Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 435–450 | Cite as

Me, Myself, and Semiotic Function: Finding the “I” in Biology

  • Gerald OstdiekEmail author
Article
  • 615 Downloads

Abstract

This essay argues that stable, heritable, habituated semiotics on one scale of life allows for opportunism, origination, and the solving of novel problems on others. This is grounded in how interpretation is neither caused nor determined by its object, such that success at interpretation simply cannot be defined by any comparison between an interpretation and its object. Rather, an interpretation is a reciprocated incorporation of a living thing and its environment, and successful if it furthers the living, interpreting thing. By applying biosemiotic theory to seemingly disparate studies of parasitic infections (Jaroslav Flegr), autonomic nervous systems (Stephen Porges), and social change (Charles Tilly) as well as the classical pragmatic notion that biology, psychology and sociology are disparate approaches to the singular, radically continuous, and perennial question of who (or what) am I (Dewey, James, Mead). I argue that the distinction (e.g.,) between voluntary and autonomic behavior is but a ghost of older dualisms, the pseudo-contradictions of matter v. mind, body v. soul, but also self v. not self. Moreover, all such pseudo-contradictions (individual v. social, sensation v. response, parasite v. host, and etc.) are resolved as scale thick, self-similar examples of semiotic transaction wherein degeneration or habituation on one scale of life allows for generative or novel interaction on another.

Keywords

Pragmatic semiotics Heterarchy Scale-thick Inter-subjectivity 

References

  1. Austin, M., Riniolo, T., & Porges, S. (2007). Borderline personality disorder and emotional regulations: insights from the polyvagal theory. Brain Cognition, 65(1), 69–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruni, L., & Giorgi, F. (2015). Towards a heterarchical approach to biology and cognition. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular biology, 119(3), 481–492.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  4. Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex Arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J., et al. (1903). Studies in logical theory (The decennial publications, second series, volume XI). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Favareau, D., et al. (2012). A more developed sign: Interpreting the work of Jesper Hoffmeyer. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Flegr, J. (2002). Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis: a retrospective case-control study. BMC Infectious Diseases, 2, 11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-2-11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Flegr, J. (2007). Effects of toxoplasma on human behavior. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 33(3), 757–760.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Flegr, J. (2010). Elastic, not plastic species: frozen plasticity theory and the origin of adaptive evolution in sexually reproducing organisms. Biology Direct, 5, 2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Havel, I. M. (1996). Scale dimensions in nature. International Journal of General Systems, 24(3), 295–679.324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hitt, J. (2005). Mighty white of you, Harper’s magazine. July, 2005. Online at: www.middlebury.edu/media/view/157971.
  13. Ingram, W., et al. (2013). Mice infected with low-virulence strains of Toxoplasma gondii lose their innate aversion to cat urine, even after extensive parasite clearance. PLoS One, 8(9), e75246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075246.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. James, W. (1904a). A world of pure experience. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 1(533–543), 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. James, W. (1904b). The Chicago school. Psychological Bulletin, 1, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism. New York: Longman, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
  17. James, W. (1956/1897). The will to believe. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Kauffman, S. (2002). Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Langley, J. N. (1921). The autonomic nervous system. Cambridge: Heffer & Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Lhotský, et. al., (n.d.). Symbioses from the point of reciprocal re-forming. (publication pending).Google Scholar
  21. Mazmanian, S. (2013). Microbiota modulates gut physiology and behavioral abnormalities associated with autism. Cell, 155(7), 1451–1463.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Mead, G. H. (1913). The social self. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 10, 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan, C. L. (1903). An introduction to comparative psychology (2nd ed.). London: W. Scott.Google Scholar
  24. Nöth, W. (2013). The life of symbols and other legisigns. In V. Romanini (Ed.), Peirce and biosemiotics (pp. 171–182). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. O’Dwyer, D. (2015). Three layers, two sides and one vote. A Medium Corporation: 22.5.2015. Online.Google Scholar
  26. Ostdiek, G. (2011). Cast in plastic: semiotic plasticity and the pragmatic reading of Darwin. Biosemiotics, 4(1), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ostdiek, G. (2012). The self as social artifice: some consequences of Stanislavski. Biosemiotics, 5, 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ostdiek, G. (2014). The manufacture of chance. Biosemiotics, 7(3), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ostdiek, G. (2016). Towards a post-biotic anthropology. In K. Pauknerová, et al. (Eds.), Non-humans and after in Social Science. Červený Kostelec: Pavel Mervart Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Peirce, C. (1977). In C. S. Hardwick & J. Cook (Eds.), Semiotic and significs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (SS).Google Scholar
  31. Peirce, C. (1998). The essential peirce: Selected philosophical writings, Vol. 2, Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (EP).Google Scholar
  32. Porges, S. (1995). Orienting in a defensive world: Mammalian modifications of our evolutionary heritage. A Polyvagal theory. In Psychophysiology 3, pgs. 301–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Porges, S. (2003). Social Engagement and attachment: a phylogenetic perspective. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1008, 31–47. doi: 10.1196/annals.1301.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Portes, S. (2009). The polyvagal theory: new insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 76(Suppl 2), S86–S90. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.76.s2.17.Google Scholar
  35. Santayana, G. (1920). Character and opinion in the United States: with reminiscences of William James and Josiah Royce and academic life in America. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
  36. Santayana, G. (1980/1905). Reason in common sense. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  37. Savage, D. (2010). Grey rights now! The stranger, Savage Love, 18.11.2010 oid=5542868. Online.Google Scholar
  38. Stilling, R. (2013). Microbial genes, brain & behaviour - epigenetic regulation of the gut-brain axis. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 13(1), 69–86. doi: 10.1111/gbb.12109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tilly, C. (1996). Citizenship, identity and social history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tilly, C. (1998). Social movements and (all sorts of) other political interactions – local, national, and international – including identities. Theory and Society, 27(4), 453–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tilly, C. (2000). How do relations store histories? Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 721–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitman, W. (1892/1855). Leaves of grass. Philadelphia: David McKay.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations