#18

Today I have had an article writing day devoted to our book Semiotic agency, with some 800 words written, and the introductory chapter edited, in addition to the remaining parts of chapter 7, Semiosis. Number of writing days so far this Spring is up to 18.

#15

Today I have had an article writing day devoted to revising and commenting on chapter 7, "Semiosis", for our book Semiotic agency, with some 400 words written. Total number of writing days this Spring is up to 15.

Third Biosemiotics editorial published online: "Comprehending the semiosis of evolution"

Our third editorial has just been published online.

Reference:

Sharov, Alexei, Timo Maran and Morten Tønnessen (2016). Comprehending the semiosis of evolution. Editorial. Biosemiotics 9(1). Published online April 4th 2016 (DOI: 10.1007/s12304-016-9262-7).

Abstract: "On the notion of induced semiosis, with emphasis on anthropogenic semiosis"

Two days ago I submitted this abstract, "On the notion of induced semiosis, with emphasis on anthropogenic semiosis", to the 12th gathering in biosemiotics, which is to be held in Tartu this summer (July 17-22).

***

On the notion of induced semiosis, with emphasis on anthropogenic semiosis

Morten Tønnessen, Associate professor at University of Stavanger

In this presentation Sharov’s notion of induced semiosis (“Functional information: Toward synthesis of Biosemiotics and Cybernetics” in Entropy 12: 1050–1070), which represents a valuable contribution to biosemiotic vocabulary, will be analysed and a further development of the term suggested. According to Sharov agents, which are either living organisms or their products, “are defined as systems with goal-directed programmed behaviour” (1052), and semiosis “can be inherited or induced by higher-level agents” (1050). In Sharov’s conception, induced semiosis concerns sign exchange which is induced (initiated) by some higher-level agent for some purpose. The various forms of anthropogenic induced semiosis can in the perspective of human ecology (aka ecosemiotics) be considered as constituting a further effectory layer in humankind’s control system qua global species. Non-human agents involved in such sign exchange are generally only vicariously goal-directed – it is our goals they are set to pursue.

But what about the myriad of cases in which biosemiotic sign exchange is triggered by our global civilization but not intended by any human agent? Is not such semiosis induced (and anthropogenic) as well? We thus have to distinguish between induced semiosis qua communicative system triggered by some intending agent and induced semiosis as triggered by the activity of some communicative system but not intended by its controlling agents. This latter kind, enveloping a variety of unintended consequences, is arguably an equally informative measure of our ecological impact.

Abstract for the NY gathering in biosemiotics

I have completed and submitted an abstract for the 11th international gathering in biosemiotics, which will for the first time take place outside Europe - in New York, June 21-26 2011.

Integrated biological individualism and the primacy of the individual level of biological organization

Morten Tønnessen, Department of Semiotics – University of Tartu

In ‘Umwelt Transitions: Uexküll and Environmental Change’ (Biosemiotics 2.2) I introduced the notion of integrated biological individualism, according to which the individual, or more precisely organismic, level should occupy the centre—the middle ground—of methodology in the life sciences, at the crossroad where the somatic realm encounters the ecological one. The term was then included in a broader programmatic treatment in ‘Steps to a Semiotics of Being’ (Biosemiotics 3.3). From the standpoint of the individual, or organism, we can describe how an individual organism is constituted as a biological body, as well as how nature as a global ecological system is constituted by individual organisms and their interrelations. Nature, then, is a body of bodies (the ultimate superorganism); and any individual self is by its nature a social self – through its interrelation with others, a self is always bigger than itself.

In this paper I will expand upon the notion of integrated biological individualism by relating it more explicitly to the suggested primacy of the individual level of biological organization. As Anton Markoš remarks (Readers of the Book of Life: Contextualizing Developmental Evolutionary Biology (2002): 29), life “proceeds synchronously on innumerable space, time, and organizational levels. Nothing on any single level can reveal its essence”. Yet, it remains that a biological science with no concern for, or interest in, the living themselves (qua living beings – at the level of the individual) would be deeply problematic. There is no doubt that the ‘genetic turn’ in biology has been successful in terms of scientific understanding, but the new microscopic realm that has opened up to us has simultaneously induced us to neglect the ‘life-size’ realm. What future can we envision for the critical task of Umwelt mapping?

After a general introduction to this topic matter I will introduce an original, tentatively all-inclusive model of various levels of biosemiosis. According to this model there are six levels of biosemiosis, falling under three broader categories.

CATEGORIES // PRIMARY REALM // PRIMARY FIELD OF SEMIOTICS OF NATURE

SUB-PERCEPTUAL SEMIOSIS = MICROSCOPIC SEMIOSIS // Somatic // Biosemiotics

Intra-cellular semiosis

Inter-cellular semiosis

PERCEPTUAL SEMIOSIS = ORGANISMIC SEMIOSIS // Social // Zoosemiotics

Intra-organismic semiosis

Inter-organismic semiosis*

Extra-organismic semiosis

SUPER-PERCEPTUAL SEMIOSIS = MACROSCOPIC SEMIOSIS // Ecological // Ecosemiotics

Super-organismic semiosis*

* social proper, in the sense of involving several individuals

The tripartite model is relevant for simple and complex life forms alike (though in the case of very simple – non-social – creatures it collapses into a two-category model). As it demonstrates, perception is at the core of biosemiosis, even though not all biosemiosis is perceptual, and even though perception constitutes but one level (or layer) of biosemiosis. The standing of perception is intimately tied to the standing of the individual. With such an overall model of biosemiosis, the individual organism (and its lifeworld) is methodologically placed at the center of biological research.

First semioethics interview published + "Meditationes Semioticae"

Hortus Semioticus no. 4 (2009) appeared some days ago. My contributions:

Pp57-80 "“Tell me, where is morality bred?” The Semioethics Interviews I: John Deely" PDF here

Pp81-84: "Meditationes Semioticae: Signs grow – but should they? Semioethics and the dominant semiosis of Homo sapiens sapiens" PDF here