Here's something http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2010/05/12/between-whitehead-peirce/
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > 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 [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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
