DOCSLIB.ORG

Emergence Discussion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Emergence Discussion 23/10/2011 IAJS Discussion Seminar with George Hogenson – Introduction by Warren Colman NB: To access and download two papers by George Hogenson which will form the basis for the discussion, please go to the following links: ‘What are symbols symbols of’: http://bit.ly/gxKn6T ‘The self, the symbolic and synchronicity’ http://bit.ly/gj13OQ It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce George Hogenson who will be leading a seminar for the IAJS list on the theme of ‘emergence’. He has been well known in the Jungian world long before he became an analyst as the author of Jung’s Struggle with Freud (1983), an impressive and scholarly work that analysed Jung’s break from Freud in terms of the creation of a different mythological understanding of time, death and authority. At that time, George was a philosophy PhD and a teacher of political philosophy, specialising in the field of international peace and security. From this strong academic background, George became interested in pursuing the practice of psychotherapy as well as its theory and qualified as a Jungian analyst in Chicago in 1998. In 2001, George gave a plenary presentation at the IAAP Congress in Cambridge, England, debating with Anthony Stevens on the nature and origins of archetypes. This was my first introduction both to George and to the dynamic systems theory he proposed as a way of reconceptualising archetypal theory and challenging Stevens’ use of evolutionary psychology as a way of bolstering the classical ‘blueprint’ model of archetypes as a priori structures. George’s presentation of a short video from the field of robotics, illustrating the principles of self-organisation was a revelation to me: I well remember the feeling that I was seeing a vision of the future, an entirely new way of thinking that had the potential to revision and revitalise analytical psychology. In the decade since then, George has amply fulfilled that initial promise with a series of ground-breaking, seminal papers, most of which have been published in the Journal of Analytical Psychology. The field that has come to be known as ‘emergence theory’ has grown and developed and is represented in the work of many other Jungian writers, such as Joe Cambray, Jean Knox, John Merchant, Patricia Skar, Hester Solomon, Margaret Wilkinson, Beverley Zabriskie – and myself. These new ideas are not easily grasped and challenge some of the shibboleths of Jungian thought, notably the idea of innate a priori eternal structures that are the universal basis of psychic life. Like all new ideas, some people find them a threat: the JAP has provided a forum for robust debates with defenders of evolutionary psychology such as Alan Maloney 1 (2003) and more recently, Erik Goodwyn (2010). These critics seem to feel that the idea that archetypes are emergent properties of developmental processes challenges the existence of archetypes per se whereas what is primarily at issue is not the existence of archetypes but how they come into being and how the idea of archetypes can be aligned with advances in scientific thinking in the half a century since Jung’s original work. Furthermore, while the mainly British writers such as Knox are primarily interested in the influence of early emotional development on adult psychopathology, writers such as Hogenson and Cambray have a much broader and more traditionally ‘Jungian’ canvass, especially involving a reconceptualising of synchronicity, one of Jung’s most radical and inspiring ideas. For this seminar, the Journal of Analytical Psychology’s publisher Wiley-Blackwell has agreed to make two of George’s papers available on-line as a basis for the discussion. These are What are symbols symbols of? Situated action, mythological bootstrapping and the emergence of the Self (JAP, 2004, Vol. 49:1, 67-81) The Self, the symbolic and synchronicity: virtual realities and the emergence of the psyche (JAP 2005, Vol. 50:3, 271-284). To access these papers for free download (available only for the duration of the seminar), please go to http://bit.ly/gxKn6T and http://bit.ly/gj13OQ From: George Hogenson, 24/1/11 Greetings to all the participants-- Leslie advises me that I have to get this seminar started. I am afraid that I have not done this sort of on-line seminar before, so I may need a little practice to get the process to work to everyone's satisfaction. To begin then, in addition to the two papers that Warren has linked to in his introduction I have copied below some further introductory thoughts that will give a little more context to the discussion. These comments are very elementary, and we will see if we can get further with the really critical elements. I was tempted to continue with a longish riff on Chomsky and the problems of language and symbolism, but much of that is in the posted papers so I left it out here. Warren mentions the short video of robots that I showed at the Cambridge Congress in 2001in his introduction, and I take it up again below. To view this video you can go to the web site of Ronald Kube, 2 http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~kube/ scroll down to the link to "collective robots:" and then click on "collective box-pushing demonstration." Robotics has moved a considerable distance since Kube did this little demonstration, but the value of this video is precisely its simplicity. I hope you will enjoy it. What follows is a rather too long introduction. I hope we can move on from here. Emergence in analytical psychology George B. Hogenson, Ph.D. Chicago Society of Jungian Analysts The question at hand concerns the development, significance and nature of the discussion of emergent phenomena in analytical psychology. In large measure this discussion has taken place within the pages of the Journal of Analytical Psychology, but it is not exclusive to that venue (see for example (Cambray, 2002; Hogenson, 2004, 2007; Knox, 2003). Also in large measure the discussion has focused on the question of how we should understand and talk about archetypes although synchronicity has also come into the conversation. I suspect that when the overall discussion is assessed, one of the consequences will be to see both how central to Jung’s theory the hypothesis of archetypes is, and also how complicated and even tenuous the hypothesis proves to be. I do want to note at the outset that in his more careful comments on archetypes Jung does use the term “hypothesis,” and it behooves us to approach the question of archetypes with all the implications of hypothetical constructs in mind. As Jean Knox has outlined Jung’s positions—plural—on archetypes in her book, Archetype, Attachment, Analysis: Jungian Psychology and the Emergent Mind (Knox, 2003), Jung took a variety of positions and drew a variety of analogies to other systems of thought—for example Plato or Kant, but also Darwin and eventually quantum mechanics—to try and pin down what he was referencing when he talked about archetypes. What Jung did not seem to grasp in his appeal to these quite varied analogies or, in the case of his biological comments, direct appeals to empirical sciences, was the degree to which many of his constructs were manifestly incompatible with one another. You really cannot combine the realm of Platonic ideas with the notion of genetic determinism. To do so is to make a rather glaring category mistake, but this problem seems to have been lost on Jung, most likely because he really did not have a good sense of what exactly he wanted a theory of archetypes to do. I imagine that this last comment somewhat tips my hand insofar as I have always been a bit sceptical about the whole idea of archetypes, although I do consider it an area worthy of further consideration. To that end, let me propose a gross generalization regarding what Jung is looking for in his discussion of archetypes: A theory of archetypes will propose and describe a mechanism by which human ideation and behaviour displays patterns of species typical regularity, in both time and space. Further, this theory will, at a minimum, shed significant light on the workings of a set of identifiable psychological and cultural phenomena, including, but not limited to rituals, myths, religious 3 beliefs, and some elements of dreams and the products of directed fantasy or active imagination. A little personal background Jung remarks somewhere that psychological theories represent a moment of personal confession on the part of the theorist. I do think it is worthwhile, for understanding the discussion of emergence, to have a little sense of the starting positions of some of the participants. I do not want to overdo this, as the arguments marshalled on all sides ultimately have to stand on their own, but then I am an analyst so the personal does matter in some sense. Thus, Anthony Stevens, who was my interlocutor in the 2001 debate at the Cambridge International Congress that in some ways set the emergence discussion in motion (Stevens, Hogenson, & Ramos, 2003), is very clear in the introduction to his book, Archetype: A Natural History of the Self (Stevens, 1982) that his work with children in a Greek orphanage was deeply influential in his quest for an explanation of human behaviour. Stevens, of course, then discovered E. O. Wilson’s socio-biology, which was at it apogee at the time, and used the socio-biological model as the key to an explanation of archetypes. I will return to Stevens’ work below. Jean Knox, on the other hand, worked closely with Peter Fonagy on attachment theory, which figures prominently in her work on emergence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modularity As a Concept Modern Ideas About Mental Modularity Typically Use Fodor (1983) As a Key Touchstone
    COGNITIVE PROCESSING International Quarterly of Cognitive Science Mental modularity, metaphors, and the marriage of evolutionary and cognitive sciences GARY L. BRASE University of Missouri – Columbia Abstract - As evolutionary approaches in the behavioral sciences become increasingly prominent, issues arising from the proposition that the mind is a collection of modular adaptations (the multi-modular mind thesis) become even more pressing. One purpose of this paper is to help clarify some valid issues raised by this thesis and clarify why other issues are not as critical. An aspect of the cognitive sciences that appears to both promote and impair progress on this issue (in different ways) is the use of metaphors for understand- ing the mind. Utilizing different metaphors can yield different perspectives and advancement in our understanding of the nature of the human mind. A second purpose of this paper is to outline the kindred natures of cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, both of which cut across traditional academic divisions and engage in functional analyses of problems. Key words: Evolutionary Theory, Cognitive Science, Modularity, Metaphors Evolutionary approaches in the behavioral sciences have begun to influence a wide range of fields, from cognitive neuroscience (e.g., Gazzaniga, 1998), to clini- cal psychology (e.g., Baron-Cohen, 1997; McGuire and Troisi, 1998), to literary theory (e.g., Carroll, 1999). At the same time, however, there are ongoing debates about the details of what exactly an evolutionary approach – often called evolu- tionary psychology— entails (Holcomb, 2001). Some of these debates are based on confusions of terminology, implicit arguments, or misunderstandings – things that can in principle be resolved by clarifying current ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerald Jrit Jrit628638 164..182
    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/2397-7604.htm JRIT&L 12,2 Facilitating success for people with mental health issues in a college through cognitive 164 remediation therapy and social Received 19 January 2019 Revised 22 April 2019 and emotional learning Accepted 6 May 2019 Jaswant Kaur Bajwa CPLS, George Brown College – Saint James Campus, Toronto, Canada Bobby Bajwa Department of Medical Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, and Taras Gula CPLS, George Brown College – Saint James Campus, Toronto, Canada Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the components, structure and theoretical underpinnings of a cognitive remediation intervention that was delivered within a supported education program for mental health survivors. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 21 participants enrolled in the course Strengthening Memory, Concentration and Learning (PREP 1033 at George Brown College (GBC)) with the diagnosis of depression, anxiety, PTSD, ED and substance use disorder were included in the research. After a baseline assessment, participants completed 14 week cognitive remediation training (CRT) protocol that included six essential components that were integrated and implemented within the course structure of the supported education program at GBC. This was followed by a post-training assessment. Findings – Analysis of the participants’ performance on CRT protocol using computerized games showed little significant progress. However, the research found a positive change in the self-esteem of the participants that was statistically significant and the findings also aligned with the social and emotional learning framework. Research limitations/implications – One of the limitations in the research was the use of computer- assisted cognitive remediation in the form of the HappyNeuron software.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Theory of Mind As a Mediator in The
    THE ROLE OF THEORY OF MIND AS A MEDIATOR IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL FUNCTIONING AND SCHIZOTYPY A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by Marielle Divilbiss December 2009 Thesis written by Marielle Divilbiss B.A., DePaul University, 2007 M.A., Kent State University, 2009 Approved by Nancy Docherty, Ph.D.,_______________________ Advisor Douglas Delahanty, Ph.D.,_____________________ Chair, Department of Psychology Timothy Moerland, Ph.D.,_____________________ Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii Table of Contents List of figures…………………………………………………………………………… v List of tables……………………………………………………………………………. vi Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………… vii Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………….......... 11 Method…………………………………………………………………………………. 13 Results………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Table 1………………………………………………………………………………….. 22 Table 2………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 Table 3………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Table 4………………………………………………………………………………….. 25 Table 6…………………………………………………………………………………. 26 Table 7…………………………………………………………………………………. 27 Table 8…………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Table 9…………………………………………………………………………………. 32 Table 10……………………………………………………………………………….. 33 Table 11……………………………………………………………………………….. 37 Figure 1………………………………………………………………………………... 38 Table 12………………………………………………………………………………. 40 iii Figure 2………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 42 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Evolutionary Psychology Without Representational Nativism
    J.Expt.Theor.Artif.Intell.15(2003)143–159 Cognitive evolutionary psychology without representational nativism DENISE CUMMINS1, ROBERT CUMMINS1 and PIERRE POIRIER2 1 Department of Philosophy, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA 2 University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada e-mail: [email protected];[email protected] Abstract. A viable evolutionary cognitive psychology requires that specific cognitive capacities be (a) heritable and (b) ‘quasi-independent’ from other heritable traits. They must be heritable because there can be no selection for traits that are not. They must be quasi-independent from other heritable traits, since adaptive variations in a specific cognitive capacity could have no distinctive consequences for fitness if effecting those variations required widespread changes in other unrelated traits and capacities as well. These requirements would be satisfied by innate cognitive modules, as the dominant paradigm in evolutionary cognitive psychology assumes. However, those requirements would also be satisfied by heritable learning biases, perhaps in the form of architec- tural or chronotopic constraints, that operated to increase the canalization of specific cognitive capacities in the ancestral environment (Cummins and Cummins 1999). As an organism develops, cognitive capacities that are highly canalized as the result of heritable learning biases might result in an organism that is behaviourally quite similar to an organism whose innate modules come on line as the result of various environ- mental triggers. Taking this possibility seriously is increasingly important as the case against innate cognitive modules becomes increasingly strong. Keywords: cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, canalization, learning biases, innate modules, modularity Received July 2002; accepted December 2002 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Biosemiotics
    Biosemiotics (2009) 2:221–245 DOI 10.1007/s12304-009-9042-8 ORIGINAL PAPER A Short History of Biosemiotics Marcello Barbieri Received: 20 March 2009 /Accepted: 14 April 2009 / Published online: 6 May 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract Biosemiotics is the synthesis of biology and semiotics, and its main purpose is to show that semiosis is a fundamental component of life, i.e., that signs and meaning exist in all living systems. This idea started circulating in the 1960s and was proposed independently from enquires taking place at both ends of the Scala Naturae. At the molecular end it was expressed by Howard Pattee’s analysis of the genetic code, whereas at the human end it took the form of Thomas Sebeok’s investigation into the biological roots of culture. Other proposals appeared in the years that followed and gave origin to different theoretical frameworks, or different schools, of biosemiotics. They are: (1) the physical biosemiotics of Howard Pattee and its extension in Darwinian biosemiotics by Howard Pattee and by Terrence Deacon, (2) the zoosemiotics proposed by Thomas Sebeok and its extension in sign biosemiotics developed by Thomas Sebeok and by Jesper Hoffmeyer, (3) the code biosemiotics of Marcello Barbieri and (4) the hermeneutic biosemiotics of Anton Markoš. The differences that exist between the schools are a consequence of their different models of semiosis, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. In reality they go much deeper and concern the very nature of the new discipline. Is biosemiotics only a new way of looking at the known facts of biology or does it predict new facts? Does biosemiotics consist of testable hypotheses? Does it add anything to the history of life and to our understanding of evolution? These are the major issues of the young discipline, and the purpose of the present paper is to illustrate them by describing the origin and the historical development of its main schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture
    The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations Dan Sperber Ten years ago, Jerry Fodor published The Modularity of Mind, a book that received much well-deserved attention. His target was the then-dominant view according to which there are no important discontinuities between per- ceptual processes and conceptual processes. Information flows freely, "up" and "down," between these two kinds of processes, and beliefs inform per- ception as much as they are informed by it. Against this view, Fodor argued that perceptual processes (and also linguistic decoding) are carried out by specialized, rather rigid mechanisms. These "modules" each have their own proprietary data base, and do not draw on information produced by concep- tual processes. Although this was probably not intended and has not been much noticed, "modularity of mind" was a paradoxical title, for, according to Fodor, modu- larity is to be found only at the periphery of the mind, in its input systems.1 In its center and bulk, Fodor's mind is decidedly nonmodular. Conceptual processes - that is, thought proper - are presented as a big holistic lump lacking joints at which to carve. Controversies have focused on the thesis that perceptual and linguistic decoding processes are modular, much more than on the alleged nonmodularity of thought.2 In this chapter, I have two aims. The first is to defend the view that thought processes might be modular too (what Fodor [1987: 27] calls "modularity theory gone mad" - oh well!). Let me however echo Fodor and say that, "when I speak of a cognitive system as modular, I shall..
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Massively Modular Models of Mind
    CDIC01 11/25/05 2:37 PM Page 1 JUST HOW MODULAR IS THE MIND? CDIC01 11/25/05 2:37 PM Page 2 CDIC01 11/25/05 2:37 PM Page 3 CHAPTER ONE The Case for Massively Modular Models of Mind Peter Carruthers My charge in this chapter is to set out the positive case supporting massively modular models of the human mind.1 Unfortunately, there is no generally accepted under- standing of what a massively modular model of the mind is. So at least some of our discussion will have to be terminological. I shall begin by laying out the range of things that can be meant by “modularity.” I shall then adopt a pair of strategies. One will be to distinguish some things that “modularity” definitely can’t mean, if the thesis of massive modularity is to be even remotely plausible. The other will be to look at some of the arguments that have been offered in support of massive modularity, discussing what notion of “module” they might warrant. It will turn out that there is, indeed, a strong case in support of massively modular models of the mind on one reasonably natural understanding of “module.” But what really matters in the end, of course, is the substantive question of what sorts of structure are adequate to account for the organization and operations of the human mind, not whether or not the com- ponents appealed to in that account get described as “modules.” So the more inter- esting question before us is what the arguments that have been offered in support of massive modularity can succeed in showing us about those structures, whatever they get called.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Acquisition of New Behavior Through Conditioning
    1 www.onlineeducation.bharatsevaksamaj.net www.bssskillmission.in SOCIAL PHYCHOLOGY OF ADULT LEARNING Topic Objective: At the end of this topic student would be able to: Introduce learning theory. Give the importance of operant conditioning. Discuss the terminology related to psychology. Definition/Overview: Learning Theory: In psychology and education, a learning theory is an attempt to describe how people and animals learn, thereby helping us understand the inherently complex process of learning. There are three main categories or philosophical frameworks under which learning theories fall: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Behaviorism focuses only on the objectively observable aspects of learning. Cognitive theories look beyond behavior to explain brain-based learning. And constructivism views learning as a process in which the learner actively constructs or builds new ideas or concepts. It is also important to take account of informal learning theories, and to consider the philosophical anthropology implied by any theory. Behaviorism focuses only on the objectively observable aspects of learning, and discounts the internal processing that might be associated with the activity. For behaviorism, learningWWW.BSSVE.IN is the acquisition of new behavior through conditioning. Key Points: 1. Problem Conditioning There are two types of possible conditioning: www.bsscommunitycollege.in www.bssnewgeneration.in www.bsslifeskillscollege.in 2 www.onlineeducation.bharatsevaksamaj.net www.bssskillmission.in SOCIAL PHYCHOLOGY OF ADULT LEARNING Classical conditioning, where the behavior becomes a reflex response to stimulus as in the case of Pavlov's Dogs Operant conditioning where there is reinforcement of the behavior by a reward or a punishment. The theory of operant conditioning was developed by B.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Modularity, Development and 'Theory of Mind'
    Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Mind & Language, ISSN: 0268-1064 Vol. 14. No. 1 March 1999, pp 131–153. Modularity, Development and ‘Theory of Mind’ BRIAN J. SCHOLL AND ALAN M. LESLIE Abstract: Psychologists and philosophers have recently been exploring whether the mechanisms which underlie the acquisition of ‘theory of mind’ (ToM) are best charac- terized as cognitive modules or as developing theories. In this paper, we attempt to clarify what a modular account of ToM entails, and why it is an attractive type of explanation. Intuitions and arguments in this debate often turn on the role of develop- ment: traditional research on ToM focuses on various developmental sequences, whereas cognitive modules are thought to be static and ‘anti-developmental’. We suggest that this mistaken view relies on an overly limited notion of modularity, and we explore how ToM might be grounded in a cognitive module and yet still afford development. Modules must ‘come on-line’, and even fully developed modules may still develop internally, based on their constrained input. We make these points con- crete by focusing on a recent proposal to capture the development of ToM in a module via parameterization. 1. Introduction The currency of our mental lives consists largely of propositional attitudes, even when we are interpreting the behaviours of others. If you see a person running to catch up with a just-departing train, for example, you interpret the person as an intentional agent, who believes that there is a just-departing train, and who wants to get on it.
    [Show full text]
  • Developmental Psychology
    Developmental psychology Psychology History · Subfields Basic science Abnormal · Biological Cognitive · Comparative Cultural · Developmental Evolutionary · Experimental Mathematical · Personality Positive · Social Applied science Clinical · Consumer Educational · Health Industrial and organizational Law · Military Occupational health · Political Religion · School · Sport Lists Disciplines · Organizations Outline · Psychologists Psychotherapies · Publications Research methods · Theories Timeline · Topics Portal v · d · e Developmental psychology, also known as human development, is the scientific study of systematic psychological changes that occur in human beings over the course of their life span. Originally concerned with infants and children, the field has expanded to include adolescence, adult development, aging, and the entire life span. This field examines change across a broad range of topics including motor skills and other psycho-physiological processes; cognitive development involving areas such as problem solving, moral understanding, and conceptual understanding; language acquisition; social, personality, and emotional development; and self-concept and identity formation. Developmental psychology includes issues such as the extent to which development occurs through the gradual accumulation of knowledge versus stage-like development, or the extent to which children are born with innate mental structures versus learning through experience. Many researchers are interested in the interaction between personal characteristics, the
    [Show full text]
  • Darwinian Domain-Generality: the Role of Evolutionary Psychology in the Modularity Debate
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 5-3-2017 Darwinian Domain-Generality: The Role of Evolutionary Psychology in the Modularity Debate Michael Lundie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Recommended Citation Lundie, Michael, "Darwinian Domain-Generality: The Role of Evolutionary Psychology in the Modularity Debate." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2017. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/205 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DARWINIAN DOMAIN-GENERALITY: THE ROLE OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IN THE MODULARITY DEBATE by MICHAEL LUNDIE Under the Direction of Daniel A. Weiskopf, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Evolutionary Psychology (EP) tends to be associated with a Massively Modular (MM) cognitive architecture. I argue that EP favors a non-MM cognitive architecture. The main point of dispute is whether central cognition, such as abstract reasoning, exhibits domain-general properties. Partisans of EP argue that domain-specific modules govern central cognition, for it is unclear how the cognitive mind could have evolved domain-generality. In response, I defend a distinction between exogenous and endogenous selection pressures, according to which exogenous pressures tend to select for domain-specificity, whereas the latter, endogenous pressures, select in favor of domain-generality. I draw on models from brain network theory to motivate this distinction, and also to establish that a domain-general, non-MM cognitive architecture is the more parsimonious adaptive solution to endogenous pressures.
    [Show full text]
  • TOWARDS a SEMIOTIC BIOLOGY Life Is the Action of Signs
    • TOWARDS [ ASEMIOTIC ' BIOLOGY Life is the Action of Signs Imperial College Press TOWARDS A SEMIOTIC BIOLOGY Life is the Action of Signs P771tp.indd 1 5/3/11 5:22 PM TOWARDS A SEMIOTIC BIOLOGY Life is the Action of Signs Sense world s si interpretant io m e s Receptor Sense net Carrier of a feature sign Internal world Object Opposite structure Effect net Carrier of an effect representamen object Effector Effect world Editors Claus Emmeche University of Copenhagen, Denmark Kalevi Kull University of Tartu, Estonia Imperial College Press ICP P771tp.indd 2 5/3/11 5:22 PM This page is intentionally left blank Published by Imperial College Press 57 Shelton Street Covent Garden London WC2H 9HE Distributed by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. TOWARDS A SEMIOTIC BIOLOGY Life is the Action of Signs Copyright © 2011 by Imperial College Press All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher. For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher.
    [Show full text]