ENLOGUE AS QUASIPERSONAL INTERACTION: BIOHERMENEUTIC ISSUES
Sergei V. Chebanov {1}
In: European Journal for Semiotic Studies. Vol.7(3-4) 1995,
P.439-466.
1.Introduction.
By now, two main conceptual trends have been formed in
humanitarian semiotics. The first one, concerned with the
structure and typology of signs, has a more long standing
tradition. Within this trend, Hjelmslevian glossematics
seems to be most interesting as a theoretical conception.
According to it, there can be distinguished Substance and
Form both in the Content and in the Expression (Hjelmslev,
1953).
The other trend has been forming in recent decades. It
is the speech act theory considering communicative aspects
of language and, hence, the participants of communication
(the sender and the receiver of a message).
It is commonly presupposed that the messages are
composed of signs which act as the vehicles of information.
I argue however that such treatment of communication, signs,
and information is somewhat superficial. A conception is
required to bring the structural and communicative
properties of semiotic means into an organic whole.
2.The nature of semiotic means.
I mean by `semiotic means` a generic term for `sign`,
`symbol`, `emblem`, `trope`, `allegory`, etc. (Chebanov,
forthcoming b).At the same time, semiotic means denotes not
only structure, but also performance, that is to say that
semiotic means by its definition has a processual status.
Combining the two mentioned trends in semiotics and using
modified Hjelmslevian terms, semiotic means can be defined
as the unity of eight strata and their relations (Fig.1): in
the Expression Generation part - Content Substance (CS`),
Content Form (CF`),Expression Substance (ES`), Expression
Form (EF`), and in Sense Generation part - Expression
Substance (ES``), Expression Form (EF``), Content Substanse
(CS``), and Content Form (CF``). CS` and CS`` correspond to
some Referents (Rf) in the umwelt. Each of the strata
involves all kinds of syntagmatic and paradigmatic
connotations. Thus, semiotic means is a unity of
inter-participant (Fig.1, Relations 5, 11) and
intra-participant (Relations 1-4, 6-9) processes.
Usually, that which is treated here as Expression
generation is supposed to be related to Sender, and that
which I call Sense Generation, related to Receiver. In the
framework of my approach this kind of treatment is
unacceptable because of its narrow mechanistic character.
Take a situation in the umwelt which is setting the
Reference. The activity of a being (Fig. 1, Relation 1 and
9) is somehow coordinated (Relation 10) - for instance, by
trial and error. For this coordination to be more
intensive, it is carried out through the use of semiotic
means forming a sort of shunt over the activities in the
world of Reference. To go on with this metaphor, this shunt
includes two circuits: the first one involving Relations 1,
2-8, 9, and the second, involving Relations 1, 11, 9 {2},
i.e. the direct interactions between Content Substance` and
Content Substance``, represented, e.g., by mental images or
RNA nucleatide sequences.
A comprehensive semiotic means typology embracing
semiotic means which rarely been considered in semiotic
studies can be based on the proposed model of semiotic means
structure.
3.Hermeneutic approach to semiotic means.
It has been shown in earlier works (Chebanov,
Martynenko, 1990 a,b) that there exist five different types
of approach to language (see Table 1). At present, one of
them - namely, the hermeneutic approach - is rebirthing.
Table 1. CONCEPTIONS OF SEMIOTIC MEANS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³\CONCEP-³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ Aspects ³
³ \TIONS³ Herme- ³ ³ Ling- ³ Semi-³ Pragma- ³ of Herme- ³
³ \ ³neutics ³Philology ³ uistics ³ olo- ³ ling- ³ neutized ³
³CHARAC- ³ ³ ³ ³ gy ³ uistics ³pragmalin- ³
³TERISTIC³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ guistics ³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³Semiotic³ ³ ³historica-³ ³complex ³ complex ³
³means ³ symbol ³ trope ³lly deter-³ sign ³of means ³with symbol³
³ ³ ³ ³mined sign³ ³ ³acceptable ³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³ ³ ³ ³ ³"necessa- ³ ³
³ ³ illimi-³ ³ ³rily-dim- ³ ³
³Dimensi-³ tedly- ³ multi- ³ monodimensional ³ensional" ³ polydimen-³
³ons of ³ dimen- ³ dimen- ³ ³i.e. dep. ³ sionality ³
³means ³ sional ³ sional ³ ³on pragma-³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³ ³tic need ³ ³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³Attitude³ arith- ³ disre- ³ indiffe-³ inte- ³ quanti- ³ word - ³
³towards ³ mology ³ gard ³ rence ³ rest ³ tative ³ number ³
³number ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ methods ³ approach ³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³Purpose ³Divine ³ human ³communi- ³ semi- ³ ³ creation ³
³of lan- ³Creation³ creative ³ cation ³ otic ³ action ³ of ³
³guage ³ ³ work,art ³ ³ game ³ ³ Univers ³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³Semiotic³ Book of³ encyclo- ³ dicti- ³ thesa-³ semantic ³versatility³
³model ³ Life ³ paedia ³ onary ³ urus ³ network ³of concept ³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³Status ³part of ³ monument ³ speech ³ super-³component ³ immersed ³
³of text ³Universe³ ³ product ³ sign ³of action ³in Universe³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³Status ³ sacred ³ tradi- ³ given ³ arbit-³non-acci- ³non-arbit- ³
³of CS ³ ³ tional ³ ³ rary ³ dental ³rary choice³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³Context ³sense in³sense mo- ³ context ³comple-³ context ³ context ³
³influ- ³creasing³dification³ free ³te de- ³ inter- ³ relevance ³
³ence ³ ³ ³ ³penden.³ action ³ ³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
³Methodo-³natural-³logic- ³ ³ syste-³systemic- ³joining of ³
³logical ³philoso-³epistemic ³systemic ³ mic ³actual ³heteroge- ³
³approach³phic ³ ³ ³ ³complex ³nities ³
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within this approach, Relation 3 (Fig.1)
`motivatedness`, Relation 7 `iconicity`, Relation 5
`transcription and translation` and the connotations of all
semiotic means components are considered, along with
Expression Substance` and Expression Substance``, which are
far from being arbitrary. Since the symmetry between
Expression generation and Sense generation parts of semiotic
means should be regarded as an evidence of adequate
understanding, the restoration of such symmetry is the main
task of hermeneutics. The degree of the restoration of the
symmetry is different in different Sense Generators due to
numerous connotations, and that is why a variety of
interpretations of a sign is possible (Chebanov. forthcoming
b).
These particularities of semiotic means become
especially relevant in view of the developing
hermeneutization of humanitarian disciplines; and since some
domains of biosemiotics appear to be involved in it, I find
enough reasons to call this trend `biohermeneutics`
(Chebanov, Martynenko, 1990a, b).
4.Biohermeneutics.
The object of biohermeneutic studies is the semiotic
aspect of Living Being as centaurus-object (after G.P.
Tshedrovitski, centaurus-object is characterized by
heterogenity, heterohierarchity, and heterochronity, i.e.
has many semantic dimensions reflected in interdisciplinary
descriptive pictures). The semantic dimensions describe the
centaurus-object as a unity of substratum (semantophore) and
its sense. In this light, somathic and physiological
organization of Living Being is functioning as semantophore,
i.e. an exponent of semiotic means, whose nature of the
substratum is important to its semiotic performance.
The most apparent example of biohermeneutic conception
is that of genetic code. Being semiotic in its essence, and
enriched by linguistic and philological ideas, it has
acquired some hermeneutic features (Chebanov, 1993) {3}.
Many other biological conceptions evolve in a similar
way, thus modifying the ideas about intracellular and
intraorganism recognition of mediators and hormones (i.e.,
endosemiotics after (Sebeok, 1979)), about interorganism
interaction by means of pheromones, postures, odours,
colouring, etc., including the physiological aspect of
verbal communication in man (i.e., zoo- and phytosemiotics).
In all the processes under study, the main attention
has been paid to the relations between the components of
semiotic means.
Relation 3 is the least studied; usually it is
interpreted as correlative (for instance, the mechanism of
correlation can obviously be observed in adaptor-acceptor
relations in t-RNA).
Relations 1 and 2 are better investigated in terms of
molecular genetic processes and, partly, in the sphere of
human communication and cognition (cognitive linguistics,
ethnosemantics, psycholinguistic studies of referention).
Relation 4 is considered in detail in molecular genetic
studies and, in some a measure, is used to describe
processes in other domains (natural language, in generative
phonetics ). Relation 5 attracts the attention of
biologists, as well as of the specialists in the theory of
communication.
The process of Relation 7 is always multiform and has
diversified consequences. Biologists study it in all its
manifestations, whereas philologists do so mainly
phenomenologically. There exist some sporadic studies of
Relations 8 and 9. Of particular interest is the research on
the languages of brain, potentially unifying biology with
linguistics.
Speaking about Relations 3 and 4, an attempt to
describe them in generative grammar should be noted. But
these relations are considered there independently from
psychophysiological processes. Biologists, on the contrary,
carry out close studies of the mechanisms and semantophores
(inquiries in nuclein acids and their functioning in the
molecular biology of gene).
The general tendency, briefly, is for phenomenology to
be described by linguists, and mechanisms by biologists.
Thus, biologists, so to speak, consider a text together with
its author, printing-press, and reader (Sharov, 1990), while
among philological disciplines only hermeneutics take all
these into its scope, other branches considering the text
out of its broad actual context .
Relations 1,4,6,8,9, and particularly 5 and 11 are
usually regarded as the transfer of information. I believe,
however, that it would be more correct to treat these
phenomena as a projection of structural elements from one
semiotic means component to another (see n.14).
5.Enlogue as reciprocal projection.
The departure point of the conception of enlogue has
been an attempt to draw attention to the internal form of
the term `information` (= en-logy), which implies that a
`form` is brought into something, inherent in another thing
(which is the source of the form). Here, enlogue is the
introduction of a logos into something (en-log-ation), the
projection of the form of one thing into another {4}.
Take, for illustration, the question whether a dog is
wicked or not.There can be no general answer to this
question, since the dog is aggressive against some people,
being quiet and tender with other. I.e., it can be said that
against a given person the dog more often shows its
aggression than against another one (or that some people
provoke aggression more often than others). One more glowing
example of an enlogue is the situation where a criminal
adapts himself to the interrogator's version (besides all
incorrect) from "Il nome della rosa" by Umberto Eco {5}.
To similar situations, the projection of one
participant`s organization onto that of another is
characteristic. The projection is reciprocal
(two-directional). Thus, the organization of each of the
participants depends on the interaction the participant
takes part in, and it is impossible to imagine a participant
as such, apart from its interaction - it would be simply
senseless, because every enlogue creates to him a particular
image, the `enlogy` of the participant. The enlogy is
defined: a)by the participant`s nature, b)by the nature of
other participant(s), and c)by the character of the enlogue
(Chebanov, 1993).
Good examples to make clear the notion of enlogy are
colour and taste. Neither colour nor taste are properties
inherent in electromagnetic waves or molecules, but rather
the characteristics of human perception. Which doesn`t
prevent them from being regarded as important properties of
substancies (cf. however the proverbs like `De gustibus et
coloribus not disputandum`, where the enlogical nature of
taste and colour is made explicite).
The mentioned features of enlogue suggest that it
should be treated as a basic notion to discribe the
cognition of reality - and, hence, as the foundation of
reality. So the Universe can be regarded as a network of
potential and actual enlogues.
6.Enlogue`s participant as being.
Formally, a being can be defined as an enlogy of a
participant of a given enlogue (cf. Dasein as a correlate of
an interpretation of Sein, according to Heidegger). It
implies a being's high degree of flexibility and activity,
its great receptive and assimilative abilities. A
being-partner interaction often has typological and even
individual, not universal, character and that is why a being
can have individual (`personal`) features.
A participant can be involved in more than one enlogue at
one time. The participant, hence, is presented by a
different being in every enlogue. Thus, an electron appears
as two different beings (enlogies): wave and particle. This
feature of the activity of physical beings (especially in
quantum mechanical systems) has been reflected in the notion
of corpuscular-wave dualism, as well as in the Copenhaguen
interpretation of quantum mechanics and in the idea that
physical objects can resist the research upon them.
Much more evident the features of being are in
microorganisms, plants and animals (which are Living
Beings). Among them, higher animals and humams are endowed
with psyche, and futhermore, some of them are Sensible
Beings endowed with reason. In certain situations, humans
can also be psychic or mystic beings.
Treating cognitive enlogue participants as beings it is
possible to avoid the shortcomings of extreme views on the
nature of interpretation. Thus, within this approach, the
forming of a personality cannot be treated as a projection
of the object`s organization into an unstructured subject,
and, at the same time, it is impossible to see the external
world as an external projection of man`s internal
organization (Cf. Ricoeur, 1975) {6}.
7.Enlogy as a morphological category.
The internal form of the words `en-log-y` and
`in-form-ation` implies that there is a certain relation of
these concepts with morphology. And this is really so.
Enlogy, in this respect, should be defined as an entelechial
unity of form and steresis (the term according to
Aristotle){7}.
8.Enlogy as intensional aspect of information.
In spite of the fact that the internal form of the
terms is quasi-synonimous, it would be better to oppose the
two concepts, because enlogy can be treated as a qualitative
aspect of information: enlogy is that which is being
projected from one thing onto the other, but not the amount
of what is projected. This feature is indispensable to
approach a qualitative information theory.
9.Enlogical processuality as intensional time.
Time can be treated as an aspect of changebleness in a
given individual (according to the morphological conception
of time, see Meyen, 1989:170-185). Given that every
individual is a sort of enlogy (Chebanov, 1983), it is
possible to qualify the intensional time as enlogical
processuality (cf. crystallodynamic time, in Rousso,
Chebanov, 1985). It should be taken into account that the
time is a characteristics not of the individual itself, but
of a definite enlogy of the individual; that is to say,
every individual exists in many different times, each of
which is defined by a corresponding enlogue and its
participants. Thus, the time turns out to be defined not
only by the investigated matter, but also by the
investigator himself, and, consequently, the both
individuals taking part in the interaction are
heterochronous in their nature (after G.P.Tshedrovitsky) {8}.
10.Enlogy and the multiformity of truth.
By the logical status of enlogy, every enlogy of a
given participant has the same predicates as truth.There can
be no marked enlogies able to pretend, with more reasons
than other, to be truth {9}. Since enlogies are extremely
various, building up their typology appears to be quite a
complicated task.
It must be pointed out (the author thanks G.Yu.Lyubarsky
for calling his attention to) that altghough special truths
are typologizable and hierarchizable the thuth is whole.
11.Towards a typology of enlogues and enlogies.
Any attempt to draw up a comprehensive and exhaustive
typology of enlogues seems to be an unrealizable enterprize.
The draft typology I would like to present here, embraces
only separate aspects of the problem. The formulated
characteristics of the classification do not form a closed
list, nor they are quite independent {10}.
Before turning to Table 2, let me comment all the
abbreviations:
1.Symmetry. An enlogue is symmetric (s) if the roles of
the participants are similar; otherwise the enlogue is
asymmetric (as). The conclusion about the s/as character of
an enlogue depends on the point of view. In example 5, the
enlogue is obviously `as` with respect to physiology, but if
the psychological states taken into account, it would not be
baseless to qualify the enlogue as symmetric.
2.Scale. There can be distinguished micro- and
macro-enlogues (mi/ma). The first ones do not bring about
qualitative changes in the participants, though the
dimensions, colour or, say, density of the participants can
be changed everyway. Macro-enlogues, on the countrary, lead
to serious alterations in participants` thesauri, state or
energy, and in this case there can be no temptation to
consider a participant in itself `as it really is`, because
the participant`s dependance on the enlogue is obvious
(which is not so in micro-enlogues). This fundamental
distinction is sometimes not easy to approach. Thus, if you
take an interaction between electrons (Example 2) and focus
on the fact that the electron remains the same, you have a
micro-enlogue here, but if the emergence of hybrid orbitalia
is also considered, it is a macroenlogue.
3.Energy. High (h) and low (l) energy enlogues are
distinguished, with a certain correlation with mi/ma (the
crystallogenetic Example 1 is, however, an example of low
energy macro-enlogue).
4.Projective activity. It can be spontaneous (s) if
predetermined by the nature of a participant, aim-directed
(ad) if provided by a definite and necessary aim, aimful
(af) if it requires some - probably, conscious - efforts to
achieve a definite aim, and aim-creating (ac) if the aim -
previously unexisting - first should be formed by a
participant. The aims, in their turn, can differ (cf.
a-, eury-, pseudo-, and eutelism (Lubischew, 1982:
149-188)).
5. Self-control in projective activity (+/-).
6. Other participant`s image reception can have the same
values that Projective activity: s, ad, af, and ac.
7. Self-control in receptive activity (+/-).
8. The attitude towards a partner can be universal
(u)(when partner`s peculiarities have no importance),
typological (t)(when typical, not individual features are
important), or individual (i) (when individual properties
are relevant).
9. Natural language . It can be used (+) or not (-);
this is a ground to distinguish the anthroposemiotics
(Sebeok 1979).
10.Participation. An enlogue can be carried out with a
single `second` participant (s), or with a collective of
participants (c).
11.Projected matter. In enlogue, a participant`s
parameters (par), properties (prop), and organizational
aspects (asp) can be projected, as well as the whole of a
participant (wh).
12.Image recognition. A participant can recognize (+) or
not (-) its own image in its partner. For the image to be
recognizable, a global (11, wh) or, at least, an aspectual
(11, asp) projection of the partner is required.
13.Assimilation. The assimilation of the partners may
occur in enlogue (+), or may not (-).
14.Communicative means. For communication, different
abilities of the participants can be used (r - rational, ac
- active, et - empathetic, em - emotional), along with
energy, special substancies, etc.
15.Value. Full-value enlogue (fv) which is enlogue
stricto sensu, is opposed to degenerated enlogue (dg), whose
extreme cases are represented by subject-object
interactions, often in the form of a manipulation. Partially
degenerated enlogues are very wide spread.
The degeneration of enlogue can be caused by the
increase of reflection (characteristics 5 and 7), by the use
of natural language with rational purposes (ch. 10), by the
predominance of universal or typological attitude towards
the partner (ch. 8), along with the lack of assimilation
(ch.13) and non-recognition of its own image in the partner
(ch.12), which is observed, e.g., in human coitus between
highly sophisticated partners lacking of emotion.
Table 2. DIFFERENT KINDS OF ENLOGUES. EXAMPLES OF ANAYSIS.
Characteristics: Sym Scale Energy Projec- Self-cont- Recep- Self-cont Atti- Natural Partici- Projec- Self- Assimi- Commu- Value ³
ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ metry tive ac- rol in tive ac- rol in re- tude lan- pation ted recog- lation nicati- ³
³Situation ³ Participants ³ tivity proj.act. tivity cept.act. guage matter nition ve means ³
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³
³1.Conception ³ germ ³ as mi h s - ad - u - s asp - - energy fv ³
³of a crystall ³ environment ³ as ma l ad - ad - u - s, c par - - energy dg ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³2.Electrons` ³ electron ³ s ma l s - s - t - s par - + energy dg ³
³hybridization ³ ³ c ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³3.Measuring ³ actor ³ as mi l s -,+ af + t - s, c par(asp) -, + - energy dg(fv) ³
³ ³ object ³ as mi l ad - s - u(t,i) - s, c par - - energy dg ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³4.Reading of ³ reader ³ as ma h,l ad(s,af,ac) +, - ad,af,s +, - i,t,u + s, c prop,asp -, + +,- r,em,et,ac fv,dg ³
³a book ³ book ³ as mi l,h s - s - u,t,i -,+ s asp, wh - -,+ matter, ³
³ ³ ³ soul,spirit ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³5.Coitus ³ coitants ³ s ma h,l af,ac +, - af,ad,ac +, - i,t,u +,- s wh,asp, +, - +,- em,et,ac fv,dg ³
³in man ³ ³ (mi) prop ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³6.Coitus in ³ coitants ³ s ma h af - af - i - s wh ? - em,et fv ³
³ non-human ³ ³ ³
³ mammals ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³7.Immune ³ antigene ³ as ma l s - s - u - s, c prop - - structure dg ³
³interactions ³ antibody ³ as mi,ma l,h af - s - t - s, c prop - - affinity dg ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³8.Umwelt ³ organism ³ as mi,ma l,h s - s - t - s, c prop,asp - - fv ³
³ ³ space ³ as mi l s - s - u - s par - -,+ energy dg ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³9.Taking ³ spectrograph ³ as mi l s - af - u - s par - - energy dg ³
³EEG ³ brain acti- ³ as mi l s - s - u - s par - + energy dg ³
³ ³ vity ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³10.Studying ³ scientist ³ as ma h s,ad,af +,- af -,+ i - s(c) asp -, + -,+ et,ac,em,r fv ³
³taxone morpho-³ image of ar- ³ ³
³logy ³ chetype ³ as ma h,l s - s,ad - i - s, c asp - + psych.energy fv ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³11.Studying ³ scientist ³ as ma h s + af + i,t,u - s, c wh + + r,et,ac fv,dg ³
³matrimonial ³ pair ³ as mi,ma l,h s - s - i - s, c asp,wh, - + et fv ³
³behaviour ³ ³ prop ³
ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ
Non-typical characteristics are parenthesized.
12.Enlogue and non-enlogue.
With the notion of enlogue being so wide, an
important distinction should be made between that which is
enlogue and that which is not. Although, strictly speaking,
every interaction is an enlogue, it would be of low euristical
value to qualify as enlogues the degenerated cases,
especially those which can get an exhaustive description in
terms of a number of invariant parameters, or those which
are products of algorithmic procedures, or those having
universal (not individual or typical) character. Such
`non-enlogical` processes are not very numerous, but their
number is increasing, since our technological civilization
requires greater standartization not only in technosphere,
but also in human education and communication, which means
that more interactions become non-enlogues. In technocratic
societies, an orientation dominates to the superficial level
of reality, and, therefore, the world is becoming governed
by `objective laws` in a greater degree, the alteration of
the laws being beyond human power. The sphere of enlogue is
thus being reduced (cf. 2nd part's beginning - Buber,1970).
This situation gives rise to a mass urge for inverted
enlogues, such as extrasensory and psychodelic practices, or
depersonalized sex as sport. In extreme cases, all these
lead to generating enlogies isomorphal to one of the
participants (Chebanov, 1988): mechanistic world picture,
for instance, is isomorphal to a subject only posessing
reason, vision and a simple manipulation capacity (cf. in
Persian poetry: a sage in love moving apart the curls of his
beloved-truth to see her face, but sees only a mirror with
his own reflection in it).
In the cases when enlogical character of a process is
beyond any doubt, the processes are given a marginal status
of something like parapsychology or mystics. But in spite of
all this cultural pressure, the more pronounced is the
individuality of a man, the deeper he transforms the things
he gets in touch with, the more he animates and enlogizes
them.The macrostructures complementing the natural language
(Sebeok, 1979) play a considerable role in these processes.
Such a transfiguration of things and animals is
perceived as something quite natural by spiritually oriented
people, whose enlogue with a stone or, say, with a star
isn't more uncommon to them than any other enlogue (take,
for instance, the sermon to birds by St.Francis of Assisi,
or russian anchoret's intercourse with bears). Here, the
difference between enlogue and dialogue disappears.
Unfortunately, the enlogues in physics and chemistry
(e.g., in crystals or in quantum mechanic systems) are out
of the scope of this paper. But the fact of their existence
itself is thought provoking.
Much more common are the enlogues in Living Being and
in human activity.
13.Enlogue in biology.
There is a great variety of enlogues and enlogies in
biology. First of all, umwelt is an enlogy (Uexkull, 1909):
the environment of an organism is different to every two
organisms in the same piece of space, due to the different
transformations of the space by each of the two organisms
creating their umwelts with their own relevant features.
Thus, umwelt proves to be an enlogy of the space in result
of an organism-space enlogue (if the enlogue is regarded
from the point of view of the organism). It is remarkable
that umwelt is treated as one of the key categories
biosemiotics (Stepanov, 1971; Sebeok, 1979).
Of course, biologists are also concerned with enlogues
in living beings, where semiotic means are involved {11}.
14.Enlogue and semiotic means.
The most part of enlogues are in this or that way
related with semiotic means (see n.4). The proposed
conception of semiotic means structure allows to trace the
mechanism of enlogue (Chebanov. forthcoming a).
In the first circuit (Fig.1), along with enlogues
Relations 1 and 9, the chain Relations 2-8 is built of low
energetic microenlogues. Relation 5, reflecting Expression`
and Expression`` enlogues, also is an enlogue, though less
explicite.
In the second circuit, the key point is Relation 11,
which is a macroenlogue representing the transformation of a
participant`s semantic universe.
Thus, semiotic mean appears as an indirect way of
interaction with Referent world, involving two enlogues:
Content-Sense macroenlogue, and Expression`-Expression``
microenlogue.
The stages of the process of interpretation - and the
components of semiotic means - have enlogical character.
Sensible Being's comprehension of semiotic means means an
attempt of the reconstruction of Expression` generation
departing from supposedly symmetric Expression`` (i.e. Sense
generation), which is carried out involving, on the one
hand, the conventions of rationality (cf. Verstand after
Kant), and, on the other, the personal intuition as a
criterium of correctedness (cf. intuition after
Dilteus) {12}.
15.Enlogue in biohermeneutics.
Living Being can be viewed as a complex unity of
semiotic means. In biology, their semantophores are studied
through the observation upon Expression`, Expression``, and
enlogue Relation 5 (Fig. 1).
A biologist (Sensible Being), in his work, comes
across a surprising variability of Expression` and
Expression`` substancies. This variability is considered as
an attribute of life, as is the substancies` high
flexibility which depends on the organism`s state. The
classical morphology in the spirit of Goete attempted to
grasp Expression Form` and Expression Form`` (to distinguish
a form implied in figures, cf. gene as idea). Old biology,
descendant from the conception of world as a Book, regarded
the form as full of sense, and every organism as a text
component. This outlook had been refused in the course of
futile fight against anthropomorphism in biological
conceptions, and then only higher animals` behaviour was
acknowledged as eventually having a certain sense. However,
modern ethology, though carefully avoiding anthropomorphism,
cannot help using a semantic approach in the description of
non-hominal umwelts (Sebeok, 1979).
The study of umwelt forming mechanisms reveals that
only those features of environment - and of other beings -
can be perceived by Living Being, whose perception is
predetermined by Living Being` organization (i.e., a set of
the invariants of perception is genetically determined).
When describing enlogies, all this should be taken into
account.
In the middle of this century, one more discipline
emerged which can not do without the notion of semiosis: it
is the molecular genetics. The matter of this domain has
proved to have the same mechanisms that had been found out
in ethology and in neurophysiology, and it is on this base
that biosemiotics is being formed. Bringing up into a system
the evidences emerging from biosemiotic studies leads to the
rebirth of hermeneutic ideas, some of which were already
quite obvious to biologists (such as the importance of
semantophore as Expression Substance, non-arbitrary (though
not strictly definite) character of the relation between an
organism and its sense, the plurality of interpretations of
every organism, etc.).
There is an alternative way to comprehend Living
Being: Sensible Being can occupy the position of another
Living Being in the enlogue Relation 5. But in this case
Sensible Being turns out to be on the razor-edge, with two
dangers: not step out of anthropomorphal conceptions, and to
be carried out by the temptation of bad mysticism of
parapsychological enlogue violating natural limits of
beings. At the same time, if Sensible Being is consciously
using this position as a human being, it can allow him to
reveal a genuine pious enlogue with Living Being; but the
biologists are not very keen about this kind of knowledge,
they are still unable to be conscious that a man is the
principal actor in a biological reseach, where he does not
just discover the laws of nature, but takes part in the
Creation of the world in his creative enlogue, which is one
of the kinds of hermeneutic activity {13}.
Notes.
1. The conception of enlogue is a fruit of collective
thought. I am extremely grateful to my colleages for their
contribution, especially to Valery D. Dymshits and Ilya S.
Dvorkin who made precious remarks on the text.
2. Relation 11 is represented by two kinds of mechanisms.
First, it can be the syncronization of a two processes by
means of Relations 2-8 shunt episodical connection, in the
case when Content Substance` and Content Substance`` images
are being formed in two uniform processes with comparable
nature and comparable speed. Take, for instance, the
standartization effect of reparations (in genetics). In this
light, a text appears to be a synchronizer of the generation
of uniform processes (which is important to hermeneutics),
not `information vehicle`.
The second mechanism is a kind of distant (field)
interaction between Content Substance` and Content
Substance`` (be it their connection to the same stream of
consciousness (Nalimov, 1982)), or the realization of the
same ideal pattern (cf. the idea of gene as an ideal pattern
(Lubishev, 1925)). In this case, in both parts of semiotic
means, Contents have a sort of their own Expression` and
Expression`` (e.g., a definite pattern of brain electric
activity generating a similar pattern in other brain). Then,
the pattern itself turns out to be a specific Expression
(Expression`` which is structurally isomorphal to the
Content). Any arbitrariness and immotivatedness are thus out
of the question.
3. The very notion of genetic code has a strong
semiotic background mediated by the idea of coding technique
in communications. Crucial here is the understanding that we
have to do with a code rather than with an ordinary object
(Ycas, 1969). Another crucial point is that the relation
between Content and Expression is not motivated (the
properties of amino acids are not concluded from the
properties of nucleatide triplets)(Fig.1, Relation 3), which
testifies semiotic, not physical or chemical essence of the
code. The t-RNA structure provides this immotivatedness
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 semiological 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
Content Substance', or m-RNA consequences, corresponding
Expression Substance').
The direct and inverse degeneration of the code, the
linearity of nucleatide 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 nucleatide
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 untranscribed
loci, bring to mind philological concepts of palindrome,
letter consequences allowing more than one division into
words, anagrammes, etc.
Some investigations introduce the study of molecular
genetic mechanisms into the sphere of hermeneutics. Firstly,
the importance of Expression Substance' is revealed - thus,
the frequence of point mutations , due to the isomorphity of
Content Substance' and Expression Substance', is treated as
a result of DNA nucleotides tautomery (Ladik, 1972). 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, the Content Substance' and the processing of
m-RNA turn out to be important semantically as they
determine Expression Substance' meaning (relations 2-4 on
the Fig.1).
Secondly, the role of diversity is made clear. In
biosynthesis (carried out from decoding a text to its
interpretation), attention is focused on the code
degeneration, frame shift, regulative elements' interaction,
and splicing - all these providihg for the necessary
correlation of Content and Expression, with one gene being
able to answer for the synthesis of up to 15 products.
Even more variously can the peptides be interpreted
(Relations 6-8), whose activity depends on the state of the
cell (cf. the 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 arithmology of a
genetic code (Kalinin, 1981; Volokhonski, 1972) together
with the revealing of eczone - domain correlations (Davydov,
1987), lead to the finding out of the motivatedness of
genetic symbols. Some processes (Relations 5-9) consist,
e.g., in the activity of fermentative centers (Expression
Form'') of related proteins (Expression Substance''), formed
by tertiary and quarternary structures (Relation 5). It
changes the proportion of substratum and product (CF''),
generating the changes in physiological processes (Content
Substance'') characteristic of the cell state (intracellular
umwelt). Thus, genetic texts function as performatives, the
interpretation of genetic symbols being carried out inside a
cell (which is not to say that the products of biosynthesis
cannot be brought outside).
4. The notion of enlogy was proposed be Ilya S.
Dvorkin at the annual (1980) meeting of the Workshop on
Theoretical Biology, where I had claimed that the
consideration of Living Being in terms of information was
always preceded by the objectivation of Living Being. The
new term allows to avoid undesirable connotations and
interferences with the notion of information in
communication theories.The internal form of the word is
synonimous to that of `information` (given that
form-`morphe`=`logos` , in this context only (Chebanov,
1984)), i.e. `bringing a form into something`.
As it has been noted by I.Dvorkin and then by other
scientists, the concepts of enlogue and enlogy have much in
common with the ideas of M.Buber about dialogue (Buber
1970). In dialogue, however, the physical substratum becomes
unimportant because of the general sense-directedness of the
process, whereas in enlogue, a content-full form is embodied
in substratum (cf. the notion of semantophore - see n.4).
There can be no `objects` in enlogue, nor inherent in
dialogue `I`, and this is the reason to qualify enlogue as a
quasipersonal interaction.
The notion of enlogue can be compared with that of
feedback in cybernetics; but enlogue is something more than
interaction because of its projective character.
Enlogies are comparable with `intentional objects` by
Husserl. The more so, as the intentional objects occur in
non-rational acts (like fantasies, dreams, memories,
desires, etc.). But enlogy is inherent in the very being, it
isn`t a product or a property of mind, consciousness or
psyche.
Enlogue and enlogy have common features with noesis
and noema in phenomenologists` conceptions; however, enlogue
can be carried out not only by means of reason (rationally),
which makes it possible to discuss enlogues other than
rational.
There can be observed some similarities between enlogy
and interpretation in phenomenological aesthetics. The main
difference is that there is no enlogy apart from an enlogue
by which is formed and, therefore always preceded, an
enlogy.
Full-scale enlogue is close to Jaspersian notion of
communication, though this closeness is but relative, since
it is only in the conception of enlogue that the
transformation of participants is emphasized.
The same problems were studied by Ricoeur, but from a
different point of view, and the results sharply diverge:
`distanciation` and `objectivization` cannot be accepted
within my approach.
5. There can be distinguished two kinds of enlogue:
1) Two or more participants entering into an interaction
are not SB: e.g., a body when emerging in a gravitational
field distorts the initial field by its mass, redistributing
the deformations. The participants can be uniform (two
charges, two conductors, two organisms, etc.) or
heterogenous (particles and field, organism and environment,
personality and society, etc.).
A highly controversial question arises about the limits
of the participants. On the one hand, an organism is often
considered as an open thermodynamic system opposed to the
`environment` (though how can be an organism apart from its
environment? Cf. the idea of umwelt (Uexkull, 1909;
Chebanov, 1977). Similarly a personality can be represented
as `a bundle` of social relations, and a physical body as
condensed field. To put it another way, the delocalized
participant is thus viewed as playing principal role. On the
other hand, sometimes the delocalized participant is
regarded as being generated by the localized one (in quantum
field theory, or when the biosphere is treated as an
epiphenomenon of an organism`s activity). I.e., a reflexive
generation is obvious here: a localized participant viewed
as a kind of local particularity of a delocalized one
appears, in its turn, to be a source of the delocalized one.
To describe this sort of situations, as well as to describe
a dialogue, a reflexive logic is required (Dvorkin,1983).
2)The second type of enlogues are those where Sensible
Being is involved. Another participant is being projected
into Sensible Being`s mind - and influenced by Sensible
Being - in the same way that in the enlogues of type 1, but
Sensible Being causes a particular transformation in its
partner, and treats it in a peculiar aspect. Cognitive
enlogue is a variant of such interaction.
As to the enlogy (Sensible Being`s image of world
formed in a given enlogue), it depends on a man`s
organization as Sensible Being, on the cultural tradition he
belongs to, etc. Thus, chromatic vision is so important to
humans that even when colours are irrelevant (e. g., in
electronic microscopy), for an achromatic picture to be more
comprehensive, it is usually transformed into a chromatic
one. In modern physics, colour as a quantum number has
acquired an ontological status, though not related otherwise
but metaphorically with the common idea of colour.
One more example is that a human organism can be
influenced by medicines as well as by medicinal magic. In
each case, the organism appears in a different aspect
relevant to the interaction, due to this or that aspect`s
markedness in a given culturally specific world model. I.e.
Sensible Being is forming its partner marking out the
partner`s relevant properties. It is quite obvious in the
cases when the partner is another Sensible Being, or Living
Being: Sensible Being in active position is `en-log-izing`
the partner, which acquires through this a certain `logical`
organization relevant - and recognizable - to the Sensible
Being`s reason.
6. In European philosophy, reality is
traditionally regarded as an ensemble of
things-in-themselves not opposed one to another. If an
opposition is introduced `active principle vs something to
which the activity is directed`, the pair of things is
viewed as being a subject and an object (Fig. 2), while the
ensemble of objects as forming an ontology (the picture of
reality in subject`s mind).
However, it is senseless to speak about a thing as such
or thing in itself when discussing enlogue, because the
`objects` turn out to complicated by the qualities of
`subject`, and vice versa (`subjects` complicated by
`objects'` qualities). In cognitive enlogue, both
participants (if they are two) are equally important to
their quasi-dialogue, but one of them has its reason as a
source of cognitive activity, whereas the other can be, say,
Living Being (Chebanov, 1988); see Fig. 2.
7. I mean by `form` a complex of internal
distinctions of a thing, while steresis is the absence of
form (form`s own other (sein andere, after I.Kant, cf.
Chebanov, 1984)). Although several kinds of steresis were
mentioned by Aristotle, he gave no detailed explanation
about the source of steresis. In the conception I am trying
to present here, steresis appears to be a projection of the
second participant`s form, whereas enlogy should be regarded
as a result of the reciprocal projection of the
participants` organization.
It must be noted that the enlogy is provided by the
activity of at least one participant. That is why the unity
of form and steresis is entelechial. Up to now, this
interpretation proposed by A.B. Goguin proved to be most
fruitful (Rousso, Chebanov, 1985,1988,1991, Russo, Chebanov,
Boldyreva, 1992)).
8. As to the extensional time, it is similarly
related to information, whose amount is defined through the
notion of entropy. In some special cases of enlogue
(`degenerated` enlogues discussed below) the course of time
depending on the participants` properties should be
described, for instance, in the special theory of relativity
(such phenomena as the slowing down of a clock).The
enlogical processuality can be metrically and topologically
various (e.g., non-eudoxean).
9. The categories of enlogue and enlogy are not
identical to the existing phenomenologists' notions,
primarily, due to the general objectivist orientation of the
European culture. Abandoning this tradition allows to
discover the value of enlogies per se, with their dependence
on the particular features of Man, whatever the nature of
these features: individual features of constitution (like
the sensibility to phenylalanine), or supposedly
pathological (like daltonism), or typological (like Sensible
Being's mental organization).
10. Some enlogues involve more than two
participants. Thus, e.g., icon-praying is an enlogue of a
prayer, an icon, and Holy Spirit; the icon, in its turn, is
the result of an enlogue involving Holy Spirit, the
icon-painter, and the person represented in the icon,
whereas the individuality of the icon-painter is a fruit of
his enlogues with other people and circumstances. The idea
about image as a sort of enlogy is crucial to understand the
nature of enlogue, and it is in iconoclastic controversies
that this idea has been formed.
11. A biological research can often be presented as
an enlogue, though purely operational or instrumental
investigations also occur. I suggest that the analysis of
such enlogues is the object of the hermeneutics of biology
(see some examples of the analysis in Table 3 and in
Chebanov, 1993).
Table 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOLOGICAL ENLOGIES
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------ENLOGY: EEG spectrum Morphology Matrimonial
of a taxon behaviour
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARACTERISTICS :
subject mo- guild for- professio-
Sensible delling devi- med profile ally accen-
Being ce,expanding of persona- tuated per-
the spectrum lity sonality
of perception
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enlogue Algorythmized Examination Sensible
procedure by expert observation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Methodologi- reductionism typological pan-psychism
cal approach approach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard physics descriptive psychology
discipline biology
-----------------------------------------------------------
The biomorphity irrelevant taxone- relevant
of Sensible Being specific
-----------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics
of enlogy quantitative quantitative qualitative
qualitative
-----------------------------------------------------------
Means of numbers, schemes, words
presentation diagrams drawings
-----------------------------------------------------------
The abilities of rt rt, ac, em, em, et
Sensible Being et
___________________________________________________________
rt - rational, ac - active, em - emotional, et - empathetic
12. I suggest that macroenlogues cannot be
explained by the low disturbancies amplification effect
(though this cybernetic approach could be relevant in
separate cases, such as macroenlogues in crystals).
A wide spectrum of situations is embraced by the
proposed definition of semiotic means, from an automatical
recognition of a semaphore signal (a degenerated enlogue in
2-8 circuit, without enlogue 11) to the perception of a
poetic text (an extremely complicated chain of enlogues
Relation 5, where the text is a special euristic mean, not
only a complex sign).
13.In this connection compare the idea of the text as a
generator of reality, which underlies "Il nome della rosa".
References
Buber,Martin
1970 *I and Thou* A new translation by Walter Kaufman. New
York: Scribner.
Chebanov, Sergei V.
1977 Umwelt i analog korpuskul`arno-volnovogo dualizma v
biologii. In * III Teoreetilise biologia Kevadkool "Organismi
teooria"* (Puhtu, 6-9 Mai 1977): 5-6 (Unpublished manuscript).
1984 Predstavlenija o forme v yestestvoznanii i osnovaniya
obshey morfologii.* Orgaanilise vormi teooria.* Tonu Oja (ed.),
25-41, Tartu, Tartu Riiklik Ulikool.
1988 Theoretical Biology in Biocentrism. In * Lectures in
Theoretical Biology.* Kalevi Kull, Toomas Tiivel (eds.),
159-168, Tallinn:Valgus.
1993 Biology and Humanitarian Culture: The Problem of
Interpretation in Bio-Hermeneutics and in the Hermeneutics
of Biology. In *Lectures in Theoretical Biology.* 2nd Stage.
Kalevi Kull, Toomas Tiivel( Eds.), 219 - 248, Tallinn:
Estonian Academy of Sciences.
forthcoming a Enloque and Ideas of Hermeneutics in Biology.
# Rivista di Biologia #
forthcoming b Morfologicheskie osnovaniya tipologii
semioticheskikh sredstv. In #Ponimanie i reflexia# Georgii I.
Bogin (ed.),Tver'.
Chebanov, Sergei V., Martynenko, Grigory Ya.
1990a.Osnovnye tipy predstavlenij o prirode yazyka.*Linguistica.*
112-133, Tartu.
1990b Idei germenevtiki v prikladnoj lingvistike.
*Kvantitativnaya lingvistika i avtomaticheskij analiz tekstov.*
92-111, Tartu.
Davydov, Oleg V.
1987 Katalog dopolnitel`nykh variantov dupletov geneticheskogo
coda. *Doklady AN BSSR* XXXI (11), 1037-1040.
Dvorkin, Ilia S.
1983 Refleksivno-logicheskij podkhod k ucheniyu o
klassifikatsii. In * Teoria i metodologia biologicheskikh
klassifikatsij.* Boris S. Shornikov, (ed.) Moscow,Nauka: 127-135
Hjelmslev L.
1953 *Prolegomena to a Theory of Language.*
Baltimore, Wawerly Press.
Kalinin, Oleg M.
1981 Geneticheskij kod, rel`ativistskaya simmetria i tablitsa
Mendeleeva. In * Tezisy dokladov Vsesoyuznoy Konferentsii
"Teoria klassifikatsij i analiz dannykh", 5-7 maya* (chast II),
73-75. Novosibirsk, AN SSSR.
Ladik, Joseph
1972 * Quanten biochemie fur Chemiker und Biologen*. Budapest,
Akademia Kiado.
Lubischev, Alexandr A.
1925 * O prirode nasledstvennykh faktorov.* Izvestija
biologuicheskogo NII pri Permskom universitete.* Vol.4,
Supplement. Perm`.(No publishing house mentioned)
1982 *Problemy formy, sistematiki i evolutsii organismov.*
Moscow, Nauka.
Meyen, Sergei V.
1989 *Vvedenije v teoriju stratigrafii.* Moscow, Nauka.
Nalimov, Vasili V.
1982 *Realms of the Unconscious. The Enchanted Frontier.*
Philadelphia, (Pa), ISE Press.
Ricoeur, Paul
1975 Phenomenology and Hermeneutics. *General Linguistics.*9,
82-102
Rousso, Galina V., Chebanov, Sergei V
1985 Osnovnye pon`atija kristallomorfologii v sisteme
kristallograficheskikh i morfologicheskikh distsipln.In * Fizika
kristallizatsii * Yuri M. Smirnov (ed.),113-123, Kalinin, Kalininski
Gosudarstvenny Universitet.
1988. Forma, Sterezis i Enlogiya kristallov.In * Teorija mineralogii*
Dmitry P.Grigoryev, Nikolay P.Yushkin (Eds.),47-51, Leningrad,
Nauka.
1991 Novy kontseptualnyi podkhod k vyrashivaniju bezdefektnykh
kristallov.In *Teorija mineralogii.* Tezisy dokladov II
Vsesoyuznogo soveshanija. *Vol.2. 140-141, Syktyvkar.
Russo, Galina V., Chebanov, Sergey V.,Boldyreva Ol'ga M.
1992 Poluchenie kristallov biftolata klia, celenapravlenno
zagrjaznjonnych prymjas'amy +Fizika kristallizatsii+ Yuri M. Smirnov
(ed.), 24-30, Tver', Tverskoy Gosudarstvenny Universitet.
Sebeok, Thomas A.
1979 * Sign and Its Masters.* Austin,London. University of Texas Press.
Stepanov, Yury S.
1971 * Semiotika.* Moscow, Nauka.
Sharov, Alexei A.
1990 Zimn`aya shkola po biosemiotike .
*Zhournal Obshey Biologii.* 51 (2), 283-285.
Uexkull, Jakob von
1909 *Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere.* Berlin.
Volokhonski, Andrei G.
1972 O formal`noy structure geneticheskogo koda. In *Tsytologia
i genetika*, 6(6), 487-492.
Ycas M.
1969 *The Biological Code*. Amsterdam-London, North Holland
Publishing Co.
St.Petersburg, July, 1993
Concluding part of this work was realized with support of
the Soros Foundation's grands for Humanitarians and for
problem "Biodiversity".