An interesting quote from Deacon. I like his work, even though I don't find myself agreeing with a good deal of it. Personally, I think there is good grounds for thinking in terms of pansemiosis and there are useful ways to apply the concept of computation to physics and non-living systems, an idea he tends to write off. I mentioned Lyons book before and I think he highlights how the Scholastic idea of virtual signs or St. Thomas' "intentions in the media," can be used for describing how signs exist in non-living contexts.

In particular, computation (or something like it involving real numbers and/or indeterminism) seems to be a useful model of causation, where past states entail future ones (or a range of future ones in a stochastic fashion). But I still think he probably gets something right in the relationship between thermodynamics, life, and the relevance of the "absential."



I think this is a fair assessment of mainstream contemporary phenomenology. The later Husserl does seem to lurch towards a sort of idealism that I don't think is particularly helpful. Personally, I am more of a fan of Robert Sokolowski's merging of Husserl with Aristotle and and St. Thomas, which comes through with a more sensible "realist" view of phenomenology. The "Phenomenology of the Human Person," is a sort of summa of his work and is really great. However, it doesn't touch on signs or the type of causality unique to signs (making us think one thing instead of another), and this seems like a real miss, something that could ground his realist intuitions.

Eric Perl's "Thinking Being," is another good one in this vein. Perl is interested in drawing out the commonalities in the classical tradition, particularly Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and St. Thomas. A big thesis of his is that the phenomenological solution to the problems that comes with the subject/object divide are already present in ancient and medieval thought, and that there are better solutions to contemporary problems just sitting there for us to pick up again. What I particularly like is the chapter on Plotinus, which offers a solid critique of the problem in strict correspondence theories of truth of the sort that continue to dominate analytic philosophy, and end up resulting in deflationary theories of truth and meaning.

That's extremely interesting! I can't read it, bit I read about it here:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/10/science/african-elephants-name-like-calls-intl-scli-scn

Elephants are possibly capable of abstract thought?? I wonder if other animals are capable of any other aspects of thinking we associate only with ourselves. Maybe it isn't these specific capabilities that make human thought and language stand out, but, rather, that we have the combination of all of these aspects.

Or, even crazier, maybe there are species that have capabilities we lack. But, lacking some critical combination, they can't tell us about what they're thinking, and we can't notice their unique quality.

That Lyons book is expensive! :lol: And probably way beyond me. I need a good intro to Semiotics. Hopefully, Daniel Chandler is good.

I'd recommend Sebeok's book Signs or Deely's introductory text Introducing Semiotic.


I'd also recommend once you have the basics down, getting Deely's magisterial Four Ages of Understanding. I think it's necessary to understand how semiotics is an entire thoughtform and how it relates to the history of philosophy, and Deely's book does this.

Thank you! I'm just not feeling Chandler's book.