Referred to in Yogi Hendlin´s first Biosemiotics editorial

Yogi Hale Hendlin´s editorial in his first issue as Editor-in-Chief of Biosemiotics has just been published, titled "Expanding the reach of Biosemiotics". In the same issue, the journal´s first Target Article with a number of invited Commentaries will also appear. I served as an Editor-in-Chief until the end of last year, after which Yogi took over as Editor-in-Chief.

Excerpts:

Taking up this role of Editor-in-Chief also prompted reflection on all those whose leadership at this journal has developed the discipline into an oasis for robust transdisciplinary dialog. Most immediately prior, I’d like to thank previous Editor-in-Chief Morten Tønnessen for his many years of leadership at the journal, as well as Filip Jaroš, and Timo Maran. Marcello Barbieri, the journal’s first Editor-in-Chief, helped launch Biosemiotics in 2008. And finally, Alexei Sharov, my fellow current Editor-in-Chief, deserves thanks for his steady and indispensable guidance of the journal. 

In the current iteration of Biosemiotics, we have shifted from three Editors-in-Chief to two; but have expanded the journal leadership to include five Associate Editors plus an Intern. We are grateful for all of their contributions towards making this journal run smoothly and to expanding Biosemiotics’ reach and capacity. One reason for the need for this greater capacity is to accommodate the new article type of Target Articles and Commentaries pioneered by Morten Tønnessen. It is my pleasure to work with the Editorial Board of Biosemiotics, the Associate Editors and Intern, and the Members and Executive Board of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies in continuing their devoted work in this tradition.

Search image article published in paginated version; final reference

My article on Jakob von Uexküll´s "search image" notion has been paginated and published in its final version (it was published online last autumn). The article, which is part of a special issue on code biology, is for a limited time freely available online. 

Final reference:

Tønnessen, Morten 2017 (online) / 2018 (print). The search image as a link between sensation, perception and action. BioSystems 164 (special issue on Code Biology edited by Marcello Barbieri and Jan-Hendrik Hofmeyr): 138–146. Published online November 4th 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.016.

Search image paper to appear in special issue on code biology

My paper in process "The search image as a link between sensation, perception and action" is partaking in plans for a special issue on code biology. A special issue proposal submitted to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B (Biological Sciences) was turned down, following quite positive peer reviews but lacklustre editorial feedback. However, Biological Theory now plans to publish the special issue.

Second code biology conference, 2015

The second international conference in code biology will take place in Jena, Germany. The conference will be organised by Peter Dittrich.

See also:
ISCB launches annual conference series - 2017 conference to be organised in Norway by me

Biosemiotics no. 6(3) - transitional issue

Returning home after having spent three days at the University of Stavanger, I found Biosemiotics 6(3) - December 2013 - in my mailbox. This is the first of two transitional double issues, edited by Marcello Barbieri (6(3) includes a Special Issue on "Origins of mind" guest-edited by Liz Stilwaggon Swan). On p. 2 I am still listed as a member of the Editorial Board, and further listed among the Editors-in-Chief: Marcello Barbieri, Timo Maran, Alexei Sharov and myself. From 7(2) forwards Biosemiotics is edited by Alexei, Timo and me.

Biosemiotics 6(3) furthermore includes two articles with my involvement, see below.

See also:

Reference for ""Darwin und die englische Moral”: The Moral Consequences of Uexküll’s Umwelt Theory""

Reference for "Darwin and the English Morality"

And finally see also:

Contracted as co-Editor-in-Chief of Biosemiotics

My vision for the journal Biosemiotics

As was made public at last night's General Meeting of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), I am one of five nominees for the position of Editor-in Chief of the academic journal Biosemiotics, nominated by current Editor-in-Chief Marcello Barbieri.

The nominee with the most support in the biosemiotic community is Alexei Sharov. Although I primarily run for the position myself, I secondarily support Alexei. He would be an excellent choice, with his long experience, innovative approach and placement in systems theory biosemiotics.

This is what I have written to Springer's Senior Publishing Editor Catherine Cotton:

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.

Acknowledgement in Barbieri article(s) on language

I am mentioned in the Acknowledgements of the following article(s):

Barbieri, Marcello 2010. On the Origin of Language: A Bridge Between Biolinguistics and Biosemiotics [p. 221, Acknowledgments]. Biosemiotics 3.2: 201-223. Reprinted in slightly revised version as Barbieri 2012. 

Barbieri, Marcello, 2012: “Organic Codes and the Origin of Language” [p. 471, Acknowledgements], in L. Swan (ed.), Origin(s) of Design in Nature (= Cellular Origin, Life in Extreme Habitats and Astrobiology 23), 445-473. Dordrecht: Springer.

Quote from Barbieri 2012:

I am deeply grateful to Noam Chomsky for suggesting various changes in the first draft of this chapter and for discussing them at length. I also wish to thank Natalia Abieva, Prisca Augustyn, Gérard Battail, Paul Cobley, Stephen Cowley, Almo Farina, Chris Ottolenghi, Liz Stillwaggon-Swan and Morten Tønnessen for their most appropriate notes. The manuscript of this chapter has been circulated to 60 members of the Biosemiotic community, and I wish to thank all of them for their comments.

Why I joined the ISCB

As promised in the post "ISCB launches annual conference series - 2017 conference to be organised in Norway by me", here comes my blog post "Why I joined the ISCB". The ISCB is short for the International Society for Code Biology. It was constituted/incorporated in Ferrara, Italy, on November 28th 2012, with the following Governing Board/founding members: 

• Marcello Barbieri (president)
• Jan-Hendrik Hofmeyr (vice-president)
• Almo Farina (secretary)
• Peter Wills (treasurer)
• Stefan Artmann
• Joachim De Beule
• Peter Dittrich
• Dennis Görlich
• Stefan Kühn
• Chris Ottolenghi
• Liz Stillwaggon Swan
• Morten Tønnessen

In an email November 30th announcing the establishment of the society, Marcello Barbieri wrote:

Code Biology is the study of all codes of life with the standard methods of science, and this makes of it the sole discipline that can prove the existence of semiosis in all living systems. Its purpose is nothing less than the rewriting of biology in order to include in it the countless codes that appeared after the genetic code and before the codes of culture, together with their theoretical implications. This is the challenge that lies ahead and this letter is announcing the beginning of that momentous enterprise. 

Applications for membership of the Code Biology Society are welcome from scholars of all relevant disciplines, including biology, philosophy, semiotics, cognitive science, information theory, linguistics, anthropology and ecology.

Marcello asked me whether I would be willing to be a founding member of the ISCB in an email October 16th. I replied that my long-time collaborators in Tartu "remain important colleagues and contacts for me, and that is how I would like it to go on as well." Furthermore:

In principle I am indeed interested in being a founding member of the ISCB. But there are conditions. First, before putting my name on any list I would like to see the statutes, or a draft of them, to get a sense of what the society is about and how it will work. Second, you should be aware that I am a person who speaks his mind even when in minority, and in situations such as the one in the ISBS this last year I might feel responsible to speak out (particularly if noone else does), no matter who is in charge and no matter who does things I find worthy of criticism. What I treasure is particularly organisational democrazy, scholarly pluralism, and constructive theoretical synthesis. 

Now, one reason to decline your invitation would be that it is likely that some biosemiotic scholars will misunderstand what me being part of the ISCB implies. Noteworthy, it could be perceived as sidetaking – siding with you personally (against Jesper) or preferring code biology to other kinds of biosemiotics. Therefore, let me make it absolutely clear: I treasure being undogmatic and open-minded, and I do not side with specific persons (only with ideas and principles). I want to contribute to holding all biosemioticians to certain standards, in terms both scientific and organisational. I think that several code biologists, including you, do a lot of valuable biosemiotic work (and I would like to take advantage of that in my own work, and when natural by way of direct cooperation). That is why I am interested in being a founding member of the ISCB. To avoid misunderstandings, however, I would without doubt feel the need to write in public (perhaps in a forum or on a discussion list, or at the very least in my academic blog Utopian Realism) what it implies, and what it does not imply, that I have become a member of the ISCB. My aim would be to not close any doors, and to maintain and further develop contact with interesting biosemioticians of all kinds.

I added, amongst other things, that "[t]ruly constructive synthesis is always desirable, but "compromises" motivated by reaching agreement only is more likely to be contraproductive. The key point at this stage is to aim systematically for constructive synthesis and not to block any ideas simply because they derive from the "wrong" persons".

In reply to my email, Marcello wrote that all that I had written was "perfectly acceptable".

Suggested as Editor-in-Chief of Biosemiotics; input on the field given

Just before Christmas Biosemiotics' Editor-in-Chief Marcello Barbieri contacted me writing that he was stepping down as Editor-in-Chief, and that he had told Springer's Senior Editor Catherine Cotton that he thinks I am the best candidate to be his successor. I am deeply honoured by his proposal.

A few days back Catherine Cotton wrote to all members of the editorial board of Biosemiotics, asking for input on the road ahead for the journal (she has not contacted me personally directly). Today I have submitted my input to her, which is substantially a map of biosemiotics and its subfields and related fields, with experts in each category named.

Biosemiotics: ISBS to hold first General Meeting ever

After weeks of discussion by email in the biosemiotic community, the president of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS), Jesper Hoffmeyer, today made clear that he will call for a General Meeting. According to the constitution of ISBS, which has been in place since 2008, such meetings open to all members should be arranged annually. The ISBS, however, has so far been run in an informal way, and these rules have not been put into practice.

On April 30th I wrote this in an email distributed in the biosemiotic community, in reply to an email (one of many) from Marcello Barbieri to all participants at this year's Gathering in Biosemiotics (Tartu, July 17-22).

Dear all, I have not gotten any response from anyone in the ISBS Committee on my prior notice (April 25), which read:

I can not recall ever having been directly invited or encouraged to attend an ISBS General Meeting at a Gathering (and I've been to 5 gatherings). I think this is regr[e]ttable - and problematic in terms of organisational democracy. I sincerely hope that the ISBS will develop a culture of greater inclusion in the future. The General Meetings were never (cf. the ISBS constitution) supposed to be mere meetings of the Executive Committee (in the constitution called "Committee"). 

I now feel compelled to ask explicitly for response, from the ISBS Committee itself. Has my notice been discussed in the Committee? If so, what was the outcome, or the opinions presented? If not, then it should now be discussed by the Committee. In the following I will make clear why this is of the highest importance. 

The constitution of the ISBS says:  

7.1 The supreme authority of the Society is vested in a General Meeting of the members. 

7.2 An Annual General Meeting shall be held.  

Marcello writes that "[a] General assembly [which he defines as "the actual community that is present at a General Meeting"] has never been convened before." My questions, then, are these:  

1) If Marcello is correct, why has the ISBS Committee never convened a General assembly (aka meeting)?  

2) Does not the ISBS constitution explicitly state that such meetings shall be held annually?  

3) If no General Meeting has ever been convened, what is the legality of all the decisions that have been made by the ISBS Committee in the period of 2005-2011? This point concerns rules etc. established by the ISBS (cf. Marcello's case), and more.  

4) If no General Meeting has ever been convened, then what of the validity of elections of ISBS committee members? Cf. the constitution's point 8.2: "Names for the above offices shall be proposed and seconded at the Annual General Meeting and election will follow on a simple majority vote of the members." If no General Meeting has ever been held, then WHO have elected the ISBS Committee members? Surely not the Committee itself??  

5) In case anyone would claim that General Meetings have actually taken place: If so, why have not all ISBS members present - i.e., all participants attending each Gathering - been explicitly invited to take part? Cf., the constitution's 7.5: "Notice of meeting stating the date, time and place of meeting shall be sent by the Secretary to all voting members". Is not the lack of such formal, personal invitations in violation of the spirit and letter of the ISBS constitution, which defines a General Meeting as "a General Meeting of the members"?  

Out of curiosity I also wonder:  

6) Approximately how many persons have been present at the ISBS meetings held during Gatherings so far? How many besides members of the Executive Committee? 

and  

7) What is the proper name for these meetings (at Gatherings up to 2011) - "Committee meetings"? If so, see points 3 and 4 above.  

I am not asking these questions to be difficult, but I do hold that they need to be answered satisfactorily - particularly because this is in terms of organisational democracy a problematic story whether the meetings held have been regarded as Committee meetings (which does not have such a wide mandate) or as General Meetings (which has in case not been correctly convened). 

For a start, the ISBS Committee should explain its practice, and signal whether it intends to follow the same practice in the future, or, if not, on what points it intends to change practice.

I will not, here in Utopian Realism, go into all details of this conflict - most of which has little to do with what has been my concern, as described above - but these were, in brief, the answers to my questions (many of which given by Donald Favareau, the former Vice-President of the ISBS, who withdrew about half a year ago, as a first sign of a looming crisis):

1) Don explained how the ISBS has been run in an informal way, and claimed the constitution was never meant to be taken literally. He accused me of being formalistic.

2) The ISBS constitution does indeed explicitly state that such meetings shall be held annually. The President of the ISBS has now signalled that the constitution will be followed from now on.

3) The legality of all the decisions that have been made by the ISBS Committee in the period of 2008-2011 has not been discussed further. Marcello Barbieri asked me, in a reply to my email, not to ask questions about the past (which he had done a little before). He has in the course of this changed argumentation, and recently focused exclusively on the validity of the constitution, and that a general assembly must be convened.

4) The validity of elections of ISBS committee members has not been addressed by anyone. Election of committee members will now likely start at the first General Meeting, to be held in Tartu in July. 

5) Noone have claimed that General Meetings have actually taken place so far. 

6) The number of persons present at the ISBS meetings held during Gatherings so far have been estimated to less than 10. As far as I understand only members of the Executive Committee (which has 15 members) have been present.

7) The proper name for the meetings (at Gatherings up to 2011) is Committee meetings. No minutes were taken.

***

Don, who's done a lot of good work for the ISBS over the years, wrote in his reply to my questions that he thought my "approach would be odious, and the final nail in the coffin of this group's long and often contentious journey from a warm fellowship of friends to what it is now: an arena for a war of escalating sides-taking." He talked about the death of good faith (as have many others - it is saddening to hear good colleagues be so defaitistic). But good faith did not die with me. I have not been involved in this conflict, but been a regular member only - and I do doubt very strongly that my concern for organisational democracy could ever be "the final nail in the coffin" for biosemiotics.

Today it became clear that the ISBS will introduce organisational democracy this year. I applaud that, and look forward to seeing it happen. What I cannot accept is that my allegiance should be given to persons (whoever they might be), regardless of ideal and principle. I pledge my allegiance to the cause of biosemiotics, the cause of organisational democracy, and the restoration of good faith.

Conference pictures I: Gathering in biosemiotics 11, New York

These pictures have been published, among many many others, on Marcello Barbieri's webpage Biosemiotica.it.

From my presentation "Integrated biological individualism and the primacy of the individual level of biological organization", Saturday June 25th.

In the audience.

Talking with David Rothenberg.

During a coffee break.

New biosemiotic webpage

Marcello Barbieri has launched a new biosemiotics webpage, Biosemiotica.it.

Structure:
Home
History
Websites
Gatherings (lists of participants)
Books (1985-2009) - with no mention of Sebeok's zoosemiotic books
Journal
Society

Biosemiotic collage

A 48 pp email discussion following Marcello Barbieri's distribution of a paper now entitled "On the origin of language: A synthesis of Biolinguistics and Biosemiotics" has been posted to the blog Biosemiosis. The discussion featured one email from me (plus one email sent to Marcello Barbieri only, which has also been included in the collage). You'll find the post here, and the collage here.

/

All in all the exchange included 79 emails (January 14th - February 6th). These include:

/

2. My general post, sent to all on this biosemiotics email list:

Dear Marcello (and dear All),

I have a few comments/questions to your text (though I have little or nothing to contribute with concerning a general discussion about biolinguistics). First, though, I would like to ask where it will be published (as I would like to quote it in one of my articles-in-process).

Now, to questions and comments:
1) You write that "Sebeok’s conclusion that semiosis is based on interpretation is undoubtedly valid in animals, but ... not applicable, for example, to the cell, where the genetic code has been virtually the same for billions of years, which clearly shows that it does not depend on interpretation." It is not clear to me how the fact that the genetic code has been virtually the same practically forever shows that it does not depend on interpretation, since in order to function the genetic code must not only have been encoded but must further repeatedly be decoded - at a cellular level (and herein lies interpretation).

2) You claim that "animals do not interpret the world but only representations of the world. Any interpretation, in short, is always exercised on internal models of the environment, never on the environment itself". Sure, perception of "external reality" is always mediated. Nevertheless, "the environment" (in an objective sense) necessarily represents the final/ultimate object of any perception. The percepts are never identical to their final objects - but why stress that they are (fundamentally) different from them? That is trivially true. But related they are. Not even man can take in "reality" unmediated.

3) I find your explanations of how natural selection favors icons and indexes rewarding and interesting - but when you ask: "Why were animals unable to go beyond icons and indexes? Why didn’t they learn to use symbols?" I think you neglect some empirical evidence to the contrary.

4) I also found interesting your observation that in "all other mammals the wiring of the brain takes place almost completely in the dark and protected environment of the uterus, whereas in our species it takes place predominantly outside the uterus, where the body is exposed to the lights, the sounds and the smells of a constantly changing environment." This is clearly a key point.

morten tønnessen
http://utopianrealism.blogspot.com/

The first point, on our understanding of interpretation, was a recurring topic in the whole discussion. The third point I made, concerning the use of symbols among animals, made Marcello revise his article on this point, from a claim that animals do not make use of symbols to the much more correct claim that no animal make systematic use of symbols in any way comparable to man (cf. post 5, M.B.).

/

76. My email to Marcello Barbieri:

Dear Marcello,

I have followed this discussion throughout, and realized how frustrating it must have been for you to see how few actually addressed the (new) substance of your article. That was a shame. Hopefully the ideas concerning the origin of language herein will be analysed in much more detail (from both sides of the fence) after your article has been published.

Best,
Morten

In addition, Marcello's reply to me (post 4) was referred to in posts 3 (Stanley Salthe), 40 and 48 (M.B.).