John, Edwina, list, I've nothing to add at the moment, I too completely agree with the thrust of John's post. Let's hope that some of those untranscribed manuscripts will one day yield more relevant material on this topic.
In reading Whitehead years ago I too noted many similarities to Peirce's thinking. Has there been any work (articles, dissertations, etc.) comparing the thinking of the two? As I recall, John, some of your papers touch on this. But I'm wondering if there has been any more extensive work in this area? Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > 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 s...@bestweb.net 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 > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
