BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
don't think that Peirce's example of the sunflower turning towards an
external object, in this case the sun, and acknowledging it as DO,
Dynamic Object, within a semiosic process, is 'ludicrous'. The
sunflower, as a 'semiosic entity', has a knowledge base
[Representamen/Sign] embedded within its matter. This enables it to
interact with its environment, with the Representamen/sign
functioning as mediation between external objects and its
interpretation of their input data.
What is the nature of this mediative sign/representamen? As Robert
Marty clearly pointed out in his example to JAS, it includes a
build-up of a generalized knowledge base which functions to mediate
that input energy/data/information [which in this case comes from the
sun] into an Interpretant result - which in this case, is the capacity
of that specific sunflower to both exist as a plant and reproduce
itself as a type.
That is, semiosis functions to produce both general and specific
morphologies/units of information. And again, the role of the
representamen is powerful, for it enables both the generation of
generals and also the diverse and unique instantiations of these
generals.
Edwina
On Thu 28/05/20 4:10 PM , Jon Awbrey [email protected] sent:
Klaus, All ...
I'm working at reviewing and revising some pieces I've rewritten
two score times over the last ... lost count of years ... and that
bit from Peirce is one of my favorite epigraphs for the work ahead.
But I take it as an allegorical figure whose purpose is to
illustrate
a certain form of relation, and not to be taken too literally. So
I'd
agree with your reaction that taking it literally clangs a bit. I
think
there are clues in the passage, the hypothetical subjunctive
construction,
the unnatural qualification, “without further condition”, etc.,
telling us
Peirce did not intend it a truth of botany. But taken rightly it
does point
to the shape of a proper definition to come. So I'll be getting to
that ...
Regards,
Jon
On 5/28/2020 12:30 PM, Krippendorff, Klaus wrote:
> This interesting quote reveals three things to me:
>
> 1. Peirce observed And described what cyberneticians call an
adaptive system. The sunflower trying to maximize
exposure to the moving sun by turning.
>
> 2. This behavior may well have an evolutionary advantage in the
sense that other flowers that cannot take advantage
of this ability might be less capable of reproduction. While all
flowers end up bearing seeds, not all flowers that have
survived today have that capability.
>
> 3. Projecting the triadic sign conception on this process is
ludicrous. It demonstrates Peirce’s single-minded
projection of a simplistic conception on everything in the world.
>
> To me signs are the result of interpretations of perceptions.
Even if the connection between what one sees and what
it means Is explainable as a circular causality, it always Is
conceptualized as such. It seems to me that Peirce
confuses his conception with what IS the case. His triadic
explanations do no not cover the dynamics of the sunflower’s
behavior. It favors static descriptions which cybernetics is
fundamentally oppose to, moreover including the
cybernetician as enactor of his or her conceptual system.
>
> Klaus
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 28, 2020, at 7:00 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>>
>> Cf: Sign Relations • Anthesis
>> At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/28/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-anthesis/
[2]
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by
that very act fully capable, without further condition,
of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding
ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same
reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of
the sun.
>>
>> — C.S. Peirce, Collected Papers, CP 2.274
>>
>>
>>
>> In his picturesque illustration of a sign relation, along with
his tracing of a corresponding sign process, or
“semiosis”, Peirce uses the technical term “representamen”
for his concept of a sign, but the shorter word is precise
enough, so long as one recognizes its meaning in a particular theory
of signs is given by a specific definition of what
it means to be a sign.
>>
>> Resources
>> =========
>>
>> • Semeiotic ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Semeiotic [3] )
>>
>> • Logic Syllabus (
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/logic-syllabus/ [4] )
>>
>> • Sign Relations ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation [5] )
>>
>> • Triadic Relations ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Triadic_relation
[6] )
>>
>> • Relation Theory ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory [7]
)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ [8]
>> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey [9]
>> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey [10]
>> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache [11]
>>
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2F2020%2F05%2F28%2Fsign-relations-%25e2%2580%25a2-anthesis%2F
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Foeis.org%2Fwiki%2FSemeiotic
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2Flogic-syllabus%2F
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Foeis.org%2Fwiki%2FSign_relation
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Foeis.org%2Fwiki%2FTriadic_relation
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Foeis.org%2Fwiki%2FRelation_theory
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2F
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Findependent.academia.edu%2FJonAwbrey
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oeis.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3AJon_Awbrey
[11]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FJonnyCache
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
