AbstractIt is often asserted that the existence of human language sets us apart from non-humans, and makes us incomparably special. And indeed human language does make our Umwelt (Uexküll), our lifeworld, uniquely open-ended. However, by committing what I term the anthropocentric mistake, i.e. falsely assuming that all true reality is linguistic, we close in on ourselves and our language-derived practices, and as a result we lose sight of much that truly matters (including a proper understanding of our human nature). Like Sebeok and Hoffmeyer I hold that language is a modeling system, but unlike them I argue that language is not external to the Umwelt, but internal to it. Language changes the human Umwelt not by escaping or sidelining it, but by fundamentally transforming it. In consequence supra-linguistic phenomena as well are modeled as internal to the human Umwelt. The Umwelt model presented is termed the tripartite Umwelt model, and includes three aspects of Umwelt: The core Umwelt, the mediated Umwelt and the conceptual Umwelt. Linguistic practices are placed within the latter, but it is furthermore claimed that a number of animals too have conceptual Umwelten, which is said to be characterized by predicative reasoning, the attribution of specific features to someone or something. The activity of languaging is presented as more-than-linguistic, with reference to the distributed language perspective. Given all the dark matter underpinning and surrounding verbal practices, a foray into the hinterland of language is called for. A section on the genesis and modalities of language addresses the origin and evolution of language, acquisition of language in childhood and a simple typology of the various linguistic modalities of the human Umwelt. The concluding section treats Puura’s notion of semiocide, and the question: How can we language as if nature mattered?Keywords: the anthropocentric mistake, dark cognitive matter, dark cultural matter, distributed language, first-order languaging, genesis of language, perception, semiocide, Umwelt theory
Becoming animal: an earthly cosmology, by David Abram, New York, Pantheon Books, 2010, xi + 313 pp., US$26.95 (hardcover), ISBN 978-0-375-42171-6
Animals erased: discourse, ecology, and reconnection with the natural world, by Arran Stibbe, Middletown – Connecticut, Wesleyan University Press, 2012, viii + 209 pp., US$24.95/£22.50 (paperback), ISBN 978-0-8195-7232-5
Sollund, Ragnhild, Guri Larsen og Morten Tønnessen 2013. Forord [Preface]. In Sollund, Ragnhild, Morten Tønnessen og Guri Larsen (eds) 2013, Hvem er villest i landet her? Råskap mot dyr og natur i antropocen, menneskets tidsalder, Oslo: Spartacus Forlag/Scandinavian Academic Press, 7.
Sollund, Ragnhild, Morten Tønnessen og Guri Larsen 2013. Introduksjon: Fra bruksdyr til dyreverd [Introduction: From animals of utility to animal dignity]. In Sollund, Ragnhild, Morten Tønnessen og Guri Larsen (eds) 2013, Hvem er villest i landet her? Råskap mot dyr og natur i antropocen, menneskets tidsalder, Oslo: Spartacus Forlag/Scandinavian Academic Press, 9-36.
Tønnessen, Morten 2013. Menneskeveldet [The human empire]. In Sollund, Ragnhild, Morten Tønnessen og Guri Larsen (eds) 2013, Hvem er villest i landet her? Råskap mot dyr og natur i antropocen, menneskets tidsalder, Oslo: Spartacus Forlag/Scandinavian Academic Press, 37-56.
Tønnessen, Morten 2013. Hvem er villest i landet her? Et ulveliv [Who is wildest in this country here? A wolf's life]. In Sollund, Ragnhild, Morten Tønnessen og Guri Larsen (eds) 2013, Hvem er villest i landet her? Råskap mot dyr og natur i antropocen, menneskets tidsalder, Oslo: Spartacus Forlag/Scandinavian Academic Press, 79-98.
Tønnessen, Morten 2013. Ketil Skogen, Olve Krange og Helene Figari 2013, Ulvekonflikter – en sosiologisk studie, Oslo 2013: Akademika forlag. Book review. Sosiologi idag 43(2): 117-122.
first of all, I confirm that I am willing to serve as a member of the editorial board in the way you describe. Second, I signal that I am interested in being considered for the position of Editor-in-Chief (primarily) or book series editor (secondarily), with the following agenda: I would...
1) actively make use of citation data, sales/download data etc. in developing strategy and working to improve the standing of the journal (or book series)
2) be undogmatic in dealing with contributors
3) be open to making use of different semiotic traditions, Peircean and non-Peircean (and, within Piercean biosemiotics, be undogmatic and emphasise the value of diversity in interpretation)
4) seek to make room for and highlight 'third paths' alongside Peircean biosemiotics and code biology, including for biosemiotics built on systems theory (represented e.g. by Aleksei Sharov)
5) encourage collaboration across 'schools' and traditions (while also allowing for competition between them)
6) assure a certain balance between orientation towards natural science, the humanities (including philosophy) and social sciences
7) stimulate discourse and debate on fundamentals, including those on which we diverge
8) emphasise the central role played by Uexküll's Umwelt theory, and encourage further development of Umwelt theory
9) stimulate development of, and showcasing of, concrete applications of biosemiotic theory, in order to go beyond theory and methodology and move towards innovative scientific observations and breaktroughs
10) initiate the creation of a biosemiotic glossary [...]. This would either take the form of a single project - a Special Issue or a book volume - or of an article series in the journal, with a section in each (regular) issue being devoted to a review of one key term per issue. Each review would map different uses and interpretations of the key term reviewed, and suggest synthesis in the form of a new definition. The long-term goal of the glossary project would be to be approaching concensus on the understanding of key terms, and thus contribute to biosemiotics' development as a maturing scientific field. In addition to literature studies/review the work with the glossary would likely involve a broad and representative survey among biosemioticians.
