In March I ended up having 8 writing days - no time for one today - with 6.109 words written logged. So far this year I have logged 17.395 words written, distributed on 8 different writing projects.
Today I have had an article writing day, writing day #27 this Spring, with work done on various writing projects, including:
Doing some searching and thinking about possible journal for the GDP review article I co-write with Jan Karlstrøm
Confirming that I will write a second chapter on the work of Henrik Steffens, and coming up with the work-title "Steffens´ early outlook reconsidered: Nature conceptions of the industrial-age Anthropocene", and composing/extracting some 200 words in the process
Looking through some suggestions concerning the article on Arne Næss and economics which I co-write with Jan Karlstrøm and Thomas Hylland Eriksen
Proof-reading my chapter "A Biosemiotic Perspective on the Human Condition and the Environmental Crisis" for the book Elemental-Embodied Thinking for a New Era.
Choosing a work-title for the first follow-up to my article "Wasted GDP in the USA", namely "Wasted GDP in major economies: With time series data", and starting on a manuscript file
See also:
I have agreed to contribute with a chapter work-titled "Steffens´ early outlook reconsidered: Nature conceptions of the industrial-age Anthropocene" for a book on the work of Henrik Steffens which is to be edited by Andreas Benedikt Jager and Marius Mjaaland and published by Karl Alber Verlag in 2025.
My first chapter on Steffens, titled "Steffens’ ideas about organic meteorology: From the Totalorganismus to planetary health?", written for the book Henrik Steffens in Context of the Sciences, Humanities, Philosophy, and Arts around 1800 (edited by Anna Lena Sandberg & Jesper Lundsfryd Rasmussen) was finished quite a while ago, but has not yet appeared in print.
While I do not have funding to attend The Fourth World Congress of Environmental History (WCEH4), “Transitions, transformations and transdisciplinarity: Histories beyond history”, to be held at University of Oulu, Finland August 19-23rd, physically, it turns out I can attend digitally. My two papers/presentations/participations have now been scheduled in the conference program.
On Monday 19th of August, at 14:15-16:00, I will take part in the panel “Environmental biography as a methodological challenge” with my presentation "The study of past Umwelten".
On Friday 23rd of August I will take part in the roundtable “The Human-Environmental Relationships in Critical Period of Crisis” as a discussant, with my paper “Anticipating the societal transformation required to solve the environmental crisis in the 21st century”.
For my abstracts for these two conference papers, see:
I have been notified by the organizers of the 24th Gathering in biosemiotics, to take place in South Africa, that my paper "Applied Umwelt theory in the context of descriptive phenomenology and phenomenological triangulation" has been accepted for oral presentation. Due to a lack of funding, however, I will not be able to attend physically, but luckily there is a chance to attend digitally.
See also:
I will not have the opportunity to attend all the conferences I would like, and have attended the previous years, this year - at least not physically - due to a lack of funding. My employer University of Stavanger (UIS) will only cover one conference participation this year, whereas I have had ca. 3-5 funded per year the last few years - a quite drastic change for me. As a professor, and a researcher who has at some points in the last few years been the most active at my faculty (Faculty of social sciences) regarding international conference presentations, I find this development worrisome - I feel I do not get the funding and support I need to do my job as well as I can. Some of these events it seems I can attend digitally, but I know from experience that that is not the same thing as attending physically.
I applied for external funding for conference participation from Nansenfondet, but have now been notified I did not get any funding.
I will now have to tell the organizers of the world congress of semiotics, in Poland, that I will not be able to attend, despite being a member of the world congress´ scientific committee. Moreover, I will have to attend the Gathering in biosemiotics, in South Africa, and the world congress in environmental history, in Finland, digitally in stead of physically.
Today I have had half an article writing day, devoted to finishing my article "Applied Umwelt theory in the context of phenomenological triangulation and descriptive phenomenology". I added some 400 words to the manuscript, finished, and submitted to the guest editors of the Sign Systems Studies special issue "Contemporary applications of Umwelt theory" where it will appear this summer or so.
So far this Spring I have had 26 writing days.
According to Google Scholar (cf. my profile), my research has attracted 1083 citations (+29 since March 8th). This includes 31 citations in 2024 (+14 since March 8th). My h-index remains 19 and my i10-index 37.
WIth 51 citations, the book Semiotic agency: Science beyond mechanism, which I co-wrote with Alexei Sharov, is now one of my three most cited texts, on a shared second place (up from #4 March 8th and #9 January 3rd) along with "Umwelt ethics" (2003). Our book has 16 citations so far in 2024 (already more than it attracted in 2022).
Today I have given a 1-hour digital seminar in University of Stavanger´s master course on environmental psychology. The topic was how to solve the climate crisis.
Today I have had an article writing day, with some 1100 words added to my article on applied Umwelt theory and phenomenology - and almost finished. So far this Spring I have had 25,5 writing days.
My correspondence text "Understanding subjecthood and experience", which clarifies my views in response to Jablonka and Ginsburg, is available for reading (only) here.
Today I have had a writing day with some 600 words added to my article about applied Umwelt theory and phenomenology.
My correspondence text "Understanding subjecthood and experience" has just been published in Biosemiotics. This is a brief commentary written in response to Jablonka & Ginsburg´s 2023 article "Living and experiencing: Response to commentaries", which I felt misrepresented my views.
Reference:
Tønnessen, Morten 2024. Understanding subjecthood and experience. Correspondence. Biosemiotics. Published online March 15th 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-024-09557-y
Last afternoon Khrono published the story "Vil ha nye retningslinjer for forskningstid stoppet" (Wants new guidelines for research time stopped), focused on discussion, to put it mildly, in the university board about the University of Stavanger leadership´s suggestions for new work planning guidelines. With indirect reference to my statements published in Khrono earlier, board member Ketil Fred Hansen said during the University of Stavanger board meeting yesterday that "— Vi blir ikke redusert til å være en høgskole gjennom dette, men vi havner ned på nivået til en videregående skole" (— We are not reduced to being a university college by this, but end up down on the level of a high school).
In the board meeting, which was streamed and can be watched here, he backed this up by saying that certain high schools give teachers more time to prepare for teaching than the UIS leadership has now suggested in the new work planning guidelines. In the board meeting, the Khrono coverage featuring me (letter to the editor and interview respectively) was referred to by both board members representing UIS employees, and by Director of business management and development John Viflot, although I was not mentioned by name (but mentioned by Hansen as "one of our colleagues").
Hansen said the suggested guidelines should be withdrawn, and that he has demanded that the university board, not rector Klaus Mohn, makes any decision related to new work planning guidelines. This was supported by several other board members.
My article "Wasted GDP in the USA", published last October, has now reached 10.000 Article accesses. This is the quickest any of my articles have reached that many reads.
Today I have had an article writing day, with some 800 words added to my article "Applied Umwelt theory in the context of phenomenological triangulation and descriptive phenomenology", and my letter to the editor "Understanding subjecthood and experience" proof-read. So far this Spring I have logged 23,5 writing days.
I have been notified that my commentary "Understanding subjecthood and experience" has been accepted for publication in Biosemiotics. I have revised it in one round.
See also:
Today I have had an article writing day, with some 100 words written. I mainly did some editing and literature search for the second article I co-write with Joakim Jiri Haaland, whom I supervise for his ph.d. I also got some editorial information and feedback and made some plans with regard to my chapter "Ecological semiotics", which will be part of the 3rd edition of Encyclopedia of Ecology, and the article on Arne Næss´ views on economics which I co-write with Jan Karlstrøm and Thomas Hylland Eriksen, which we got back from Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift for revision. So far this Spring I have had 21,5 writing days.
According to Google Scholar (cf. my profile) my research has been cited 1054 times (+18 since February 9th). This includes 17 citations registered in 2024 (+12 since February 9th). While my h-index remains 19, my i10-index is now 37 (+1 since February 9th), meaning that 37 of my articles have been cited at least 10 times each.
With 45 citations, including 10 citations so far in 2024, the book Semiotic agency: Science beyond mechanism, which I co-wrote with Alexei Sharov, is now my 4th most-cited publication (as of January 3rd, it was at #9).
Below are my 5 most-cited publications.
Until last evening - Wednesday March 6th - the two stories on Khrono featuring me, including my letter to the editor, was among the 5 most-read stories there. From this morning onwards they were out of the most-read list. The news story featuring an interview with me was among Khrono´s 5 most-read stories from Wednesday February 28th to Wednesday March 6th (8 days). My letter to the editor was among the 5 most-read stories on Khrono from Friday March 1st to Wednesday March 6th (6 days).
See also:
The two most-read stories on Khrono
New Khrono follow-up story; two stories still among 5 most-read
Today I gave my third lecture in the master of psychology course "Miljøpsykologi" (environmental psychology), on the topic «Dyrs og menneskers livsverdener» (The lifeworlds of animals and humans), focused on the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll.
This week I have helped review 6 abstract submitted to the organizers of the Fifth Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS-5), which is to be held August 15-17, 2024, in Lund, Sweden,
Today I have had an article writing day with some 1000 words added to my article "Applied Umwelt theory in the context of phenomenological triangulation and descriptive phenomenology", and a little work done also on my book manuscript Captured: CCS and the fight for the soul of the environmental movement. With altogether some 1200 words written this has been my second-most productive writing day so far this Spring in terms of words written. So far this Spring I have logged 20,5 writing days.
Yesterday Khrono published the news story "Store variasjoner i forskningstid landet rundt", another follow-up to the story based on an interview with me published Wednesday last week.
The intitial story was the second-most read story on Khrono as of yesterday, Monday afternoon, after having been the most-read story until Sunday evening (since Wednesday evening, i.e. for 4 consecutive days), while my letter to the editor on "Høyskolevisjonen for UIS" was the 3rd most-read, after having been the 2nd most-read from Friday evening until at some point on Sunday.
See also:
Yesterday I attended a meeting of Norway´s Council for animal ethics, the first this year, at Thon Hotel Opera in Oslo. Among other things, we were visited by representatives of the Council on ethics of Norway´s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG).
The news story featuring an interview with me on the University of Stavanger´s suggested new guidelines for work planning is still the most-read story on Khrono. Earlier today, my (related) letter to the editor "Høyskolevisjonen for UIS" entered the top 5 list; now it has climbed to no. 2., so that I´m currently involved in the two most-read stories on Khrono.
See also:
Today I have had what ended up as half an article writing day, with some 500 words added to my article on applied Umwelt theory in the context of phenomenology. So far this Spring I have had 19,5 writing days.
I have composed and submitted the proposal and abstract below to the organizers of IAEP 2024, the 28th conference of the International Association for Environmental Philosophy, which will be held online May 22-24th.
*
Umwelt phenomenology, the human condition, and the nature crisis
PROPOSAL
Edmund Husserl famously thematized science´ forgetting of the lifeworld in what was after his death published as Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die Tranzendentale Phänomenologie, published in English translation as The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. In a somewhat similar way, the biologist Jakob von Uexküll, who contributed originally to theoretical biology and our understanding of science, decried the ´meaning-blind´ biology of his time. Drawing on the fact that the experience of animals is constrained by the sensory and behavioral repertoire of each organism and takes place within the context of species-specific configurations of time and space, the Umwelt theory von Uexküll developed was programmatically presented as subjective biology. This makes his Umwelt theory relevant for phenomenology, so that his work warrants the designation Umwelt phenomenology. This is also supported by the fact that central phenomenologists, including Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, have related to and made use of von Uexküll´s work. While he applied the Umwelt perspective not only to animals, but to humans as well, particularly in Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen, published in English translation as A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans, unfortunately, human Umwelten remained undertheorized in his work. Hannah Arendt, however, in her book The Human Condition, discussed the human condition and observed a crisis within the natural sciences play out as an inability to be relatable to normal speech and thought. Although she saw the significance of our evolving global perspective and power, which is today often conceptualized in terms of the Anthropocene, Arendt failed to acknowledge the decisive difference our anthropocentric bias makes in matters of ontology and epistemology alike. From the perspective of Umwelt phenomenology, I have argued that today´s environmental crisis can be conceived of as an ontological crisis involving the extinction and marginalization of myriads of lifeworlds. As is well established, the environmental crisis is characterized by extensive anthropogenic environmental change. This can be conceptualized in terms of Umwelt transitions. The ongoing nature crisis is most blatantly observable in rapidly escalating climate change, and the well-documented marginalization of wild terrestrial mammals, which now account for only 4% of terrestrial mammalian biomass, as documented by Bar-On and colleagues in their inventive work on “The biomass distribution on Earth”. Arguably, the last decades´ scientific neglect, theoretically and methodologically, of the agency, subjectivity, and worth of living beings has contributed to this intensifying and deepening nature crisis. With its objectivistic, mechanistic perspective on the natural world, the scientific enterprise has in practice facilitated and helped justify a real-life objectification, de-souling, exploitation, and commodification of living beings as mere means and resources. It is high time to replace this outdated and harmful outlook with a philosophically based scientific framework more fit for the 21st century. One way forward entails acknowledging the semiotic agency of all that lives, and start planning for the socio-ecological and economic transformations that will be required to solve the environmental crisis in the next few decades. This will have to involve a serious rethinking of the human condition and how we think about our place in nature.
ABSTRACT
Edmund Husserl famously thematized science´ forgetting of the lifeworld. In a somewhat similar way, the theoretical biologist Jakob von Uexküll decried the ´meaning-blind´ biology of his time, developing what I call “Umwelt phenomenology”. In her book The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt observed a crisis within the natural sciences play out as an inability to be relatable to normal speech and thought. I discuss the ongoing nature crisis in light of these perspectives, and make some observations on how we can rethink matters related to the human condition, our place in nature, and science´s role in justifying exploitation of living beings.
The 2023 newsletter of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics, IACS News, published in December, includes presentation of the six plenary speakers for the forthcoming IACS conference to be held in Lund, Sweden this Summer (August 15th to 17th), with the theme "Crises of meaning".
The newsletter can be read in full here.
The book Elemental-Embodied Thinking for a New Era, edited by Lenart Skof, Sashinungla, and Sigridur Thorgeirsdottir, where I contribute with the chapter "A biosemiotic perspective on the human condition and the environmental crisis", now has a new planned publication date, May 30th, according to Springer´s website for the book.
The magazine Ledernytt has republished an interview with me done some years ago, "God bedriftskultur skal lære medarbeiderne å modnes i moralsk forstand" (A good company culture should teach coworkers to mature in moral terms).
Khrono has published a follow-up news story to the news story published Wednesday featuring an interview with me on the University of Stavanger´s suggested guidelines for work planning. The news story is titled "Guro Lind: — Dette er en farlig vei å gå og jeg blir dypt bekymret" (Guro Lind: This is a dangerous path to go down and I am deeply concerned), and features comments by Guro Lind, Head of the Norwegian trade union Forskerforbundet, a trade union for researchers, as well as by professor Tony Burner. The news story also refers to comments made to the original story on Khrono and Facebook. The new story links to the original story, and to my related letter to the editor, but does not mention me by name.
