to the point, but still vague. I do like the fact this comes up in his discussion of the reality of Thirdness. Still, pretty thin gruel. Maybe that is as strong as the evidence gets. Thanks! Mike On 12/9/2017 5:02 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Mike, There are plenty of passages in Peirce which virtually identify semiosis with Representation and thus with Thirdness, and the laws of nature being general laws, Thirdness is predominant in them. For instance there is CP 5.105, EP 2:184): [[ Thirdness, as I use the term, is only a synonym for Representation, to which I prefer the less colored term because its suggestions are not so narrow and special as those of the word Representation. Now it is proper to say that a general principle that is operative in the real world is of the essential nature of a Representation and of a Symbol because its modus operandi is the same as that by which words produce physical effects. ]] Gary f. From: Mike Bergman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 9-Dec-17 17:25 To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature Hi List, I was reading Nathan Houser's piece on "Peirce, Phenomenology, and Semiotics" in the Routledge Companion [1] and came across this quote: "One of the principal realms of sign activity, or semiosis (semeiosis), is human thought; but semiosis prevails wherever there is life and there is some reason to believe that even the laws of nature are semiotic products." (emphasis added) I am aware of the reference to crystals and bees (CP 4.551), but do not recall seeing Peirce references to signs in inanimate nature other than crystals. Does anyone on the list know of others? Thanks! Mike [1] Houser, N., “Peirce, Phenomenology, and Semiotics,” The Routledge Companion to Semiotics, P. Cobley, ed., London ; New York: Routledge, 2010, pp. 89–100.
----------------------------- 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 .
