Mike - it's all through his work. References to both organic and
inorganic matter as expressions of the semiosic function of Mind.
"what we call matter is not completely dead, but is merely mind
hidebound with habits' 6.158
"If I make atoms swerve - as I do- I make tem swerve but very very
little, because I conceive they are not absolutely dead. And by that
I do not mean exactly that I hold them to be physically such as the
materialists hold them to e, only with a small does of sentiency
superadded...But what I mean is, that for all there is, is First
Feelings; Second, Effots; Third, habits - all of which are more
familiar to us on their psychical side - than on their physical side;
and that dead matter would be merely the final result of the complete
induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and the brute
irrationality of effort to completely death'. 6.201.
See his discussion of protoplasm [admittedly it is organic] 6.250
and on..and he talks about the molecules that make up this protoplasm
as taking habits.
"The truth is that, thought the molecular explanation of habit is
pretty vagueon the mathematical side, there can be no doubt that
systems of atoms having polar orces would act substantially in that
manner and the explanation is even too satisfactory to suite the
convenience of an advocate of tychism. For it may fairly be urged
that since the phenomena of habit may thus result from a purely
mechanical arrangement, it is unnecessary to suppose that
habit-taking is a primordial principle of the universe....." and he
continues on...and "presents evidence of a primordial habit-taking
tendency. Now, those who insist on the doctrine of necessity will for
the most part insist that the physical world is entirely individual.
Yet law involves an element of generality. Now, to say that
generality is primordial, but generalization not, is like saying that
diversity is primordial but diversification not...6.263.
I would suggest that this entire section - dealing with the atoms
and molecules of the protoplasm will show you semiosis within
physical matter.
"All mind is directly or indirectly connected with all matter, and
acts in a more or less regular way; so that all mind more or less
partakes of the nature of matter. Hence, it would be a mistake to
conceive of the psychical and the physical aspects of matter as two
aspects absolutely distinct'....mechanical laws are nothing but
acquired habits'..6.268
In 6.269 - he talks about the action of habit - and atoms.
In A Guess at the Riddle, 1.400 and on - he talks about the Triad in
Physics. It's obviously too long to quote - but - he says that all
three categories are operative in this realm...'spontaneity or
lawless originality mingles...with law everywhere. 1.407 Certainly,
he explains thirdness or habit-taking in this realm...but..that
'slight aberration from the law' continues..In 1.411 - he discusses
the habits of an atom..
As I said - it's all through his work and it's difficult to find ALL
the references - but these two sections might help.
Edwina
On Sat 09/12/17 5:25 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:
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 .
