Conference presentation PPTs available in Academia.edu

I have uploaded the following recent conference presentation Powerpoint files to my profile at Academia.edu - all presented in Tartu this July:

• On the notion of induced semiosis, with emphasis on anthropogenic semiosis
• The conceptual Umwelt and its role in the tripartite model of the human Umwelt (NB: Title has changed to "A foray into the hinterland of language: In search of the dark matter of our enlightened worlds")
• In the gaze of the other: Describing cultural affordances by conducting comparative Umwelt mapping in animal studies

Presentation held at 12th gathering in biosemiotics

On Saturday the 21st of July I presented my paper "On the notion of induced semiosis - with emphasis on anthropogenic semiosis" at the 12th gathering in biosemiotics, in Tartu, Estonia. There were some 50-60 people present. My paper was the first of three on an Uexküllian theme, in the very last session of the gathering.

The notion of "induced semiosis" was introduced by Alexei Sharov in 2010, and I consider it a valuable addition to biosemiotic vocabulary.

Animal rhetoric paper written

Yesterday I finished my paper to be presented at the forthcoming workshop "The Rhetoric of Human-Animal Relations" (Oslo, May 29-30), "Animals craving for meaning in the Anthropocene - a perspective on the global semiocide". 14 pages, organized into 5 sections:

1. A footnote on biorhetorics 

2. On biosemiosis, the action of signs in living systems 

3. On the Anthropocene, particularly its animal aspect (and thus the global species concept) 

4. A note on induced semiosis, with repercussions for the global species concept 

5. Last wor(l)ds: On the global semiocide

It remains to be seen whether it will be selected for publication. At any rate it will be distributed among the workshop participants, among with the papers of all the others.

Abstract: "Animals craving for meaning in the Anthropocene – a perspective on the global semiocide"

This abstract was submitted to the organizer of the May 29-30 Oslo workshop "The Rhetoric of Human-Animal Relations" on February 1st.

***

Animals craving for meaning in the Anthropocene – a perspective on the global semiocide

Biosemiotics is nominally linked to rhetoric through biorhetorics as developed by zoosemiotician Stephen Pain. More importantly, all biosemioticians concede that all animals are sign users, meaning utilizers. ‘Semiosis’ is the action of signs, and ‘biosemiosis’ the action of signs in living systems, two examples of such semiosis being animal communication and perception. Many, if not all, signs are subject to interpretation by some animal (or person). In the context of biosemiotics, there is no doubt that animals are proper subjects actively engaged in semiosis.

As interpreters, animals wild and tame are destined to interpret, and respond to, the constant stream of semiosis produced by human civilization. In the Anthropocene, the era in which humankind has acted en masse as a force of geological magnitude, the currents of human semiosis are increasingly shaping the landscapes. The human species is the first global species (a species with a global range) to emerge for millions of years, and its worldwide civilization is creating breeding grounds for a number of yet other global species. Enter the modern schism in nature between the favored and the unfavored. Various forms of ‘induced semiosis’ (Sharov) can in terms of human ecology be considered as constituting a further effectory layer in humankind’s control system qua global species.

When animal lives are subjugated to human purposes, their biosemiosis is tentatively adapted to our human semiosis. The Estonian palaeontologist Ivar Puura has introduced the word semiotsiid (semiocide) to signify “a situation where someone´s malevolence or negligence brings along destruction of signs and stories, which are meaningful to someone else, whose identity is thus violated”. If the Anthropocene is the Age of Man, then in a biosemiotic perspective it is also the era of an emerging global semiocide.

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.