BIOLOGY AND HUMANITARIAN CULTURE:
THE PROBLEM OF INTERPRETATION IN
BIO-HERMENEUTICS
AND IN THE HERMENEUTICS OF BIOLOGY

Sergei V. Chebanov

In: LECTURES IN THEORETICAL BIOLOGY:The Second Stage
(K.Kull, T.Tiivel, eds.) Tallinn, Estonian Academy of Sciences, 1993

Contents

1.The problem
1.1.Biology and the two cultures
1.2.Interpretation of biology and humanities
1.3.Domains of biology/humanities interaction
1.4.Types of interpretation processes in biology
1.5.The status of interpretation in biology
2.Biohermeneutics: the interpretation processes in a living being
2.1.The status of biohermeneutics
2.2.Molecular genetic processes
2.3.Intercellular recognition
2.4.Interorganism recognition
2.5.Language communication in man
2.6.Morphology of biohermeneutics
3.The hermeneutics of biology: interpreting enlogue of sensible being
with living being
3.1.SB-LB enlogue
3.2.Ontological and epistemological hermeneutics of biology
3.3.Hermeneutics of the fragments of the world: interpretation of LB
3.4.Hermeneutics of biologist: interpretation of SB
3.5.Hermeneutics of biological research: interpreting enlogues
3.6.Hermeneutics of biological conceptions: interpretation of enlogy
3.7.Non-fiction hermeneutics: interpretation of biological text
3.8.Morphology of the hermeneutics of biology
4.Conclusion. Life as interpretation process

Abstract. The appeals to look for the ways of unification of natural
and humanitarian disciplines have been mainly declarative because of
their unconstructiveness, while the problem of interpretation seems to
present a great perspective in the sense that it affects the
professional instrumentarium both of biologists and humanitarians,
making use of the interdisciplinary movement in both directions.
Biohermeneutics considers interpretation in the spheres of molecular
genetic processes, of intercellular and interorganism recognition, and
of language communication. The main object of interpretation in the
hermeneutics of biology is the enlogue (quasi-dialogue) of a sensible

                            -220-

being and a living being (SB and LB), with all its components: LB, SB,
the enlogue itself, enlogy, and the related text.
               Considering interpretation processes (IP) enables us to
trace and systematize a wide spectrum of interactions between biology
and humanitarian culture.
               The uniqueness of biology comes from the fact that it
consideres a great variety of IPs. Life itself can be regarded as a
universal IP. In this case, biohermeneutical processes form the basis
for the hermeneutics of biology. It means that humanitarization
becomes apparent both in the semiotization of biology and in the
biologization of philologically-oriented humanitarian culture.


1. The problem

1.1. Biology and the two cultures

The subject to be discussed here is the relationship between biology
as one of natural sciences and humanitarian culture of the society
within which biologists live. In this connection, two claims are to be
pointed out.
  A. The opposition of natural sciences (especially biology) and
humanitarian culture is unacceptable per se: there are some works
which are difficult to associate with any of the two spheres, mostly
due to their position in the cross-section of the disciplines. Also,
there are others where new aspects of the given subject are revealed,
to the effect that it turns out to be withdrawn from its ordinary
thematic surrounding. E.g., using A. Durer's perspective drawing
technique, suitable for only one person's work, leads to the forming
of biologists' individualism [23]; the problem of visual perception,
torn out of thematic field of psychology, is thus used to form a new
field in methodology and history of biology. The cross-lights like
these are inevitable interrelations between humanitarian culture and
natural sciences, because the same realities are considered within
their scope.
  Another aspect of this unity lies in the sameness of psychological
processes involved in the research in different spheres. We see it in
the activity of the personalities (for instance, Renaissance titans)
whose intellectual power manifests itself in many domains where they
define their specific treatment of the material.
  B. Most people attach importance to the culturally determined and
socially significant division of any activity. That is why, to
organize its activity reliably, culture needs live patterns which
produce correspondent castes, professions, social roles, etc., to
allow to translate the traditions and skills into the guild education,
and build up a specific style of everyday life.
  The opposition 'natural scientists versus humanitarian scholars' is
significant. However, this is rather a difference in the norms of the
presentation of individual features than an essential opposition of
the nature of man (though these groups do differ in predominant
psychological types, male/female and young/old proportions etc.) which
makes it possible to oppose natural sciences and humanitarian culture
[51].
  Both a breach between the spheres (the break-up of a culture) and
the disappearance of the patterns of professional activities (the
dissolution of a

                             -221-

culture) are equally destructive. Given that, we are now to define our
attitude towards the calls from everywhere in the cultural spectrum to
restore the unity and the wholeness of culture (at the same time,
primitive syncretism is actually absent). It seems incorrect to speak
of the break-up of our culture - its unity is kept up by the
personalities of a great scale - or of the possibility to uphold this
unity by every individual. These calls to wholeness are symptomatic of
the new state of culture, when the division of activities (absent in
Antiquity and Middle Ages) has become inadequate in regard to the
cultural situation, which requires a new division wiping off
interdisciplinary boundaries. Considering all this, here will be
discussed the interaction of biology and humanities.

1.2. Interaction of biology and humanities

Present scripts of the interaction are too dim, be it the calls for
morally responsible attitude towards living beings (LB,) or protective
environmentalists' 'Back-to-Nature' programmes. Such proposals are
ineffective, because biology is a professionally structured sphere of
instrumental activity, and any transformation is conceivable only if
the professional instrumentarium is affected. That is why
interdisciplinary contacts affecting operationally significant
structures of biology are considered here. Two kinds of such contacts
are distinguished: 1) biological conceptions presenting humanitarian
importance, and 2) new results in humanities valid for professional
work of biologists, when non-trivial cross-frame interpretation of the
results changes their pragmatic foci [6].

1.3. Domains of biology/humanities interaction

Archaic forms of the biology/humanities interaction (BHI) are the
totemization of the LB and the anthropomorphic conception of its
behaviour, typical of the primitive syncretic mind. Thus, modern
everyday thought ascribes to animals an ability to think, while a more
correct handling of this problem should belong to zoopsychology. In
Abrahamic religions, the conception of the Book of Life is developed
[3] with all LBs presented in the Book, and where the problem of
animal language arises [37]; nowadays this matter is relegated to
zoosemiotics [46] and biosemiotics [53; 49].
  Cultural premises of professional activity, including biology, are
considered in metabletics (historical psychology) studies in Leyden,
where family life, sex and age differences, social status and style of
life are examined [14; 23]. In the context, inexplicable growth of
population in Europe in the first quarter of the 18th century, Linne's
revolution in the description of plants, and the appearance of
"L'esprit des Lois" by Montesquieau are juxtaposed. Similar problems
are discussed by F.Verdoorn in his biohistory, where the relations
between man and the LB, and the cultural reflection of these
relations, are under examination [57; 58]. The Institute of Biohistory
in Utrecht investigates dogmatic, psychological and philosophical
premises of biological conceptions in various cultures, also the
continuity and succession of biological ideas and schools, using not
only treatises but folk bestiaria, legends and myths, and

                                -222-

studying the etymology of taxonomic names and the symbolics of
biology. Methods of H. Garfinkel's ethnomethodology include
ethnolinguistics (ethnosemantics) in the domain of biohistory. It is
important for biologists because man's everyday life has its
biological components (sleep, nourishing, reproduction). Studies of
the sacralization of LBs (particularly in the Bible) and mythical
conceptions of LBs both belong to the domain of biohistory.
  Other approaches are being developed in order to restore the old
natural area of an organism, using toponymic data and
pharmacolinguistic methods [28; 2; 5] which allow to identify
medicinal plants.
  The investigations like these concern, first of all, non-European
cultures, or the European ones belonging to different epochs; their
objective is to find out main distinctions between those conceptions
and the views of modern Western science. The principles of research of
the latter are quite different: on the one hand, the specific features
of mentality are regarded as extra-scientific factors, and on the
other, from the point of view of sociological research of science such
concepts as paradigms and scientific revolutions (T. Kuhn), logic of
the development of science (I. Lacatos), or, on the contrary, the
theory of the anarchy of knowledge (P.K. Feyerabend), are introduced.
  In these investigations, non-biological realities are used to
explain biological conceptions, and it is in this way that we can
explain the absence of any organic ecological paradigm by a
non-ecological understanding of the Bible, by industrial technology
and social discord.

1.4. Types of interpretation processes in biology

Here the leading role of biology is accepted, so, in order to bring
the interpretation processes (IP) into a system, the scheme of
biological research proposed in [9] will be used together with
arguments and terms (marked by "*") introduced there. Fig.1 contains
12 types of IPs, including IP 1, proceeding inside a LB (DNA
transcription, immunological recognition, etc). To describe the IPs, 5
modes of comprehension taken from the humanitarian culture may be used
(see Table 1, paying special attention to the hermeneutization of
pragma-linguistics 3 we witness nowadays). Then, the IPs from Fig. 1
may be characterized in the following way:
1)Enlogue 4 immanent to a LB, without any interpretation by sensible
being* (SB)(cf. [50]).
2)Enlogue of an empiricist (empiricist biologist) with a LB.
_______________________
     3. Pragma-linguistics is a modern view on language considering
the unity of communicative and cognitive phenomena in their broad
actual context [52,56].
     4. The mutually active and reciprocally changing interactions of
the SB and the LB are an enlogue, where the organization of one being
is projected into another. Like a dialogue, the enlogue is a unity of
construction and cognition. As a result, one of the beings forms an
image, an enlogy of the other. The being which reveals part of its
properties as a thing and is transformed by other beings, is an
enlogy.

                            -223-

      Fig.1.Interpretational processes in biological research.

3)Empiricists' interaction (dialogues which can be in the background
  of enlogues), their interpretation of each other's professional
  discourse (oral, written, or epistolary).
4)Interaction of empiricists' community with theorists. It involves
  dialogues and enlogues, and, especially, reflexive experiment*, and
  is described contraversively.
5)Enlogue of a theorist and a generic being (GB) generated by him. The
  data are scarce and only concern mathematics [21].
6)Personal contacts between theorists are rather similar to (3), but
  differ depending on the branch of cognition (in the set of thematic
  cliches, in the level of reflection and self-reflection, in the
  intensity of interdisciplinary contacts).
Another group of interactions (IP 7-12) - may appear to be more
numerous at closer examination - is that of a methodologist's IPs. Its
significance and volume have so far been underestimated by biologists.

                             -224-

7)Enlogue of a methodologist with IP 2 is available only to a
  methodologist deeply immersed in an empiricists' work, and can
  influence IP 2, but this influence is, as a rule, interpreted as
  negative, because success of empirical research is usually evaluated
  as an empiricist's merit.
8)Dialogue between a methodologist and an empiricist, especially about
  IP 2 and its results. Sometimes this dialogue can change into
  enlogue, and is complicated by a considerable difference in
  thesaurus, methods and intentions of the author concerning the
  partners.
9)Enlogue with a theorist's enlogue with the GB (similar to IP 7) is
  extremely difficult to describe because of the dimness of IP 5.
10)The dialogue between a methodologist and a theorist is more
  intensive than a similar dialogue 8 because of the theorist's
  developed abilities to cogitate. The subject matter of this IP can
  be enlogue 5 and its results, or dialogue 6 either IPs 2 or 3.
  Potentially, this dialogue (locally becoming enlogue) includes all
  the methodological work.
11)Enlogue (locally transformed into a dialogue with a group of
  scientists) of a methodologist with a biologist's work. It is
  especially directed at a methodologist's influence upon the process
  of interaction between an empiricist and a theorist.
12)Enlogue of a biologist and a text. In the case of empiricists
  (12a), the enlogue is orientated to the facts and methodics, in that
  of a theorist (12b), to the methodics and data, and, in that of a
  methodologist (12c), to the methodics and methodologies.

1.5. The status of interpretation in biology
 
IPs are inherent not only in biology as a science, but also in the
very LB (cf. physiological mechanisms of intellectual and speech
behaviour) as an object of inquiry, and this fact distinguishes the LB
from the objects of inquiry in physics, where only in discussion of
some philosophical issues of certain conceptions (Copenhagen quantum
mechanics interpretation, the problem of hidden variables) that the
question of the objects' reciprocal interpretation can arise.
  The difference between biology and sciences concerned with man
consists in the impossibility
.............................
only one legitimate way of generating GBs). Thus, IPs 1, 2, 4, and 5
are specific to biology and determine the key position of the problem
of interpretation in this domain.
  For modern pragma-linguistics in its hermeneutizied aspects the
problem of interpretation also plays a crucial role, so we take this
problem for our study in order to try and reveal the interaction
between biology and humanitarian culture.

                             -225-

2. Biohermeneutics: interpretation processes in a living being


2.1. The status of biohermeneutics

This domain connected with enlogue 1 is usually regarded from the
point of view of semiotics and is defined as biosemiotics. It would be
better to define it as biohermeneutics, which includes the semiotic
aspect of the LB as a centaur-object 5. In this connection, somatic
and physiological organization of a LB is functioning as a
semantophore* - an exponent of the semiotic unit whose nature of the
substratum is important to its semiotic performance.


     ES1------- ES2------- ES2'- - -  - - -
      1    5     1     5'   1        1      1
      1 4        1  6       1 6'     1      1
      1          1          1        1      1
     EF1        EF2        EF2'      1      1
      1          1          1        1      1
      1 3        1  7       1  7'    1      1
      1          1          1        1      1
     CF1        CF2        CF2'      1      1
      1          1          1        1      1
      1 2        1  8       1  8'    1      1
      1          1          1        1      1
     CS1        CS2        CS2'
       \        /          /        /      /
        \1     / 9        /9'      /      /
         \    /  10      /        /      /
          LB ------- LB'- - - - - - - -
        state       state

Fig.2.Structure of semiotic means in semiosis and interpretation
processes
________________________________________________________
5.Centaur-object is characterized by heterogenety, heterohierarchity,
and heterochronity, i.e. it has many semantical dimentions
(interdisciplinary descriptive pictures), and each of them describes
it as a unity of substratum (semantophore) as well as its sense [27].


                                -226-

  In the terms introduced in [22], this process of semiosis is
schematically represented in Fig. 2. On the left, the synthesis of a
semiotic means is described (indexes 1), on the right - the process of
its analysis (indexes 2).

2.2. Molecular genetic processes

The most revealing is the concept of the genetic code. The very idea
has a strong semiotic background, and its humanitarian sources are
mediated by the idea of coding technique in communication.
Nevertheless, crucial here is the understanding that we have to do
with a code rather than with an ordinary object [61]. Another crucial
point is that the relation between content (C) and expression (E) is
not motivated (the properties of amino acids cannot be deduced from
the properties of nucleotide triplets) (Fig. 2, Relation 3), which
testifies to the semiotic and not physical or chemical essence of the
code. The t-RNA structure provides this non-motivatedness, because its
adaptors and acceptors are combined according to historically formed
norms and not after the laws of causal conditioning (cf. artificial
t-RNA with violated norms of adaptor-acceptor combination). On the
semiologic basis, a wide practice of operation with genetic texts is
now formed, not very different from traditional lexicography
(card-indexes of DNA primary sequences corresponding to the
content-substance 1 (CS1), or m-RNA consequences corresponding to the
expression-substance 1 (ES1)).
  The direct and inverse degeneration of the code, linearity of
nucleotide chains, triplets - punctuation signs, etc. - all these
require a linguistic approach, while within philological approach the
question of text homonymy arises (though genosystematics denies the
very possibility of it). On the basis of linguistic methods, the banks
of nucleotide and amino acid sequences are created (Gene Bank, USA;
EMPL, Germany). Such facts as DNA transcription in two directions, DNA
with a frame shift, and the existence of nontranscribed sections,
bring to mind philological concepts of palindromes, letter sequences
allowing more than one division into words, anagrams.
  Some investigations introduce the study of molecular genetic
mechanisms into the sphere of hermeneutics. Firstly, the importance of
ES1 is revealed - thus, the frequency of point mutations, due to the
isomorphism of CS1 and ES1, is treated as a result of DNA nucleotide
tautomery [30]. The necessary level of mutability is kept by the
correction of a part of mutations by the systems of reparation. So,
similarly to the importance of the author's and the copyist's
personalities and their relationship in hermeneutics [11], the CS1 and
the processes of m-RNA transcription, translation and maturation turn
out to be important to semantics, as they determine the meaning of
ES1' (relations 2-4 in Fig. 2).
  Secondly, the role of diversity is made clear. In biosynthesis
(carried out from decoding a text to its interpretation), attention is
centred on the code degeneration, frame shift, the interaction of
regulative elements, and splicing - all these providing for the
necessary correlation of C1 and E1, with one gene being able to answer
for the synthesis of up to 15 products.

                             -227-

  With even greater variability can peptides be interpreted (rel.
6-8). Their activity depends on the state of the cell (cf. diversity
of text interpretation); the cell state changes like a personal image
of the world as a result of a comprehension of a text.
  Thirdly, 'Pythagorean' works in the arithmology of genetic code [59;
26] together with the revealing of exon-domain correlations, lead to
the determining of the motivatedness of genetic symbols [13]. The IP
(rel. 5-9) consists, e.g., in the activity of fermentative centres
(expression-form EF2) of related proteins (ES2) formed by tertiary and
quaternary structures (rel. 5). It changes the proportion of
substratum and product (content-form CF2), generating the changes in
physiological processes (CS2) characteristic of the cell state
(intracellular 'Umwelt' [56]). Thus, genetic texts function as
performatives, while the interpretation of genetic symbols is carried
out inside a cell.
  Let us similarly, though more briefly, dwell upon other
biohermeneutic processes.

2.3. Intercellular recognition

To this group of the processes belong immunological recognition, the
penetration of a virus into a cell, of a spermatozoon into an ovule,
the interaction of a hormone with a target-cell, and that of a
mediator and postsynaptic membrane. In principle, the scheme is the
same, but it gets going by the ES2'-EF2'-CF2'-ES2' components secreted
by a cell (rel. 5'), while the semantophore can be modified, acquiring
ES2' as its expression. Then the functional groups, or domains (EF2'),
are to be recognized by the correspondent receptors of the membrane,
and are to change their states (CF2') so as to initiate the related
process (CS2''), modifying the state of a cell which, in its turn, can
indirectly (rel. 10) influence the genome of the first cell (the
epigenetic component, though important, here is not taken into
consideration).
  The intercellular recognition builds up intraorganism communication,
using the chains of intercellular contacts (nervous system) or
semantophores produced by some and transferred to other cells
(hormones).

2.4. Interorganism recognition

Three different situations must be distinguished here.

2.4.1. Rel. 5' corresponds to the bringing of the semantophore not
only out of a cell, but out of the organism itself. These are
secondary metabolic products of microorganisms, pheromones and markers
of a territory [32], which, like in the case above, are to be
recognized and used to initiate related processes. 2.4.2. Rel. 5' also
reflect the forming of behavioural signals, such as sounds or gestures
intended for neural perception. In this case, the ES2' semantophore
proves to be a functional manifestation of a phenotype as a result of
molecular genetic processes. The perception of ES2'is based on
determining the

                            -228-

invariants of perception [41; 18] - EF2' - based on functional
morphology of the brain. The EF2' initiates related neural process,
thus forming CF2' and CS2'.

2.4.3. The third situation uses as ES2' an object which is not a
communicative means of an organism, but is, nevertheless, perceived by
a LB as semantophor. The perception is based on determining the
invariants of perception (EF2'), which constitute the Umwelt of the
organism. The EF2' is also used to construct the image of a situation
(CS2') and its representation (CF2'). So, all kinds of these processes
are analogues to the cellular IPs, but the former are brought out of
the organism (cf. LB dialogue with the environment [50]).

2.5. Language communication in man

Here CS1 appears as the mental representation of an object or
situation (a significat), whose logical structure organizes CF1 (a
concept) expressed by psychical means of EF1 (determined by the
natural language), and ES1 chosen by the addressant. Then the text can
be somehow transformed (e.g., pronounced aloud, transmitted in some
way, copied if written, etc., rel. 5 - 5'), and therefore ES2 can
differ from ES1. Then, ES2 is to be perceived by an addressee (rel.
5') to form EF2 (strictly speaking, its analogue EF2', which can
differ from EF1 in, e.g., theme-rheumatic organization). By rel.7
(7'), not quite identical to rel. 3, CF2 is formed, and the latter
induces its representation CS2 as a result of interpretation. Here
rel. 2-4 are mental processes, 1 and 5 - processes of physiological
reception (see 3. 4-2), 6 - percepti on of visual or acoustic (on the
two formants [24]) image, 7,8 and 9 - psychophysiological processes,
and the rest are based on physiological components (cf. brain codes
[41; 7]).

2.6. Morphology of biohermeneutics

So, in Fig. 2 four groups of IPs are presented, three of them are
biological, and one is linguistic. The study of different stages of
these processes, and the attitudes towards them, are various.
  In the study of all the processes, the main attention has been paid
to ES2 and EF2, and to their rel.6 (the study consisting mainly in
picking out semantically relevant components of the exponent). The
most striking example is the formant conception of the recognition of
phonemes, involving psychophysiological mechanisms 6 . The least
studied is rel. 3, treated as correlative (the mechanism of
correlation can obviously be observed in adaptor-acceptor relations in
t-RNA).
  Rel. 1 and 2 are better investigated in terms of molecular genetic
processes and, partly, as the sphere of human communication and
cognition
____________________________________________________

6.Formant conception of phoneme recognition is a theorical
construction of a new type comparable to the conception of t-RNA
structure. The constructions like should strve as a basis for
theoretical biology.

                            - 229-

(cognitive linguistics, ethnosemantics, psycholinguistic studies of
reference). Rel. 4 is considered in detail in the studies in molecular
genetics, and, in some measure, is used to describe processes in other
domains (such as natural language, in generative phonetics). Rel. 5
attracts the attention of biologists as well as of specialists in the
theory of communication.
  The process of rel. 7 is always multiform and has diverse
consequences. Biologists study it in all the three groups of
situations, whereas philologists do so mainly phenomenologically.
There are some sporadic studies of rel.8 and 9 (10). Of particular
interest is the research on the languages of brain, which potentially
unifies biology with linguistics [41; 7; 18].
  Speaking about rel. 3 and 4, the attempt to describe them in
generative grammar is to be noted. But these relations are considered
independently from psychophysiological processes. Biologists, on the
contrary, carry out close studies of the mechanisms and semantophores
(inquiries in nucleic acids and their functioning in the molecular
biology of the gene).
  The general tendency, briefly, is for phenomenology to be described
by linguists, and the mechanisms by biologists. Thus, biologists, so
to speak, consider a text together with its author, printing-press,
and reader (2.5) [49], while among philological disciplines only
hermeneutics take all these into its scope, whereas other branches
consider the text out of its broad actual context.
  In view of structural isomorphism of the four mentioned groups of
processes, we postulate their self-modelling relations*: 2.3 in 2.4
and 2.5; 2.4.1 in 2.4.2 and 2.5; 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 in 2.4.5. That can be
represented in Fig. 2 as continuing to build new chains on the right.
  Accordingly, any hermeneutic interpretation where a human being is
considered as an interpreter, involves biohermeneutics as a
constituent, thus involving the theoretical basis of hermeneutics.
  It should be noted that the hermeneutics has been forming along with
the physicalist study of the semantophore, and the idea of the
existence of a plan du contenu has been introduced only in extreme
situations, thus performing a leap in the cognition of the world [61;
32; 38]. What we are to witness is that the formation of
biohermeneutics is inconceivable without the humanitarian conceptions,
and here is one of the aspects of the humanitarization of biology
[45].


3. The hermeneutics of biology: interpreting enlogue of a sensible
being with living being

3.1. SB-LB enlogue

In even greater measure the humanitarization is relevant to the
postulation of biology as a scientific discipline, and - more broadly
- for all the SB-LB interactions (various kinds of enlogues). These
enlogues include 5 components: the SB, the LB, the enlogue itself (IP
2), enlogy* and the text where the enlogy is fixed.

                                -230-

  Every component  of  an  enlogue  can  be variously interpreted from
different points of  view  -  those  of  common  thinking,  mythology,
religion,  and  also  professional  ones,  such  as  those of biology,
medicine,  veterinary,  agriculture,  or forestry,  etc., and those of
philosophy, ideology, art, and engineering (especially biotechnology).
The interpretations are concerned not only with 'scientific'  biology,
and it is natural to treat the biological conceptions in this way in a
general survey.  Now, however, we discuss the interpretations relevant
to the interaction of biology and humanities, treating the SB, the LB,
the  enlogue  and  partly  the  enlogy   within   the   framework   of
Heidegger-Gadamer   hermeneutics,   and  the  text  -  in  traditional
hermeneutic understanding.

3.2. Ontological and epistemological hermeneutics of biology

All the enlogue components can be considered in two ways  -  answering
the  question  concerning  the  degree of their fitness to reflect the
nature of a LB,  or giving an answer to the question of what  and  why
the   component   is,   what  it  is.  These  topics  are  considered,
respectively,  in  the  ontological  hermeneutics  (OHB,  showing  the
relations  between the essence of the LB and the enlogue),  and in the
epistemological hermeneutics  of  biology  (EHB,  concerned  with  the
nature of means used to achieve a goal).
  The character of OHB  is  of  normative  value.  OHB  qualifies  the
components  of  cognitive  activity concerning LBs as unacceptable (if
they do not reflect the LBs'  nature),  or  acceptable  only  to  some
extent.   In   scientific  biology,  OHB  practically  coincides  with
methodology, but there is no Midas' paradox in OHB [42]. The main task
is,  therefore,  to  reveal how the reconstruction of the essence from
the phenomena can be carried out (latent structures from the  explicit
ones,  the  whole  from  its  part,  live state from fossils),  how to
distinguish facts from artefacts,  to evaluate the biomorphness of the
components of inquiry, and to establish the referents of suggestions.
  EHB considers any professional activity of a biologist regardless of
whether  it  gives  any  adequate representation of the LB's nature or
not.  In the absence of any normativity,  the task is to interpret the
relation  of  the  SB and the LB,  be it fruitful and methodologically
correct or not, whether its results be adequate or false; that is why,
from this point of view, the works containing methodological faults or
containing none,  made by students  or  by  respectable  scholars,  by
people  with  mental  diseases,  or  those  in an affected state,  are
equally interesting.
  The methodology  of  biology can also be interpreted by EHB,  and if
so,  methodology must be included in OHB,  while other  components  of
biology are the subject-matter of EHB.

3.3. Hermeneutics of the fragments of the world: interpretation of the
LB

The socio-cultural types differ in their interpretation of the LB: for
instance,  vitalist  biologist  on  one hand,  and reductionist on the
other,  involving a system and semiotic conceptions or not, etc. It is
possible  to  elucidate  two  circumstances  - in 1) the result of the
interpretation depends on the point of

                                -231-

view, and - less trivial - in 2) the proponents of different points of
view  can  reach  agreement  on  what they interpret deictically (i.e.
indicating the referent in a set of objects,  in a collection, or in a
kitchen  or  vegetable  garden).  On  this  is  based  the comparative
questionnaire method  of  the  research  of  the
.....................................................................

3.4. Hermeneutics of a biologist: interpretation of the SB

Primitive syncretic mind typically identifies a SB with a LB - a totem
attributes to a SB the habits of a LB, and in common thinking and folk
psychology the comparisons of a person  with  some  animal  are  still
widespread.  Generally  speaking,  a SB is a morphologically organized
interpreter,  and the traces of  its  organization  can  be  found  in
correspondent enlogy, which, thereby, turns out to be anthropomorphic.
This  anthropomorpho-generative  orientation  of  a  SB  prevailed  in
Biblic,  medieval and Renaissance tradition in Europe, and within this
framework a SB in its cognition of a LB is regarded as acting  in  its
unique  way,  proceeding  from  its  individual  attitude  towards the
situation. As a reaction to this, there appears new Galilean-Cartesian
scientific  methodology,  where the anthropomorphism is to be overcome
by the explication of human cognitive abilities (vision,  mind, simple
manipulations),  thus  reducing  a SB to an unstructured point subject
(as opposed to a  structured  object),  and  where  cognition  in  the
boundaries   of  logicoepistemiologic  approach  is  understood  as  a
reflection [1]. In the recent decades, some attention has been paid to
the  cognitive activity of a subject,  and the subject itself has been
again endowed with various abilities,  including the activity of a SB,
seen again as a personality [39]. This latter view is that of EHB.
  The concept of a SB as a personality  of  a  biologist  requires  to
accept, at least, the following components:

1. Culture,  and,  first of all,  ideology, including the professional
one.  Mastering his culture by a  personality  implies  education  and
up-bringing  as special 'standartizers' of personality.  Of particular
importance is the professional culture of a biologist  (his  awareness
of  methods and theories),  which should be an unalienable part of the
general culture  (where  humanitarian  interpretations  of  biological
conceptions  are  also represented,  see 3.5).  To European tradition,
involving Biblic idea of a human as a sovereign,  biomorphism  is  not
proper  (as opposed to Indian tradition,  within which the relation of
the SB and the LB is  based  on  metapsychosis),  and  the  hylozoism,
except Aristotle, Paracelsus and, say, Steiner's anthroposophy, is not
presented in it,  while theo-,  anthropo-,  and  physico-centrism  are
developed,  orientated  in  Europe  to  substrate conceptions,  and in
America - to the functional ones.  Its ideology has  also  changed  in
time:  in the Middle Ages dominated intensional conceptions, in Modern
Time - extensional*.

                                  -232-

2. The social structure projected into a biologist (is  considered  in
metabletics and biohistory studies).

3. The   paradigms   (for   instance,  means  of  organization  of  an
'intellectual eye' [20]) comprise some 'canonized'  fragments  of  the
world  picture,  and  all  the new concepts are to be conciliated with
them.  Some  components  of  the  paradigm  can  become   objects   of
reflection.  In some cases any norms are rejected (cf.  anarchy theory
of knowledge).

4. Mentality as a set of unconscious ideas  about  certain  realities,
lying  implicitly  in  the  mind  of  a representative of this or that
social association.  In professional activity it takes a form of tacit
knowledge,  which is of particular influence on the expert performance
of a biologist [39].

5. The natural language as one of the facets of mentality discussed in
this  respect  in ethnolinguistic (ethnosemantic) studies initiated by
W.  Humboldt and continued by E.  Sapir and B.  Worf.  Studies in folk
taxonomy  and  reference  [29;  31]  are particularly important to the
understanding of the personality of a biologist-systematist.

6. The ethnical belonging of a SB,  as one of the factors defining its
mentality.  We mean by ethnos,  firstly, the ethnos in its traditional
definition,  characterized by a language,  a life-style, customs, etc.
Ideology,  which  forms  national  world  outlook,  is also ethnically
specific [16]. Thus, Byzantine tradition with integrity as its highest
value,  having  been incorporated into the Russian national mentality,
led to the appearance of such personalities in science as T.D. Lysenko
and M.M.  Bakhtin (observed by B.M.  Gasparov,  pers. comm.). Subjects
like this,  including the  problem  of  cross-cultural  interpretation
[36],  are  considered by psychological,  dogmatic and ethnobiological
trends of biohistory.
  Secondly, a sort of quasi-ethnos is being build up among biologists,
with such features as  field-work  and,  so,  being  bounded  up  with
seasons,  the  connectedness  of systematists with classical languages
via their terminology and nomenclature [52],  intensive  international
contacts,  similarities  in  the  organization  of laboratories,  data
processing,  means of communication,  etc., up to eating similar food.
Therefore,  methods of ethnology must be used for description, then we
shall be able to see that obviously mythological elements are included
in  the  professional  paradigm  (e.g.,  the  opposition  'Hero versus
Anti-hero' is realized in the confronting of heredity and variability,
and also in mutations and systems of reparation).

7. Psychosomatic  organization of a SB.  It comprises the specifics of
motorics,  personal schedule of day and regimen of sleep  -  in  other
words,  the  peculiarities  of  everyday  life  inevitably influencing
professional activity.  Thus,  an inclination for strict and  detailed
argumentation   and  taxonomy  is  apparently  linked  with  excessive
sphincter constipation,  depending,  in its turn, on the eating habits
and  physical activities.

                                -233-

  That kind  of  correlations  are  in  the scope of metabletics,  and
having been studied,  can be useful in a purposeful  bringing  up  SBs
able for fine expert work,  which we see, in the sphere of science, in
the Pythagorean unions (cf.  their ban on eating beans) or in  gnostic
sects,  and  out  of  the  sphere,  in  mystical practices.  Nowadays,
however,  biological investigations are carried out by the SBs  highly
obtused by their abiological way of life.  At the same time,  although
there were some attempts to use man's parapsychological  abilities  in
biologists' work, their consequences can be regarded as destructive to
culture.

  Usually, by most people,  the seven mentioned claims are treated  as
disputable  and depending on one's will,  but the two following,  as a
rule,  are taken by  'naive'  methodologists  for  granted,  as  basic
without any proof.

8. Biological interpretation of a SB.  Since a man as a SB acts in the
structure of biological species  Homo  sapiens  (G.P.  Tschedrovitsky,
pers.   comm.),   its  biological  characteristics  are  important  to
understand it  as  an  interpreter  of  the  LB.  First  of  all,  the
species-specific traits of reception,  the adequacy of an irritator to
receptor  as  a  condition  of  perception,  and  the  mechanisms   of
perceptional  invariants  (2.4.2,  the  circle  is  made  up)  must be
considered here because of the central  role  of  all  these  for  the
forming  of  enlogy  or  Umwelt with definite characteristics.  Beside
that,  the functional states of a SB are  also  important  because  of
their influence on the LB (e.g., cells' reaction to the state of women
biologists  during  the  studies  of  mitogenetic  rays),  and   man's
microflora,  which is to be taken into account by microbiologists. The
studies in this field should actually pass from systemic reductive* to
organic*  consideration  of the biology of Homo sapiens transformed by
its psycho-social organization.

9. Psychological organization of a SB.  An important task here  is  to
reveal  a SB belonging to a certain psychological type - rational (rt)
or emotional (em); extra- or intravertive, etc. - and, accordingly, to
find out the kind of enlogue taking part in which is preferable to the
SB,  and also to establish the degree of coherence between the SB  and
the  LB  under consideration,  SB's biographic circumstances providing
for its awareness in the LBs,  etc.  (cf. psychological and biographic
trends in biohistory).  Moreover,  psychological accentuations, mental
and somatic pathologies should not be disregarded,  due to their  role
in  forming  the  professional  profile of a personality.  Thus,  many
systematists are careless and disorderly in their everyday life, which
is compensated in their professional activity.  For revealing the true
motives of one's activity,  the methods of psychoanalysis can be used,
and  the  EHB then can be regarded as a special kind of psychoanalysis
of  biologists'  collective  unconscious,  which,   in   contrast   to
individual psychoanalysis, is not yet sufficiently elaborated.
  The above observations on the organization of a  SB  resolve  mainly
the tasks related to OHB,  being,  nevertheless, important to EHB with
respect to the projection of SB's organization onto LB.  In this case,
if  the  SB  is  considered  as  an unstructured subject,  the type of
projected structure  cannot  be conjectured.

                                -234-

But, on the other hand,  an opposite danger exists - that of inability
to see anything but his own reflection,  his own  properties  (cf.  in
Persian poetry:  a sage in love, moving apart the curls of his beloved
Truth to see her face,  sees only a mirror with his own reflection  in
it).  A  special  inquiry  into  this  problem allows to find the SB's
orientation to a certain type of enlogue,  its activity within it, and
the true motives of this activity.

3.5. Hermeneutics of biological research: interpreting enlogues

The contact  between  SBs and LBs implies different types of enlogues,
be it totem,  occultist practice,  putting into practice algorithmized
methodics, or a dialogue. One more enlogue, beside those shown in Fig.
1,  is relevant to biology - enlogue 13,  when the  biologists  regard
human  beings  as  LBs  living  in  a culture;  and also enlogue 14 of
humanitarians and biology as a scientific discipline.
  The central  position  in biology occupies its most specific enlogue
2,  in which the LB  reacts  to  the  very  process  of  investigation
(through biological fields,  its organs of sense, the active component
of its behaviour).  The description of this enlogue refers  mainly  to
the  competence  of  psychology and psychological trend in biohistory.
The type of enlogue is determined  by  the  SB  orientation  (rt,  em,
etc.),  by  the  degree  of affinity of the biologist and the LB under
study (biomorphity*),  which can vary in the contacts  with  different
taxa (taxon-specifics*).
  In degenerated cases,  when only rt component is used,  the  enlogue
transforms  into  scientific instrumental investigation.  This type of
activity is widely accepted in Western science,  but it should be rare
in  biology;  though mimiced by many biologists in their works even if
the  essence  of  the  work  is  just  the  contrary  to  instrumental
investigation.
  The simpliest way of enlogue interpretation is its checking  against
the  declared  methodics  (referring  to  component 1 of the SB) as an
action of OHB.  Immediately,  we  find  the  divergences  between  the
results of OHB and EHB.  It can be revealed,  e.g.,  that IP2 has been
the enlogue of an expert (determined by the components 4,  8, 9 of the
SB),   whereas  it  has  been  described  as  a  realization  of  some
operational  techniques.  Thus,  by  means  of  a  successful  act  of
interpretation,   we  arrive  at  the  reconstruction  of  ontological
structure of process 2.  In this  connection,  the  socially  accepted
degree  of  admissible  non-coincidence  is  to  be  noted between the
process and its qualification;  in other words, there exists a norm of
deviation  from  the normal situation (an element of comp.  3).  Thus,
nowadays biometrical standards are accepted as imperative.  But  while
they seem to be followed (the comp.  1 of the SB, interpreted in OHB),
there  are  very  few  works  at  our  disposal  where  the  type   of
distribution  would be defined,  the precision index of the experiment
would be calculated,  and the necessary  volume  of  sample  would  be
determined. Nevertheless, the works are regarded as quite correct, and
the professional paradigm (comp.  3,  interpreted in EHB) turns out to
be  more  significant than a normative system of methods,  i.  e.  the
transition from OHB to EHB,  changing the SB comp.  1 to comp.  3,  is
obvious.

                                 -235-

  Enlogues are also highly influenced by the facilities used,  popular
beliefs and superstitions,  biologists' customs  of  laboratory  work,
etc.

3.6. Hermeneutics of biological conceptions: interpretation of enlogy

An enlogy  is  formed  as  a result of an enlogue.  In rt predominated
enlogue where logico-epistemic approach [1] is accepted, the enlogy is
congenial   with  phenomenologists'  noema.  In  the  context  of  our
discussion,  the enlogies of enlogues 4, 5, 13, 14, and, above all, of
enlogue 2, are interesting.
  The SB's attitude towards enlogy 2 varies depending on the  type  of
enlogue  2  -  in syncretic folk thought this enlogy is interesting as
such,  while in scientific biology the tendency is to detach only  the
components induced by the LB, attributing the rest to artefacts.

3.6.1. Interpretation  of  enlogy  in  biology
   The enlogies formed in biological investigation vary critically.
For the sake of illustration let us compare, e.g., the results of the
automatic analysis of an electro-encephalogram spectrum, morphology of
a taxon, and an empirical observation on vertebrates matrimonial
behaviour (Table 2). The difference is so significant that the SB
generators of the enlogies are disposed to qualify each others' works
as senseless, although it is beyond doubt that they simply belong to
different branches of biology. Even more clearly pronounced is the
difference in enlogies 2 generated on the periphery of biology or
outside biology.

3.6.2. Interpretation of a non-rt enlogue's enlogy
   In enlogue where em predominates in SB's activity, the aesthetic
resources of a LB are revealed [27; 40], as it is expressed in folk
bestiaria, poetry or painting. It can make a contribution to
scientific biology, not only by replenishment of factology (cf. E.
Seton-Thompson's and V. Bianki's ethology), but also by promoting the
changes of biological paradigms (cf. the role of painting by
Botticelli, Durer, Rousseau, Monet et al., and of prose by A. Gid, in
revolutions in botanic description [23]). The development of painting
(SB comp. 1) certainly influences biological drawing.
  The objects of aesthetization in all cultures are most often the
structures and the processes related to reproduction (flowers, fruits,
matrimonial behaviour, including birds' singing and nesting, etc.).
The possibilities of aesthetization of a taxon are determined by the
features of culture in general. European culture aesthetizes mainly
higher plants and animals familiar from everyday activity. At the same
time, the recently proposed idea to create lichen-gardens (A.S. Karpov
et al., St-Petersburg), by the very possibility of it, illustrates the
familiarization of Japanese garden aesthetics (and particularly, the
aesthetics of stone-gardens) by Western culture. The aesthetic
initiation of a LB is the background of garden-making activity,
involving SB active (ac) constituent. Thus, a LB becomes included in
key aesthetic problems, such as regional (cf. A.A. Lubischev's note
about chameleons as Egyptian style beings) and great styles in their
sequence, fashion, organization of architectural

                                  -236-

space,etc. In this connection, it is interesting to observe that in
folk-art LBs are always represented stylized, assimilated to the style
of a given culture. This tendency is embodied in LB selection in order
to breed decorative forms of plants (garden, indoor, ikebana, saikei,
etc.) and animals (fishes, birds, dogs, cats).
  The aesthetic resources of a LB are the source of bio-aesthetics
relevant to philosophical aesthetics and to biology, where
bio-aesthetics is used in resolving some questions of taxonomic
diagnostics [35], while the latter are interesting to the linguists
concerned with reference [29].
  It is remarkable that in discovering aesthetic resources of a LB,
the SB ac constituent is involved. It is also the basis for
biotechnologies (which are, generally speaking, ethno-specific),
including such biomorphic ones as biodynamic agriculture, or Umwelt
modelling microbiological technologies [17]. The activity as a special
kind of enlogue is quite valuable heuristically. Thus, Darwinian
doctrine had been forming to a great extent on the basis of studies of
artificial selection, again, the idea of creation of lichen gardens is
linked with the use of lichens in ecological monitoring. I.e., as is
usual in hermeneutics, any interpretation involves a transformation of
the world.
  An enlogue with a LB empathetically (et) oriented on humanities,
picks out some peculiar habits of LBs in their interaction: thus,
great attention always is paid to the conjugal faithfulness (of swans,
for instance), trembling matrimonial behaviour (black grous mating,
Xiphophorus hellerii sprawling), and the care of progeny. Interpreted
in this or that way, animals' habits are reflected in myths, fairy
tales, heraldry, and in bestiaria, which can be regarded as a
prototype of taxonomic sum. The bio-ethics, and, say, the conception
of ethic reverence for life by A. Schweitzer, are at the summit of
this ...................   are oriented to involving the
supernatural abilities of man.
  Though non-rt enlogies quite often give rise to new approaches,
their eurysthical role in biology being relatively important, they
cannot be regarded as biological facts, because the latter always
result from rt and methodologically correct enlogue. However, the
present interpretations of folk and especially Eastern traditional
medicine in Western science reveal the fruitfulness of non-rt enlogies
[2]. It is becoming more obvious that seemingly absurd traditional
conceptions are not more absurd than the modern scientific idea of a
bean as a fruit of a pea [8; 12].
  The existing diversity of LB enlogies implies the problem of their
comparative evaluation and correlation. The simplest way is to declare
one's own position (and the respective enlogy) as the only true one -
otherwise, why should we not correct it? The opposite approach is
comparing different enlogies in order to establish some cross-cultural
invariants. In this way the reproduction, sexual dimorphism and the
drive of life are treated as properties of LB, which are invariant in
mythologies; biological conceptions turn out to be a form of the
presentation of these universalia. The mythological motives can

                                 - 237-

directly correlate with them (cf. mythological universalia of the life
genesis in Waters and some modern evolutionary views: if it is not an
adoption, additional unconscious religious proof is given to these
modern hypotheses). Another possibility is an independent realization
of the same structure - as, e.g., the tearing to pieces of a lamb
during the Dioniysiacs, and chromosome splitting in mitosis, as
crucial events providing continuity and the renewal of life (A.V.
Gogin). Such a parallelism testifies to the heuristic value of using
non-rt enlogies to form new hypotheses in biology, and of the studies
of biologists' quasi-ethnos in the ethnography of modern nations.
Nevertheless, not all LBs have any transculturally invariant
conceptions (cf. different ideas about mushrooms studied in
ethno-mycology [55]).

3.6.3. Auxiliary biological enlogies
  In processes 3 - 12 (Fig.1), auxiliary biological enlogies are
forming. Practically non-existing, the ideal image of a biologist's
activity comprises interrelations (and through this mutual correction)
of all the enlogies. Indeed, this is represented inside enlogies 3, 6
and 12 relations, and also 4, 7-11, while outside the enlogues 7-11,
interesting only to meta-biologists, IP 4 is usually sluggish, which
is a characteristic feature showing us, firstly, that no biology
exists as integral sphere of activity, and, secondly, that there is,
instead, theoretical biology, a relatively closed theoretical domain
valuable in its own right, like that developed in mechanics or
thermodynamics. In this sense, process 4 is an empirical
interpretation of theoretical constructions, non-trivial in modern
biology (e.g., minimal taxon conception [48]).
  Processes 7 - 11 generate enlogies plunged in philosophy,
methodology and psychology of biology, thereby connecting biology
practically with every element of culture. Thus, enlogue 11 is used by
the biologists of all specializations, and as a result the auxiliary
and normatively non-prescribed enlogies appear, which are then
included into biologists' professional communication. In this way, the
empiricists have their own image of the GB, while the theorists can
have their own experience of non-normative enlogies with LBs.
  Wide use of auxiliary enlogies brings a special importance to the
EHB by means of which the LB characteristics induced by different
types of SBs, become visible.

3.6.4. Biological interpretations of a biologist-hermeneutist
  Now we shall turn to the enlogies of biologists in enlogue 13, which
can be regarded as a SB enlogue 2 directed to the SB- itself (in the
sense of professionalism in the activity, for a biologist enlogue 13
borders on dilettantism). The SB is, in this case, a personality deep
in the culture which is to be interpreted by biologists. This kind of
interpretation is important in forming biocentrist culture*.
  First of all, from all the phenomena, there must be conceived the
idea that human nature is explained by its biology, i.e. we are to do
here with gross reductionism, which does not pay any attention to
heuristically valuable alternative conceptions, such as typology with
its concept of polymorphism as

                                   -238-

immanent property of human beings as LBs. This polymorphism is
inevitably reproduced in every generation, and that is why the
elimination of certain groups of societies by totalitarian regimes is
senseless. Another example of such disregarded idea is that of the
efficiency of polycentral direction, brought from the analysis of
regulation processes, which is also able to become a basis for social
bionics.
  Likewise, the relations between human biology and culture are
mediated and implicit. Thus, B.M. Gasparov, studying natural areas,
has found the correlation between blood groups and the consonant
coefficient in a language, and between the grammatical system and the
modes of folk music, i.e. through grammar and phonetics the relation
of human biology and culture is revealed.
               In a similar way one can interpret some ethnographic
data (the limitation of marriages between blood relatives as a
by-consequence of inbreeding, and the attitude towards drunkenness as
related to dehydrogenase activity).
  A particular domain of the biological interpretations of cultural
phenomena is explaning aesthetic canons by certain physiological
peculiarities of perception (audio, visual, gustatory, etc.). This
approach brings additional arguments to aesthetic discussions, and the
studies of aesthetic perception based on such premises have formed
nowadays as a special discipline.
  Thus, in spite of the fact that the biological sources and premises
of cultural norms do exist, there are no causal relations between
them, and, apparently, it is rather an adaption to human biology by
culture (i.e. culture-biology relations are equally multiple as the
intrabiologial ones). So, the structure of male urino-genitalia does
not determine the construction of clothes, but all the wide trousers,
trousers with a fly, and even battle skirts provide for the commodity
of urination (cf. [4]).
  From the biogeochemical aspect, man's economic activity, linked with
man's biology works as an anthropogenic factor of the biosphere, while
man's intellectual activity forms the noo-sphere. The examination of a
hermeneutist biologist made above supplements the characteristics of a
SB (3.4). And this description is obviously a description of the SB
enlogy as formulated in other enlogues, some of which have been
analyzed.
  Let us point out, in addition, two particular types of enlogies of
humanitarian data, which allow to establish referents or their
properties.
  The first type is a result of a biologist' interpretation of
humanitarian data in order to extract some information relevant to
biology (e.g., reconstructing relict areas on toponymical data). And
vice versa, appellation to genealogical and biographic information
enables us to trace not only the continuity of ideas, but also that of
mentality (for instance, A.A. Elenkin worked in natural sciences
museum of E.P. Sheremetyeva [44], whose greatnephew was S.V. Meyen
[47].
  The second type is biologists' interpretation of biological data
valuable for the specialists in other fields (as dendrological data in
archaeology, or the pharmaco-linguistic method).

                                -239-

3.6.5. Humanitarian interpretation of biology
  Here is described the humanitarian interpretation of biology as
enlogies of biological conceptions within humanitarian comprehension
of biology in enlogue 14. In a great measure, all biological activity
(all Fig.1) becomes an object of interpretation.
  The universal influence of biology on the humanitarian culture is
mainly related to the interpretation by humanitarian culture of four
different biological conceptions.
1. The understanding of human beings as animals has put them in line
with other LBs, in this way reducing in the massconsciousness the
responsibility of an individual for his deeds, treating as moral the
conduct corresponding to the animal nature of a human being.
Practically it leads to the replacement of medicine by social hygiene
of individual bodies, of erotics by dehumanized sexual techniques, of
gastronomic art by dietology, etc.
2. Evolutionary ideas based on the concept of the struggle for
existence regard as of paramount importance the 'natural' conduct and
the struggle, thus generating social Darwinism. As a reaction to this,
there appears a strong interest to alternative evolutionary
conceptions comprising a mutual aid between LBs and symbiosis (cf.
[33]), which can be regarded as a natural scientific basis for ethics
(cf. the view of P.A. Kropotkin on mutual aid as a factor of
evolution).
3. The conception of ecological crisis at the present time, similarly
to social Darwinism, initiates certain social and political movements
and parties (such as Greens, etc.). Their evaluation of the actual
state of environment as critical is based on its difference from the
state of biosphere in the nineteenth century (the latter is regarded
as normal). Within this conception flexibility and the LB
compensational mechanisms are underestimated, as well as the
anthropogenic influences on the environment in the past, while the
rebuilding processes in biosphere in the geological past are left out
of the scope altogether.
4. Tolerance to the manipulations with human body (reanimation,
artificial insemination, prophylactic immunization, etc.) resolves
some particular problems, but leads to deep changes of social reality
(accumulation of pathology, destruction of social roles of different
demographical groups, wide spread of allergy, etc.) when traditional
values are loosing their sense.
  A characteristic feature of these processes is that they appear at
the second stage of the comprehension of the LB, biological
conceptions being a mediator in the addressing LBs by humanitarians
non-competent in biology (politicians, writers), and this is what can
explain these mostly negative consequences.
  Whereas the correct interpretations of biology in humanitarian
culture are quite valuable. Thus, V. Khlebnikov, being interested in
the rules of social relations, turns to biology and puts forward the
conception of metabiosis, important to biologists, and to
culturologists in understanding the succession of generations in
culture [4]. Since the interpretations like this require penetrating
into the details of biologists' professional work, they are rare and
are concerned with particular problems only.

                                -240-

  Among these questions is the analysis of biological systematics,
revealing the humanitarian nature of the latter [15; 43]. Systematics
appears to be a sort of reservation in the history of culture, where
medieval values are preserved. In this context the synonymics in
taxonomic descriptions is remarkable - it functions as a peculiar
remembrance list (which is an infrequent mode of remembrance of
deceased in modern culture) [8; 12]. Another remarkable fact is that
Linnean revolution in systematics coupled with innovations in
herbarium techniques brought in vogue the herbaria from the end of the
eighteenth century (up to the beginning of the 20th century among the
humanitarians), which allowed to study enough European flora and
fauna. On the tail-end of this movement, the literary works of a
lepidopterologist V.V. Nabokoff appeared.
  An extremely important result of humanitarian interpretations of
biology was the conception of Nature as primordial state of Earth,
formed in Romanticism at the beginning of the nineteenth century. This
was a point of departure towards the modern idea of ecological crisis.
  Nowadays the most important domains of the interpretation of biology
in humanitarian culture are pedagogics and social and political
journalism.
 
3.7. Non-fiction hermeneutics: interpretation of biological text

Biologists' enlogies are expressed in their speech (Fig.1, processes
3, 6) and in their written works [60], which are widely reinterpreted
by other biologists (IP 12).
  In biology, quite independently of philology, its own tradition of
text interpretation has formed. Especially revealing in this sense is
the treatment of taxonomic descriptions [8].
  For some time past, these texts - their content and their expression
- have become interesting to different branches of linguistics : in
the studies of sublanguages of limited use, in ethnosemantics, and in
pragmalinguistics (i.e., all the aspects - syntax, semantics, and
pragmatics are actually in the scope). This interest gives a second
birth to hermeneutics [11].
  There are four trends distinguished in hermeneutics: Hermeneutica
Sacrum, philological hermeneutics, hermeneutics of commonplace, and
non-fiction hermeneutics [12].
  The latter resolves the problems, observed in 3.3 - 3.6, by trying
to find specific pragmatic markers in the text in order to reconstruct
the initial communicative situation corresponding to the text
generation - given the knowledge of the situation, the semantic
structure of the text can be readily reconstructed. Since the ability
to recognize the markers and the semantic structure depends on the
particular features of the personality of a SB, this process (IP 12)
must be regarded as an enlogue.
  Enlogue 12 differs considerably from enlogue 2 (which is principal
to the empiricists), and resembles dialogue 3. For theorists, enlogues
12 and 5 are very much alike (though they can vary in different SBs).
For the methodologists, enlogue 12 differs from IPs 7 - 10 because of
the ethnical and didactical components relevant to the latter.

                                   -241-

  For many texts of biologists, heterosemioticity - heterogeneity of
pragmatics, semantics and syntax - is specific [12]. That is why they
can be studied both in OHB and EHB.
  The first type of interpretation extracts from the text the
information about a LB. Ideally, the text presents an opportunity for
finding the referent described (addressing, e.g., a nomenclature
type). The same task (to the extent in which the referents themselves
- and not their conceptualizations - are interesting) includes the
revealing of referents in a non-biological text or in texts of other
cultures where LBs are described. The results of such interpretation
are corrected by the IPs 3 and 2.
  For epistemological hermeneutics of some biological texts, their
literary form is important (being also interesting to applied
linguistic studies of professional communication, and to the literary
history in classical languages [52], which makes it possible to speak
of the development of biological literature as a part of the literary
process (observed by O. Mandelstam in a series of his articles [34])).
Here, not only common features of 'standard'-style biological
treatises attract the attention, but also the ideostyles of the
authors whose texts are stylistically marked (Linne, Lamarck, I.H.
Burkill, N.M. Gaidukov), or of those who showed their worth both in
biology and literature (Goethe, Chamisso, Nabokoff, N.A. Holodkovski,
V.V. Bianki, et al.).

3.8. Morphology of the hermeneutics of biology

In understanding biology as SBs' activity involving LBs and different
conceptions of them, we are to observe that the hermeneutics of
biology, in contradistinction to biohermeneutics, is less structured
and more versatile. It can be explained by multimillenial experience
of SB-LB interaction, which is of utmost importance to the very
existence of man. That is why, together with purely methodological
interpretations (OHB) of the humanitarian aspect of biology, the
interpretations resulting from the experiences of affinity and
co-naturality of humans and LBs are also valuable. Thus, there are two
principles in the morphologization of the HB.
               The first is of greatest importance to OHB; it consists
in the morphologization of enlogue components (3.3 - 3.7). The second
is purely culturological, when, in enlogue typology, beside
biologists' enlogues, those of primitive thought - artists, and
practicioners - are distinguished. This typology reflects various
types and degrees of the SB affinity with the LB. And different
components of enlogue are, respectively, 'perfect' in different types
of enlogue. In this way, the greater is the SB-LB co-naturality, the
more profound is the comprehension of the LB nature. Yet in this
connection some problems would probably appear in the process of
constructing a text, which, along with the enlogue, would differ from
norm. In some cases, such non-legitimate 'intrusions' can reform the
normative conception of enlogue (methodological revolutions in
biology, cf. [23]).
  This situation is the consequence of the method of expert
examination widely spread in biology due to the mentioned SB-LB
co-naturality. The nature

                                    -242-

of this method is under consideration in the HB, whereas its two types
form two different branches of biology - bio-aesthetics and
bio-ethics.
  One of the aspects of the SB-LB co-naturality is that to a SB not
only laws, but also norms are inherent [9], and it adds ways of
interpretation (without which biohermeneutics is unconceivable) in the
SB's cognition of LBs.


4. Conclusion. Life as interpretation process
    
The analysis of biohermeneutics and the hermeneutics of biology
reveals that all the IP of the hermeneutics of biology, including the
hermeneutics of biohermeneutics, are based on hermeneutic mechanisms.
I.e., the two disciplines actually consider two sides of one and the
same process [38].
  So, the IPs turn out to be inherent in all the protein-nucleic
organisms, including human beings. Nevertheless, biology considers
mostly organisms, while the sciences studying man - humanitarian
sciences - mostly consider IPs. Therefore, the humanitarization of
natural sciences involves both the attention to the IPs in LBs and the
overcoming of negative consequences of humanitarian culture by
endowing man's image with biological organization, and plunging him
into life (as did F. Rabelais). In this respect, biology appears to be
the only discipline that considers all the components of
interpretation (processes 2 - 14, based on enlogue 1) in
non-reductionist way (in distinction from the theory of communication,
semiotics, and linguistics). Enlogue 1 is considered as fundamental
even by orthodox biologists. Thus, interpretation turns out to be an
inalienable part of biology, and, as such, must be an object of
inquiry in theoretical biology. The entanglement of IPs represents the
links between biologists' professional activities, their everyday
life, and culture. These links are to be taken into account in the
interpretations of LBs.
  An important and universal method in obtaining new interpretations
is placing an object into a new context. It is especially relevant to
enlogue 1 (regulation effect), 2 (comprehension of the LB by
humanitarians), and 14 (bringing biological conceptions into
humanitarian disciplines).
  It is characteristic that culturally relevant interpretations are
not carried out directly but are usually mediated in some way. Thus,
we do not succeed in understanding LBs in the same way as reading the
Book of Life [3] - we have to come to this understanding through
learning about the particulars of genetic, immunological, metabolic,
et al. languages; it is impossible to understand directly enlogue 2 -
we have to look for cross-cultural invariants and related referents;
as to humanitarian interpretations, they concern a LB, and not biology
as a whole, etc.
               Since in this sphere mostly particular problems are
effectively resolved, the problem arises about the very possibility of
constituting this domain as a separate discipline. Alternatively, it
can be treated as an object of interdisciplinary research, where
interdisciplinary descriptive pictures* are generated, and in which
various types of IPs can be distinguished, regarding these attempts as
the first step to the creation of vita-centrism (heterogenic

                                  -243-

hylozoism that would take into account the specifics of various
classes of things - LBs and SBs.
Acknowledgements. The author thanks all those who contributed to this
work, and especially I.V. Outekhin and I. Tiivel, who undertook to do
the hard work of cross-cultural translation of the article.

References

1.Alexeev, N.G. Алексеев, Н.Г. (1977). Типологические проблемы в
изучении целостных образований. - In: Systems Research. Yearbook 1977.
Moscow:Nauka. 237-249. (in Rassian)
2.Aseyeva, T.A., Blinova, K.F., Jakovlev, G.P. (Асеева, Т.А., Блинова,
К.Ф., Яковлев Г.П.) (1985). Лекарственные растения тибетской медицины.
Novosibirsk: Nauka. (in Russian)
3.Averintsev, S.S. (Аверинцев, С.С.) (1977). Поэтика ранневизантийской
литературы. Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian)
4.Babkov, V.V. (Бабков, В.В.) (1987). Между наукой и поэзией:
"Метабиоз" В. Хлебникова (Between science and poetry: Metabiosis by
Velimir Khlebnikov). - Вопросы истории и естествознания и техники 2,
136-147. (in Russian)
5.Badaraev, E.D., Batorova, S.M., Surkova, T.A. (Бадараев, Е.Д.,
Баторова, С.М., Суркова, Т.А.) (1982). Логические основы методики
расшифровки тибетских названий растений и их идентификации. - In:
Материалы по изучению источников традиционной системы индо-тибетской
медицины (L.L. Hundanova, ed.). Novosibirsk: Nauka. 27-41. (in
Russian)
6.Baiburin, A.K., Toporkov, A.L. (Байбурин, А.К., Топорков, А.Л.)
(1990). У истоков этикета. Leningrad: Nauka. (in Russian)
7.Bekhtereva, N.P.,Bundzen,P.V., Gogolitsin, J.L. (Бехтерева Н.П.,
Бунзен, П.В., Гоголицин, Ю.Л.). Мозговые коды психической
деятельности. Leningrad: Nauka. (in Russian)
8.Chebanov, S.V. (Чебанов, С.В.) (1987). Language of Taxon
Description. PhD Theses 1-1. Leningrad State Univ. ( in Russian)
9.Chebanov, S.V. (1988). Theoretical biology in biocentrism. - In:
Lectures in Theoretical Biology (K. Kull, T. Tiivel, eds.). Tallinn:
Valgus. 159-168.
10.Chebanov, S.V., Martynenko, G.Y. (Чебанов, С.В., Мартыненко, Г.Я.)
(1990). Basic types of conceptions of the language nature.- Acta et
Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis 911, 112-133. (in Russian)
11.Chebanov, S.V., Martynenko, G.Y. (Чебанов, С.В., Мартыненко, Г.Я.)
(1990). Ideas of hermeneutics in applied linguistics. - Acta et
Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis 912, 92-111. (in Russian)

                                -244-

12.Chebanov, S.V., Martynenko, G.Y. (Чебанов, С.В., Мартыненко, Г.Я.)
Semiotics of descriptive texts. (in Russian, in press)
13.Davydov, O.V. (Давыдов, О.В.) (1987). Каталог дополнительных
вариантов дуплетов генетического кода (The catalogue of additional
doublet variants of the genetic code). - Doklady of the Academy of
Sciences of Belorus SSR 31(11), 1037-1040. (in Russian)
14.Engel, N. (1970). A consideration of the old astrological theory. -
In: Essay in Biohistory and Other Contributions to F. Verdoorn...
(Regnum Vegetabile 71). 15-18.
15.Foucault, M. (1971). Les Mots et les Choses. Paris: Gallimard.
16.Gachev, G.D. (Гачев, Г.Д.) (1988). Национальные образы мира.
Moscow: Soviet Writer. (in Russian)
17.Gilmanov, V.G., Ginakh, A.P., Dimshits, V.A., et al. (Гильманов,
В.Г., Дымшиц, В.А.) (1989). Способ количественной оценки аэрационных
свойств колб, применяемых в микробиологических исследованиях.
Определение параметров, характеризующих дыхание микробных культур в
колбах. - In: Процессы и аппараты для микробиологических производств
"Биотехника-89" 2. Moscow: NPO "Biotehnika". 163-164. (in Russian)
18.Gleser, V.D. (Глезер, В.Д.) (1985). Зрение и мышление. Leningrad:
Nauka. (in Russian)
19.Goncharenko, V.V., Shingareva, E.A. (Гончаренко, В.В., Шингарева,
Е.Н.) (1984). Фреймы для распознавания смысла текста. Kishinev:
Shtiinca. (in Russian)
20.Gregory, R.L. (1970). The Intelligent Eye. London: McGraw.
21.Hadamard, J. (1959). Essai sur la Psychologie de l'Invention dans
le Domaine Mathematique. Paris: Librairie Scientifique Albert
Blanchard.
22.Hjelmslev, L. (1953). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language.
Baltimore: Waverly Press.
23.Jacobs, M. (1980). Revolutions in plant description. - Miscellanous
papers 19, 155-181.
24.Jakobson, R., Fant, C.G.M., Halle, M. (1963). Preliminaries to
Speech Analysis. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
25.Jeffrey, C. (1978). Biological Nomenclature. London: Arnold.
26.Kalinin, O.M. (Калинин, О.М.) (1981). Генетический код,
релятивистская симметрия и таблица Менделеева - In: Тезисы докладов
всесоюзной конференции "Теория классификаций и анализ данных" 2.
Novosibirsk: Academy of Sciences of USSR. 73- 75. (in Russian)
27.Karinskii, S.S. (Каринский, С.С.) (1990). Синтез образа места как
проблема географического страноведения. PhD theses. Moscow: Moscow
Univ. (in Russian)
28.Krishnamurthy, K.H. (1971). Botanical identification of Ayurvedive
medicinal plants: a new method of pharmacolinguistics. - Indian. J.
Med. Res. 59(1), 90-103.
                                 -245-

29.Labov, W. (1978). Denotational structure. - In: Papers from
  Parasession on the Lexicon (D. Farkas et al., eds.). Chicago:
  Chicago Linguistic Soc. 220-260.
30.Ladik, J. (1972). Quantenbiochemie fur Chemiker und Biologen.
  Budapest: Academiai Kiado.
31.Lakoff, G. (1986). Classifiers as a reflection of mind. -
  Typological Studies in Language 7, 13-52.
32.Levich, A.P. (Левич, А.П.) (1983). Семиотические структуры в
  экологии или существует ли экологический код ? - In: Man and
 Biosphere 8. Moscow: Moscow Univ. 68-77. (in Russian)
33.Mandelshtam, O. (Мандельштам, О.) (1967) Lamarck. - In:
  Mandelshtam, O. Collected works 1: Poetry. Washington: International
  Literary Assotiation. 177. (in Russian)
34.Mandelshtam, O. (Мандельштам, О.) (1969). Записные книжки. Вокруг
  натуралистов. Паллас. Литературный стиль Дарвина. - In: Mandelshtam,
  O. Collected works 3: Essays. Letters. Washington: International
  Literary Association. 133-140, 160-167, 169-178. (in Russian)
35. Martynenko, G.Y., Chebanov, S.V. (Мартыненко, Г.Я., Чебанов, С.В.)
  (1988). Классификационные задачи стилеметрии (Classification tasks
  of stylometrics). - Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis
  827, 119-136. (in Russian)
36.Martynenko, G.Y., Chebanov, S.V. (Мартыненко, Г.Я., Чебанов, С.В.)
  (1990). Транскультурный перевод в специальной коммуникации. - In:
  Совещание-семинар "Этнопсихолингвистические аспекты речевого
  общения" (тезисы докладов). Samarkand: Institute of Language Studies
  of the Academy of Sciences of USSR. 70-71. (in Russian)
37.Medieval Bestiary. (1984). Moscow: Iskusstvo Art Publishers.
38.Morozov, A. (Морозов, А.) (1978). Самопознание симпозиума -
  Znanie - Sila 10, 39-41. (in Russian)
39.Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press.
40.Poljan, P.M. (Полян, П.М.) (1978). География и вдохновенные ресурсы
  природы. - Priroda 3, 51-63. (in Russian)
41.Pribram, K.H. (1971). Languages of the Brain. New York:
Prentice-Hall.
42.Rozov, M.A. (Розов, М.А.) (1977). Проблемы эмпирического
  анализа научных знаний. Novosibirsk: Nauka. (in Russian)
43.Rozova, S.S. (Розова, С.С.) (1983). Методологический анализ
  классификационной проблемы. - In: Теория и методология биологических
  классификаций. Moscow: Nauka. 6-17. (in Russian)
44.Rundina, L.A. (Рундина, Л.А.) (1983). De errore quodam notula. -
  Nomitates Systematicae Plantarum 20. Leningrad: Nauka. 56-58. (in
  Russian)
45.Schreider, J.A. (Шрейдер, Ю.А.) (1978). Гуманитаризация знания и
  информационная среда ученого (Humanitarization of knowledge

                                -246-

and information environment management). - Vestnik of the Academy of
  Sciences of USSR 9, 85-95. (in Russian)
46.Sebeok, T.A. (1972). Perspectives in Zoosemiotics. The Hague:
Mouton.
47.Sergei Viktorovich Meyen has died. - In: Lectures in Theoretical
Biology (K. Kull, T. Tiivel, eds.). Tallinn: Valgus. 178-180.
48.Sharov, A.A. (Шаров, А.А.) (1979). Осмысленность признаков и
  теория классификаций. - Semiotics and Informatics 2, 37-51. (in
  Russian)
49.Sharov, A.A. (Шаров, А.А.) (1990). Winter school on biosemiotics. -
  Journal of General Biology 51(2), 283-285. (in Russian)
50.Shukov, V.A. (Шуков, В.А.) (1978). Образ биологической реальности
  как исходное основание философии биологии. - In: О специфике
  биологического познания (I.K. Lyseev, ed.). Moscow: Academy of
  Sciences of USSR. 37-46. (in Russian)
51.Snow, C.P. (1971). Public Affairs. London: MacMillan.
52.Stearn, W.T. (1966). Botanical Latin. London: Nelson.
53.Stepanov, J.S. (Степанов, Ю.С.) (1971). Семиотика. Moscow: Nauka.
  (in Russian)
54.Susov, I.P. (Сусов, И.П.) (1983). К предмету прагма лингвистики. -
In: Содержательные аспекты предложения и текста (I.P. Susov,
  ed.). Kalinin: Kalinin Univ. 3-15. (in Russian)
55.Toporov, V.N. (Топоров, В.Н.) (1979). Семантика мифологических
  представлений о грибах- (Semantics of mythological conceptions of
  mushrooms). - In: Balcanica: Linguistic Studies. Moscow: Nauka.
  234-298. (in Russian)
56.Uexkull, J.v., Kriszat, G. (1934). Streifzuge durch die Umwelten
  von Tieren und Menschen. Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Berlin:
  Springer.
57.Verdoorn, F. (1944). On the aim and methods of biological history
  and biography with some notes for collaborators of Index
  Botanicorum. - Chronica botanicorum 8(4), 427-448.
58.Verdoorn, F. (1966). From botanical biography towards animal
  ecology. - Acta Bot. Netherlands 15(1), 81-94.
59.Volokhonsky, A.G. (Волохонский, А.Г.) (1972). О формальной
  структуре генетического кода (On formal structure of genetic code).
- Cytology and Genetics (Novosibirsk) 6(6), 487-492. (in Russian)
60.Woodger, J.H. (1952). Biology and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press.
61.Ycas, M. (1969). The Biological Code. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publ. Co.
                               -247-

            Table 1. CONCEPTIONS OF SEMIOTIC MEANS (after [10;11]).
______________________________________________________
CONCEP-│        │          │          │      │         │   Aspects │
TIONS│ Herme- │          │   Ling-  │Semio-│ Pragma- │ of Herme- │
              │neutics │Philology │  uistics │logy  │ ling-   │  neutized │
CHARACTE-│        │          │          │      │ uistics │pragmalin- │
RISTICS  │        │          │          │      │         │  guistics │
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semiotic │        │          │historica-│      │complex  │  complex  │
means    │ symbol │  trope   │lly deter-│ sign │of means │with symbol│
symbol   │        │          │mined sign│      │         │acceptable │
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         │        │          │                 │"necessa-│           │
         │illimi- │          │                 │rily-dim-│           │
Dimensi- │tedly-  │  multi-  │ monodimensional │ensional"│ polydimen-│
ons of   │dimen-  │  dimen-  │                 │i.e. dep.│ sionality │
means    │sional  │  sional  │                 │on pragma│           │
         │        │          │                 │tic need │           │
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attitude │ arith- │  disre-  │indiffe-  │inte- │quanti-  │   word -  │
towards  │ mology │  gard    │rence     │rest  │tative   │  number   │
number   │        │          │          │      │methods  │ approach  │
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose  │Divine  │ human    │communi-  │semi- │         │ creation  │
of lan-  │Creation│ creative │ cation   │otic  │ action  │   of      │
guage    │        │ work,art │          │game  │         │  Univers  │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semiotic │Book of │encyclo-  │  dicti-  │thesa-│semantic │versatility│
model    │Life    │paedia    │  onary   │urus  │network  │of concept │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status   │part of │ monument │  speech  │super-│component│ immersed  │
of text  │Universe│          │ product  │sign  │of action│in Universe│
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status   │ sacred │ tradi-   │  given   │arbit-│non-acci-│non-arbit- │
of CS    │        │ tional   │          │rary  │  dental │rary choice│
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context  │sense in│sense mo- │ context  │comple│ context │  context  │
influence│creasing│dification│  free    │te de-│ inter-  │ relevance │
         │        │          │          │penden.   action│           │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodo- │natural-│  logic-  │          │syste-│systemic-│joining of │
logical  │philoso-│epistemic │ systemic │mic   │actual   │heteroge-  │
approach │phic    │          │          │      │complex  │  nities   │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            -248-

           Table 2. Characteristics of biological enlogies.
                   Abbreviations: * Implicitly; ** With much of
comparative material in background, and with minimized SB influence;
rt - rational, ac - active, em - emotional, et - empathetic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ENLOGY│  EEG spectrum  │     Morphology    │  Matrimonial  │
CHARACTERISTICS │                │     of a taxon    │   behaviour   │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                │ subject mo-    │   guild for-      │  professio-   │
1.SB            │ delling devi-  │   med profile     │  nally accen- │
                │ ce,expanding   │   of persona-     │  tuated per-  │
                │ the spectrum   │   lity            │  sonality     │
                │ of perception  │                   │               │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.Relevant SB   │   1+,3,4       │  1,3,4,5,6,7,9    │  1+,2,3,7,8,9 │
components      │                │                   │               │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.SB biomorphity│  irrelevant    │     taxone-       │    relevant   │
                │                │     specific      │               │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.SB's abilities│      rt        │  rt, ac, em, et   │     em, et    │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.Enlogue       │ Algorythmized  │   Examination     │   Sensible    │
                │  procedure     │    by expert      │ observation ++│
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.Characteris-  │quantitative    │  quantitative     │  qualitative  │
tics  of enlogy │                │   qualitative     │               │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Means of     │    numbers,    │     schemes,      │      words    │
 presentation   │    diagrams    │     drawings      │               │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.Methodologi-  │ reductionism   │   typological     │  panpsychism  │
cal approach    │                │    approach       │               │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Standard     │     physics    │   descriptive     │  psychology   │
 discipline     │                │     biology       │               │
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------