Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 287–305 | Cite as

Interrelationship Between Fractal Ornament and Multilevel Selection Theory

  • Olena DobrovolskaEmail author
Original Paper
  • 96 Downloads

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity is one of the features of modern science, defined as blurring the boundaries of disciplines and overcoming their limitations or excessive specialization by borrowing methods from one discipline into another, integrating different theoretical assumptions, and using the same concepts and terms. Often, theoretical knowledge of one discipline and technological advances of another are combined within an interdisciplinary science, and new branches or disciplines may also emerge. Biosemiotics, a field that arose at the crossroads of biology, semiotics, linguistics, and philosophy, enables scientists to borrow theoretical assumptions from semiotics and extend them to different biological theories. The latter applies especially to extended synthesis, wherein culture is viewed as one of the factors influencing evolution. In the present research, the semiotic system of Ukrainian folk ornament is analyzed through the theory of fractals, key features of which are recursion and self-similarity. As a result, an assumption is made about the fractal structure of culture and social life on a conceptual level. What follows is a discussion of how this assumption can contribute to the multilevel selection theory, one of the foundations of extended synthesis, which employs the concept of self-similarity at all levels of the biological hierarchy.

Keywords

Biosemiotics Multilevel selection theory Extended synthesis Ornament Fractal 

References

  1. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. A necessary Unity. New York: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, P. (2014). New thinking about biological evolution. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112, 268–275.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12125
  3. Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovill, C. (1996). Fractal geometry in architecture and design. Boston: Birkhauser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, R., Richerson, PJ. (2005). The origin and evolution of cultures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buss, L. (1987). The evolution of individuality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chenavard, A. (1836). Album de l’ornemaniste: recueil composé de fragmens d'ornemens dans tous les genres et dans tous les styles. Paris - E. Leconte.Google Scholar
  8. Chepurina, P. [Чепурина, П.Я.] (1938) Орнаментное шитье Крыма [Ornamental sewing of Crimea]. Москва–Ленинград: Всесоюзное кооперативное объединенное издательство.Google Scholar
  9. Craig, L. (2010). The so-called extended synthesis and population genetics. Biological Theory, 5(2), 117–123.  https://doi.org/10.1162/BIOT_a_00035
  10. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Vol. 1 and 2. NY: Appleton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dobrovolska, O. (2016). Pysanka as a cultural memory storage. Acta Humanitarica Universitatis Saulensis, 24, 190–196.Google Scholar
  13. Dobrovolska, O. (2017). Philosophy of Ukrainian Embroidery. Вісник ХНУ ім. В.Н. Каразіна. Серія “Теорія культури і філософія науки”, 57, 140–144.Google Scholar
  14. Duncan, M.J., Bourrat, P., DeBerardinis, J., O’Malley, M.A. (2013). Small Things, Big Consequences: Microbiological Perspectives on Biology. In: Kampourakis K. (eds) The Philosophy of Biology. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6537-5_18
  15. Eglash, R. (1999). African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eglash, R., & Odumosu, T. B. (2005). Fractals, complexity, and connectivity in Africa. In G. Sica (Ed.), What Mathematics from Africa? (pp. 101–109). Italy: Polimetrica international scientific Publisher Monza.Google Scholar
  17. Eldakar, O. T., & Wilson, D. S. (2011). Eight criticisms not to make about group selection. Evolution, 65, 1523–1526.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01290.x
  18. Emmeche, C. (1992). Modeling life: A note on the semiotics of emergence and computation in artificial and natural systems. In T. A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), Biosemiotics. The Semiotic Web 1991 (pp. 77–99). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: NLB.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, J. (1961). Art styles as cognitive maps. American Anthropologist, 63(1), 79–93.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1961.63.1.02a00050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flake, G. W. (1998). The computational beauty of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Futuyma, D. J. (1998). Evolutionary biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  23. Gardner, A. (2015). The genetical theory of multilevel selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 28(2), 305–319.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12566.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, O. (1910). The grammar of ornament. London: Quaritch. http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/DLDecArts.GramOrnJones. Accessed 12 July 2017.
  26. Kiers, E. T., & West, S. A. (2015). Evolving new organisms via symbiosis. Science, 348, 392–394.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9605
  27. Kosacheva, O. [Косачева, О.] (1876). Український народний орнамент: Вишивки, тканини, писанки [Ukrainian folk ornament: Embroidery, tissue, pysankas]. Київ.Google Scholar
  28. Kramer, J., & Meunier, J. (2016). Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: A never-ending controversy? F1000Res, 5.  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8018.1.
  29. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Labrusse, R., (2016). Grammars of ornament: Dematerialization and embodiment, from Owen Jones to Paul Klee. In: G. Necipoğlu et A. Payne (dir.), Histories of Ornament. From Global to Local, Princeton N.J., Princeton University Press, 320–333.Google Scholar
  31. Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Biological Sciences, 282(1813), 20151019.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mandelbrot, B. (1977). Fractals: Form, Chance and Dimension. WH Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif., revised edition.Google Scholar
  34. Mandelbrot, B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  35. Marks-Tarlow, T. (1999). The self as a dynamical system. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 3(4), 311–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marks-Tarlow, T. (2004). Semiotic Seams: Fractal Dynamics of Reentry. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 11(1), 49–62.Google Scholar
  37. Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1995). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Melnychuk, Y., & [Мельничук, Ю.]. (2005). Семантика українських вишитих рушників [The semantics of Ukrainian embroidered towels]. Народне мистецтво, 3–4, 59–65.Google Scholar
  40. Michod, R. E. (1997). Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of individuality. Multi-level selection of the organism. J. Am. Nat., 149, 607–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Michod, R. E. (2007). Evolution of individuality during the transition from unicellular to multicellular life. PNAS, USA., 104, 8613–8618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Müller, G. B. (2017). Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary. Interface Focus, 7(5), 20170015.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Müller, G. B., & Pigliucci, M. (2010). Extended synthesis: Theory expansion or alternative? Biological Theory, 5(3), 275–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nikishenko, J. [Нікішенко, Ю. І.] (1999). До специфіки побутування орнаментів у традиційній культурі [Pecularities of functions of ornaments in traditional culture]. Наукові записки НАУКМА. Том 13, Теорія та історія культури. Київ: КП ВД “Педагогіка", 57–63.Google Scholar
  45. Nikishenko, J. [Нікішенко, Ю. І.] (2015). Орнаментовані речі в традиційно-побутовій культурі українців: ретроспективний аналіз [The ornamented things in the Ukrainian traditional culture: retrospective analysis]. Наукові записки НАУКМА, Нац. ун-т "Києво-Могилянська академія". Т. 166: Теорія та історія культури, Київ. 55–58.Google Scholar
  46. Nikishenko, J., & Pustovalov, S. [Нікішенко, Ю. І., Пустовалов, С. Ж.]. (2012). Про походження орнаменту та ранні етапи його розвитку [About the origin of the ornament and early stages of its development]. Наукові записки НаУКМА. Теорія та історія культури, 127, 54–60.Google Scholar
  47. Nikolaeva, E. V., & [Николаева, Е. В.]. (2013). К типологии фракталов в теории культуры [On typology of fractals in the culture theory]. Вестник адыгейского государственного университета. Сер. 1. Регионоведение, 1, 46–54.Google Scholar
  48. Nikolaeva, E. V., & [Николаева, Е. В.]. (2014). Фрактальные смыслы теистических онтологий и сакральных артефактов [Fractal senses of theistic ontologies and sacred artifacts]. Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. Тамбов: Грамота, 3(1), 114–117.Google Scholar
  49. Okasha, S. (2004). Multi-level selection and the partitioning of covariance: A comparison of three approaches. Evolution, 58(3), 486–494.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Okasha, S. (2005). Multilevel selection and the major transitions in evolution. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 1013–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Onyschuk, O. (1985). Symbolism of the Ukrainian pysanka. Toronto: Harmony Printing Limited.Google Scholar
  53. Pavlutsky, H. [Павлуцький, Г.] (1927). Історія українського орнаменту [The history of Ukrainian ornament]. К. : Видавництво ВУАН.Google Scholar
  54. Pigliucci, M. (2009). An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. The Year in Evolutionary Biology 2009. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1168, 218–228.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04578.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. B. (2010). Elements of an extended evolutionary synthesis. In M. Pigliucci M & G. B. Müller (Eds.), Evolution—The extended synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pinker, S. (2012). The false allure of group selection. Edge. https://www.edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-selection. Accessed 25 July 2017.
  57. Popper, K. R. (1972). Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  58. Price, G. R. (1972). Extension of covariance selection mathematics. Annals of Human Genetics, 35, 485–490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Pudine, H. (2016). A study on dimensions of fractal geometry in Iranian architecture. Urban Management, 15(42), 257–267.Google Scholar
  60. Renzi, BG., Napolitano, G. (2011). Evolutionary analogies: Is the process of scientific change analogous to the organic change? Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Rybalko, P. [Рибалко, П.] (2010). Колекція писанок Володимира Ястребова — консолідуючий фактор національних культур [The Collection of Easter Decorated Eggs of Volodymyr Yastrebov as a Consolidating Factor of National Cultures]. Кіровоград.Google Scholar
  62. Sala, N. (2004). Fractal geometry in the arts: An overview across the different cultures. In: M. M. Novak (Ed.) Thinking in Patterns: Fractals and Related Phenomena in Nature (pp. 177–188). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  63. Sala, N. (2013). Fractal geometry and super formula to model natural shapes. IJRRAS, 16(4), 78–92.Google Scholar
  64. Selivatchov, M. (2014). Folk art of 20th century in the ethnically mixed areas (Dessarabia, Bucovina, left bank of Dniester). In W. Kuligowski & A. Pomieciński (Eds.), Art in cultural systems. Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 13–30). Wydawnictwo Nauka i Innowacje: Poznań.Google Scholar
  65. Selivatchov, M. (2015). Visual sign and its lexical designation: lexicon of ornament as a scientific problem and approach to the study of traditional culture. Международная научно-практическая конференция "Визуальная коммуникация в социокультурной динамике", 23.10.2014–23.10.2014, pp. 93–104 http://dspace.kpfu.ru/xmlui/bitstream/handle/net/30147/viscom2014-93-104.pdf;jsessionid=34503631821487AFFF922F165B409655?sequence=-1 Accessed 26 April 2017.
  66. Selivatchov, M. [Селивачёв, М.] (2013). Лексикон української орнаментики (іконографія, номінація, стилістика, типологія) [Lexicon of Ukrainian ornamentation (iconography, nomination, stylistics, typology)]. Київ: Фенікс.Google Scholar
  67. Sober, E. (2010). Darwin and group selection. In E. Sober (Ed.), Did Darwin write the origin backwards: Philosophical essays on Darwin’s theory (pp. 45–86). Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  68. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Stepin, V. S. [Степин, B. C.] (2000). Теоретическое знание [Theoretical knowledge]. М.: Прогресс-Традиция.Google Scholar
  70. Stscherbakiwskyj, W. [Щербаківський, В.] (1924). Основні елементи орнаментації українських писанок і їхнє походження [The main elements of ornamentation of Ukrainian Easter eggs and their origin]. Збірник Наукового Товариства. Прага.Google Scholar
  71. Sumtsov, N. [Сумцов, Н.] (1891). Писанки [Pysankas]. Киевская старина, Киев: Тип. Г. Т. Корчак-Новицкого.Google Scholar
  72. Toulmin, S. (1967). Neuroscience and human understanding. In G. C. Quarton, T. Melnuchuk, & F. O. Schmitt (Eds.), The neurosciences (pp. 822–832). New York: Rockefeller University Press.Google Scholar
  73. West, S. A., Fisher, R. M., Gardner, A., & Kiers, E. T. (2015). Major evolutionary transitions in individuality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 112, 10112–10119.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421402112
  74. Williams, GC. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wilson, D. S. (1975). A theory of group selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 72(1), 143–146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Re-introducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(4), 585–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilson, DS., Sober E. (2002). Précis of Unto Others and Replies to Commentators (Barrett and Godfrey-Smith, Dennett, Jamieson, and Skyrms). Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65(3): 681-684; 711-727.Google Scholar
  78. Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2007). Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 327–348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Wilson, D. S., Van Vugt, M., & O'Gorman, R. (2008). Multilevel selection theory and major evolutionary transitions: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 6–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wright, S. (1945). Tempo and mode in evolution: A critical review. Evolution, 26, 415–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yanishevska, N. S., & [Янішевська Н. С.]. (2012). Теоретико-мистецтвознавчі підходи до розуміння появи та суті орнаменту [Theoretical and critical approaches to understanding of the sense of ornament]. Вісник Харківської державної академії дизайну та мистецтв. Х.: ХДАДМ, 12, 113–118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyKharkiv National University of RadioelectronicsKharkivUkraine

Personalised recommendations