Phyllis wrote: "I just have a vague sense of the connection." There may very well be a connection -- it even seems likely to me. Perhaps others here might have some insights as to the nature/structure of that possible connection.
Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 3:54 PM Phyllis Chiasson < phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just have a vague sense of the connection. I don't know enough about > either of them to provide an analysis. > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 12:37 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Phyllis, List, >> >> Rovelli is a brilliant storyteller mixing reflections on quantum science >> and Eastern thought in both insightful and entertaining ways. >> >> As one reviewer put it, the essence of his argument is "that every >> entity in the universe, from protons to humans, exists only in relation to >> other objects." I would tend to strongly agree with that, as well as his >> suggestion that with this knowledge that we should -- as some Buddhist >> and Daoist teachings would have it -- "go with the flow." >> >> Would you comment on how you see his quantum insights as being like the >> theory of abioticsemiosis? >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> “Let everything happen to you >> Beauty and terror >> Just keep going >> No feeling is final” >> ― Rainer Maria Rilke >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 2:53 PM Phyllis Chiasson < >> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Abioticsemiosis seems a lot like what is Happening in quantum physics. >>> Especially Carlo Rovelli's relational theory as described in Helgoland. >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 11:07 AM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> List, >>>> >>>> I recently came upon this quite short article, "A necessary condition >>>> for proof of abioticsemiosis," by Marc Champagne (Semiotica, issue 197 >>>> (October 2013), pp. 283–287). >>>> >>>> *Abstract:* >>>> This short essay seeks to identify and prevent a pitfall that attends >>>> less careful inquiries into “physiosemiosis.” It is emphasized that, in >>>> order to truly establish the presence of sign-action in the non-living >>>> world, all the components of a triadic sign – including the interpretant – >>>> would have to be abiotic (that is,not dependent on a living organism). >>>> Failure to heed this necessary condition can lead one to hastily confuse a >>>> natural sign (like smoke coming from fire) for an instance of abiotic >>>> semiosis. A more rigorous and reserved approach to the topicis called >>>> for. >>>> >>>> John Deely endorsed, and so in a way (re)introduced, the idea of >>>> *physiosemiosis* (a term he is credited with coining) to contemporary >>>> semiotic communities, including the Peircean community. >>>> >>>> *Basics of Semiotics*, laid down the argument that the action of signs >>>> extends even further than life, and that semiosis as an influence of the >>>> future played a role in the shaping of the physical universe prior to the >>>> advent of life, a role for which Deely coined the term *physiosemiosis*. >>>> Thus the argument whether the manner in which the action of signs permeates >>>> the universe includes the nonliving as well as the living stands, as it >>>> were, as determining the "final frontier" of semiotics. Deely's argument, >>>> which he first expressed at the 1989 Charles Sanders Peirce >>>> Sesquicentennial International Congress at Harvard University, if >>>> successful, would render nugatory Peirce's "sop to Cerberus." Deely's >>>> *Basics >>>> of Semiotics*, of which six expanded editions have been published >>>> across nine languages, deals with semiotics in this expansive sense. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Deely#Contributions_to_semiotics >>>> In a footnote on Deely's approach to this matter, Champagne remarks: >>>> >>>> Although Deely was prompted to endorse the idea of physiosemiosis by >>>> his syncretistic study of Charles S. Peirce and John Poinsot (cf. Deely >>>> [Basics >>>> of semiotics, Indiana University Press] 1990: 87–91), his ambitious >>>> promissory note can also be motivated (perhaps more persuasively) by an >>>> inference to the best explanation. On this view,a complete absence of >>>> semiosis outside the living world would turn out to be more >>>> surprising/unlikely >>>> than its presence, however minute or sparse, in the non-living world . >>>> . . >>>> >>>> Deely's "inference to the best explanation" (that the "absence of >>>> semiosis outside the living world would turn out to be more >>>> surprising/unlikely than its presence") has always seemed persuasive enough >>>> to me. But then the question immediately arises: whence comes this >>>> "semiosis outside the living world"? >>>> >>>> Again, Champagne argument is that "in order to truly establish the >>>> presence of sign-action in the non-living world, all the components of a >>>> triadic sign – *including the interpretant* – would have to be abiotic" >>>> (emphasis added). >>>> >>>> But is this necessarily so? Or rather, is there a way of viewing one of >>>> the "components of a triadic sign" as *not* abiotic ("signs grow" CSP)? >>>> >>>> A theist might argue that this aboriginal semiosis is *not *strictly 'a >>>> *bio*tic', that it comes from the 'action' (so to speak) of a "*living* >>>> God." But then I was immediately reminded of Terrence Deacon's arguments in >>>> his "stunningly original, stunningly synoptic book" (Stuart Kauffman), >>>> *Incomplete >>>> Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter* (2012), which I have always >>>> thought would be more accurately subtitled, "How mind emerged from >>>> *constraints >>>> on* matter." But does that approach in a way beg the question? Whence >>>> those 'constraints'? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Gary R >>>> >>>> “Let everything happen to you >>>> Beauty and terror >>>> Just keep going >>>> No feeling is final” >>>> ― Rainer Maria Rilke >>>> >>>> *Gary Richmond* >>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>>> *Communication Studies* >>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>>> ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of >>>> the message and nothing in the body. More at >>>> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . >>>> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; >>>> and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >>>> >>>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
