Our contribution should not be understood as adhering to an Uexküllian puritanism. Influenced by an evolutionary-ontogenetic approach, we fully acknowledge the usefulness of the concept of umwelt transition (Tønnessen 2011) and recognize that a one-sided endorsment of umwelt theory can obscure many phenomena of interspecies communication (cf. Lestel 2011b).
In an editorial in this journal, Tønnessen et al. (2018) examine the relationship between phenomenology and biosemiotics and conclude that phenomenological investigation, which is traditionally focused on the experience of the human individual, can be enriched by biosemiotically oriented research on the experience of animals – only against this background will the specificity of human experience emerge.
But not only interspecific differences are worthy of attention. The human individuals also undergo transformations during their own ontogenesis, as reflected in the biosemiotic literature (Tønnessen 2014) and also in Merleau-Ponty´s own work (Merleau-Ponty 2002).
For a resolution between signs and signals and its connection with the phenomenality of animal umwelten see Tønnessen et al. (2018: 4).
Accordingly, Tønnessen (2014: 302) notes that language acquisition is connected with a certain loss of those non-verbal aspects of human experience and so “the mature human being’s umwelt consists for the most part only of those objects that can be named”. Once human language is acquired to this extent, it becomes a superior realm of meanings that often pushes out other, e.g. pictorial, representations of the world (cf. Portmann 1990: 113).
Language changes us, it gives us a fully subjective dimension by which we relate to the world because it penetrates our perception, changes it, but also stays flexible. In this sense, language becomes the way by which we live.6 Tønnessen (2014: 288) in this sense distinguishes three aspects of umwelt: the core umwelt, based on automated acts of perception and automated mental acts; mediated umwelt, based on wilful acts of perception and wilful mental acts; and conceptual umwelt, characteristic for higher animals, as an aspect of umwelt distinctive by its habitual acts of perception and habitual mental acts defined as “the learned matching of something with something else”. In the case of humans, this last aspect of umwelt is specifically connected with language use.
See Tønnessen (2014: 291): “In terms of umwelt, i.e. subjective experience, we gradually individuate and become first animal, then human, then eventually persons.”
Within the biosemiotic tradition, subjectivity is attributed to every creature that has an umwelt (Tønnessen 2014; Tønnessen et al. 2016).
According to a canonical understanding of umwelt (Tønnessen et al. 2016: definitions 3–5), the form of these meanings is predetermined by belonging to the particular species and is bound to its physiological properties and limitations.
Tønnessen, M. (2011). Umwelt transition and Uexküllian phenomenology: An ecosemiotic analysis of Norwegian wolf management. Doctoral thesis, Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu, Estonia.
Tønnessen,M. (2014). The ontogeny of the embryonic, foetal and infant human umwelt. Sign Systems Studies, 42(2), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2014.42.2-3.06.
Tønnessen, M. (2015). Uexküllian phenomenology. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 11(3), 347–369.
Tønnessen, M., et al. (2018). Phenomenology and biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 11(3), 323–330. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12304-018-9345-8.
Tønnessen, M., Magnus, R., & Brentari, C. (2016). The Biosemiotic Glossary Project: Umwelt. Biosemiotics 9(1): 129–149.
Indeed, the need for us to go beyond current impoverished modes of engagement is identified throughout this collection of papers as a sine qua non if we are to transcend our anthropocentric notions of economic performance. A degree of integration between economics, philosophy and biology is required, with the application of Umwelt theory and biosemiotics indicating a potential way forward.
Steffens´ ideas about organic meteorology: From the Totalorganismus to planetary health?Morten Tønnessen Professor of philosophy, Department of social studies, University of StavangerAs Linda Richter (2019) has recently investigated, in a report to the Prussian state in 1811, Henrik Steffens made the argument that the atmosphere is a living being, and that adopting this perspective could lead to advances in medicine and our understanding of diseases in humans and animals. The context of the commissioned report was the idea – which was widely held at the time – that many diseases were caused or affected by the climate or weather. In another recent article based on her Ph.D., Richter (2020) distinguishes between Semiotics, Physics, and Organics of the weather as three distinct forms of meteorological knowledge in the period 1750–1850 in German-speaking countries, and presents Steffens as a prominent representative of the Organics perspective.I will approach Richter´s two articles and Steffens 1811 report from four different angles. First, I will look into in what ways Steffens´ proposal for an organic perspective on meteorology highlights key aspects of his nature view more broadly. This will include reflecting on possible interpretations of his notion of a “grand organism” (Totalorganismus) in the context of ecology. Second, I will discuss how Steffens´ perspective on organic meteorology fares in comparison with the Gaia theory of James Lovelock. Third, I will discuss whether Steffens´ idea that human and animal health and the weather mirror each other has any resemblance with how we think about human ecology and anthropogenic climate change today. Lastly, I will discuss how Steffens´ perspective connects with contemporary (w)holistic notions such as `One health´, `One Welfare´, and `Planetary health´.
