BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Thank you so much for your perceptive and articulate post. Of course
- I strongly agree.
And I emphasize that semiosis is operative not merely in the more
complex or larger-brain animals, but in all matter, from the smallest
micro bacterium to the plant world to the animal world. And yes, even
in the complex adaptive multi-unit systems such as human societies.
I keep saying that 'plants talk to each other' and we are certainly
finding out, by research, that they do just that.
However, semiosis is not equivalent to communication - a view that
many become, I think, entrapped in. My view is that semiosis is
morphological; that is, it forms matter ...transforming matter from
one finite form to another finite form - within that semiosic triad.
And of course, this includes the physico-chemical realm where
semiosic transformation also takes place, albeit at a, [thankfully]
slower pace - which slow pace maintains the stability of this realm.
The biological is a dynamic, active, constantly transformative and
thus, is a ' productive of diversity' realm.
Again - thanks so much for your post.
Edwina
On Sat 20/01/18 11:19 AM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent:
Edwina and Gary R,
I changed the subject line to biosemiosis in order to emphasize that
Peirce had intended semiosis to cover the full realm of all living
things. Note what he wrote in a letter to Lady Welby:
CSP, MS 463 (1908)
> I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something
else,
> called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person,
which
> effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby
mediately
> determined by the former. My insertion of “upon a person” is a
sop
> to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception
> understood.
I believe that "despair" is the primary reason why he didn't say
more.
His insistence on continuity implied that the faculties of the human
mind must be continuous with the minds (or quasi-minds) of all
living
things anywhere in the universe. But if he had said that, he would
have been denounced by a huge number of critics from philosophy,
psychology, science, religion, and politics.
Edwina
> I do think that limiting Peircean semiosis to the human conceptual
> realm is a disservice to Peircean semiosis... I won't repeat my
> constant reference to 4.551.
Gary
> I believe, you've had to depend on CP 4.551 as much as you have
> (there are a very few other suggestions scattered through his
work,
> but none of them are much developed).
The reason why there are so few is that Peirce felt a need to
throw a "sop to Cerberus" in order to get people to take his ideas
seriously. I'm sure that he would gladly have written much more
if they were ready to listen.
For a very important and carefully worded quotation, see CP 2.227:
> all signs used by a "scientific" intelligence, that is to say,
> by an intelligence capable of learning by experience.
That comment certainly includes all large animals. In addition
to explicit statements about signs, it's important to note his
anecdotes about dogs and parrots. He observed some remarkable
performances, which implied "scientific intelligence". Although
he didn't say so explicitly, he wouldn't have made the effort
to write those anecdotes if he didn't think so.
Since Peirce talked about "crystals and bees" in CP 4.551, he must
have been thinking about the continuity to zoosemiosis, and from
that
to the intermediate stages of phytosemiosis, biosemiosis by
microbes,
crystal formation, and eventually to all of chemistry and physics.
He would have been delighted to learn about the signs called DNA
and the semiosis that interprets those signs in all aspects of life.
Many people have observed strong similarities with Whitehead's
process philosophy. ANW also had a continuity of mind-like things
from the lowest levels to something he called God. He wrote most
of his philosophical books at Harvard, and he also wrote some
sympathetic words about Peirce. He admitted that he hadn't read
much of Peirce's work, but Clarence Irving Lewis, the chairman of
the philosophy dept. at that time, had studied Peirce's MSS in
great detail. And Whitehead was also the thesis advisor for the
two graduate students, Hartshorne and Weiss, who edited the CP.
ANW must have absorbed much more than he cited in his references.
We should also remember that there are thousands of pages of MSS
that have not yet been transcribed and studied. Nobody knows how
much more might be discovered about all these issues. But the
fragments that do exist show that he had intended much more.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
