Mike, list - My reference to semiosis within the physical realm
refers to its functioning as a triadic process:
Object-Representamen-Interpretant, with each of these nodes in any
one of the three modal categories.
Certainly, as in the quotes from my other post - habit-taking is a
basic quality in the physical realm [see his discussion of such by
atoms]. But semiosis is not simply habit-taking [ which is a modal
category]. It is a relational or interactive process where one 'bit'
of matter interacts with another 'bit' of matter. This is not, as
Peirce frequently pointed out, confined to mechanical interactions
[Secondness], but includes both spontaneity [Firstness] and also,
Mind or Thirdness.
But - the focus is on the results of these interactions. Does a
crystal simply increase its size by simple mechanical contact or, are
its atoms such that Mind both attracts and organizes this expansion.
The latter is a key semiosic interaction. [though I would say that a
simple mechanical triadic interaction is also semiosic - with each
node [O-R-I] in a mode of Secondness. But organization of the
results of contact - involves Mind or Thirdness.
Edwina
On Sat 09/12/17 6:50 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:
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] 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]
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 .
