THEORETICAL BIOLOGY IN BIOCENTRISM
S. V. Chebanov
In: Lectures in theoretical biology. Tallinn: Valgus, 1988. P.159-167.
This paper is the first comprehensive, though brief review (1-24)
of the focal points (8) of the concept of Theoretical biology (TB)
developed by the author since 1972 at TB seminars in Leningrad
University. Some of the results have been reported and published
fragmentarily and the whole picture was given in lectures (the Moscow
Society of Naturalists, 1981).
Status of theoretical biology
I. TB is a phenomenon of culture and is of an interdisciplinary
nature. TB advances new ideas concerning the nature of living matter
(LM), knowledge, science and theory [12], mathematics and
mathematization of cognition, interrelation between theory and
philosophy, etc. TB is based on the concept of the nature of LM (6, 7,
10, 12-15, 18, 19) and the method of its reflection (3 - 11, 13, 16,
20-24) by a particular culture (biomorphic (5) or not).
2. In different cultures different categories of things are
distinguished. As a rule, the inanimate, the LM and the
psychological-social matter are distinguished. Yet, the boundaries and
the attributes of LM, the norms of relations with it (cf. reverence
for life by A.Schweitzer), also the relations of man with other living
beings (LB) differ considerably (works on biohistory by F. Verdoorn).
3. In different cultures only one of the categories of things is
considered as the basic one, and this determines its image and its
relation to the universe (Table 1). Thus, the domination (8) of
certain principles makes the medieval European culture antropomorphic,
the modern culture physicalistic, and that of India biocentric.
Hylozoism (Aristotle, Paracelsus) is biocentrism in Europe, yet
biocentric culture has not been formed here (cf. (22-24)).
4. The above cultural monism is related to reductivity - the
tendency to the universality, the possibility to use signs (and not
symbols) to describe classes instead of individual phenomena. The loss
of specificity in classes due to reductivity is reductionism (rd.). Rd
Is a linear order of classes, a qualification of some of them (the
inanimate, the methodology of physics) as simple and others (the
psyche, the methodology of psychology) as complex and describing some
classes in terms of others. This concerns classes of things
(ontological rd: historic-generic or substrate reduction of LM to the
inanimate) or basic research ideas (methodological rd: using the
methodology of physics in biology). It can be a reduction of complex
matter to simple (rd proper: a reduction of the LM to the inanimate)
or vice versa (antireductionism: reduction of the inanimate to the
psyche with a psychological interpretation of hidden variables in
physics, cf. (5, 12, 24)). Rd carries the ideas beyond the boundaries
of adequacy (diagonal arrows in Table 1) thus resulting in illnesses
in extreme cases (e.g., sexopathology). The conceiving of life
presupposes that the biologist who conceives is treated as living (5)
and his life is preserved (7, 10); there should be no or little
reduction.
Table I.
Attitude to the physicalism biocentrism anthropomorphism
Universe │ │ │
Class of things inanimate living matter psychological
sociological matter
_____________________________________________________________________
Object object being partner
of conception in dialogue
_____________________________________________________________________
Its forms body, wave organism sensible individuality,
person
______________________________________________________________________
Universe physical umwelt everyday life, culture
______________________________________________________________________
Causes material formal
active reflective final
______________________________________________________________________
Regularities laws tendencies norms
______________________________________________________________________
Aim of the invariants types individualities
conception
_______________________________________________________________________
Orientations extensional ariphmological intensional
__________________________________________________________________
5. Means of description (languages, different logics, mathematics,
methodologies), whatever they are, mirror the universe, but the
reflections are various depending on the presence of internal
resolving structure (IRS) [3]. The category of gender in a language is
an IRS for denoting sex. If it is absent in a language, external
resolving structures (terms, descriptions) are used. But the category
of gender produces inadequacies and ascribes differences to "sexless"
nouns. Thus, a language is never precise, and the correct image is
conveyed metaphorically. The means of description are adequate when
they possess IRS isomorphic to LM (biomorphic). The difficulty of
describing (physical description of LM) arises from the inadequacy of
the means of description (IRS in physics are not biomorphic). The
means of description are: reductive - only fragments are described,
but IRS are not isomorphic even to them (anthropomorphism: conditions
unusual for a modern European are extreme); systemic reductive (SR) -
IRS are isomorphic to parts of the matter described and unity is
achieved by the synthesis of these parts into a whole (16, 17; e. g.
different types of extreme situations in biocoenosis for the patients,
the violents and the explerents), organic - with united global IRS,
biomorphic unity of LM, with the possibilities of metaphorization (the
extreme situations as a condition for the degeneration of the
biospheric umwelt in the physical world (15)). Dynamics of LM requires
dynamic means of description and their reflexion (semiodynamics, cf.
(12)).
6. Modern biology is a mixture of estranged physicalistic knowledge
of the substrate of LM formulated as a science [12] and debatable
anthropomorphic ideas of unity, development and vital activity of LM
(F. Schelling, L. Oken) presented in studies, coming from the past
(12, 13, 21-23). Heuristic nature of reductionism, progress in
physics, obviousness of mechanistism and a wide spreading of
anthropomorphism make the outward appearance of biocentrismmore
complicated. But one should not overlook the existing ideas, since
both substrate and semantics are important for LM (12), and the body
and the wave of organism (14) act as semantophores - exponents, whose
organization is of essential nature. Therefore a movement towards an
organic approach to biology via SR approach (which combines the
advantages of the two paradigms cf. (15, 16, 17)) and theoretical
studies within it are justified. The inevitable expansion of
biocentrism in this case (20, 22-24) is balanced off by the pressure
of other pictures of the universe.
7. The creation of TB in the above situation assumes (cf. (1)) the
existence of biology oriented at the specific nature of LM
(cf.vitalism [5]) and blomorphic (5) logics (9), methodology (8, 10,
11, 16), mathematics (9, 14. 15, 18), types of theoretical studies
(11, 17, 18, 21) and organization of theoretical work (20) in
biocentric culture (22-24).
Biology and theoretical studies in biocentris
8. Finding an adequate methodology is the major difficulty in
developing TB. Methodology of complex approach can be proposed as a
possibility [14]. Its aim is to join discordant parts (5, 6, 9, 10,
13, 14, 16, 19) when interact with unity as supersystemity. It is
based on using different means of description (5), abilities of people
(the description of the rational (rt) aspect of LM produces
nomogenesis; the emotional (em), the empathetic (et) and the actional
(ac) ones produced bioesthetics (15), cf. E. Haeckel on the beauty of
form in nature (12); P. A. Kropotkin's concept of mutual aid, concept
of selection, respectively - Fig.1) each of these is associated with
its types of expertise (similar to the taxonomic work) and
substantiation (e.g., proof, demonstrations) so that the extent of
substantiation of the results is determined by their coincidence when
obtained, in various ways (common sense included). Theoretical study
forms theoretical body in theoretical space with different principles
predominant in its different parts. Locally this theoretical body is
either amorphous or it structurizes into a deductive system or is
conjoint with empirical reality (cf. (9)), while in focal points (cf.
(4)) it fully reveals specific features of multifarious types of
organization.
9. Reflexive logic [3] and mathematics which may be suitable for
biology are based on the reflexive syllogism involving empirical
reality (cf. [8]), its coalescence with theory (cf. its etymological
meaning), and bringing causes and aims together by enlogical
processuality [13], cf. (10, 15).
10. A sensible being (SB), i.e., an empirical biologist (cf. (11,
23)) can conceive himself as a human being with all his organization
(cf. (4); subject S possesses properties of object O), and LB (2) has
an inner organization independent of environment (object O possesses
subjective properties -S- but not necessarily in the form of
intellect). The mutually active and mutually changing interactions of
SB and LB, are an enlogue, where the organization of one being is
projected into another (e.g., SB on LB, i.e., bringing sense to LB;
cf. (17)). The enlogue (like a dialogue) is a unity of construction
and cognition. As a result, one of the beings forms an image, an
enlogy [13] of the other. The being loses the opposition of S to O and
the completeness of its properties tends to approximate it to a thing
(T) as part of existence (Fig. 1). The being which reveals part of its
properties as a thing and is transformed by other beings, is an
enlogy.
11. Biological experience is an enlogue of SB and LB, a biologist's
performance in the theater of LB, a riddling to LM and a raising of
the curtain. Every empirical biologist (as an expert) forms his own
enlogy of LB (fact) according to his psychic organization (cf.
orientation of tetrahedra in Fig. 1), and methodology (cf. (1, 8)) is
necessary to coordinate the facts presented by different empiricists.
This is a task for theorists (see also (17, 21)) who organize the
dialogue with empiricists. A dialogue of several empiricists (so as to
give a more comprehensive picture of LB due to differences in their
psychics) with one (or several) theorist(s) is a reflexive biological
experiment (cf. interviewing experts in engineering knowledge) as a
theoretical method (cf. Galileo's experiment as a reflective
reorganization the empirical reality depending on the task; work with
invariants makes it possible for some theorist to work with one
empiricist and facilitates their combination in one person).
12. In association with antireductionism (4), semantics appears in
biology owing to ideas about: Languages of LM (genetic (4), immune -
with double segmentation, grammar, synonyms and homonyms in the
vocabulary, generation of correct senseless sentences - mutations,
cancer growths), similar to language are hormones, pheromones,
ecological code, animal behaviour; one can speak about the "written" -
preformed (13) and "oral" - epigenetic - languages and an organism as
a text in several languages [8]; Bioesthetics (A. A. Ljubischev [15];
cf. (8, 13, 15, 18)) which develops the ideas of secondary semiosis
and hermeneutics of life (the role of minor and alkyl bases in the
virus DNA, geographic styles of habitus - tailtenacity in American
jungles, the variously caused blue colouring of butterflies in
Ceylon); Anthropic principles in global ecology (V.I.Vernadsky,
Teilhard de Chardin) and cosmogony (Carter's principle);
Anthropomorphic approaches in physics [4]. At the same time, semiotic
features become obvious in taxonomy, morphology (Baer's law is the
result of inverse relation between the volume and the contents of the
concept with the number of signs growing during embryogenesis). As a
result, the old ideas concerning the language of nature, the Book of
Life are being reinterpreted (cf. (21)).
13. Preformism, short range interrelation, primacy of substrate and
study of body, which are similar in essence, oppose epigenesis, long
range interrelation, focusing attention on organization and field
interactions. The first paradigm, supreme during the mechanistic epoch
(cf. (6)), has the means of description which are not always adequate
for morphology and embryology [6]; the second paradigm is at present
"speechless" (with the exception of synergetics, formative causality
of R. Sheldrake) though it has got facts (e.g., no attention had been
paid to divaricate bushes in New Zealand and their possible
interpretation from the viewpoint of unity of style and genius loci -
L. S. Berg (cf.(12, 15, 18)) - before the hypothesis of virus
transduction had been advanced [15]; analogy, the appearance of
skeleton in many groups during transition from Vendian to Cambrian)
14. The LMs exist as individuals with a "body" and a formed "wave"
of action [10]. The body and the wave are mutually affected during
their interaction with the environment and are enlogies (10). The
body's bounds are determined reflectively (the LB itself distinguishes
between itself and non-self), they ensure contact with the universe
due to breaks in the bounds (pores) and are described by a biomorphic
non-Eudoxian geometry (15). The body is the result of interference
between the waves of action, the locus [13] with their highest
concentration. The "body" and "wave" are extreme states of an organism
(in anabiosis the wave is reduced, bacteria practically have no body).
Wave interactions predominate in unicellular populations while body
interactions dominate in their colonies; for multicellular ones both
types are important (cf. (6, 13)).
15. Umwelt (J. v. Uexkull [10; 13]) is the universe where LB live
and which they react to (Trichoptera's larvae react to conditions
inside their house which is an aggregate of nonliving particles
transformed into a part of umwelt by the action wave). It is a
superposition of action waves, unity of a "physical" and a phase
spaces. Umwelt is specific for different species (domination of sense
of smell in perception distorts geometry) and involves many
components. The Umwelt properties in some points approach the
properties of a physical world (e.g., coincidence of body geometry of
fishes, birds), which means that the physical and biological pictures
of the world asymptotically coalesce ((3, 5); cf. the influence of the
organisms on physical processes, A. N. Kozyrev). Umwelt is
characterized by enlogical processuality ([13], cf. [2]) as an aspect
of an individual's polymorphism (9, 18), thermodynamics (difference in
the relation Ca/Mg in shells as standing waves of the organisms of the
same biocoenosis indicates the difference of temperatures of their
umwelts), harmony (cf. (12)) of organisms and umwelt (cf. L. S. Berg's
original expediency, A. A. Elenkin's principle of equivalentogenesis).
Biosphere is a united umwelt of the past, present and future of Earth.
16. Complex approach (8) surmises the use of interdisciplinary
description pictures (DP) when the SR method (5) is employed (DP turn
into enlogies when organic ideas are used; cf. mesogies manifested in
disharmony and unobservable in equilibrium) and search for
configurators (V. A. Lefevr, [14]) which synthesize them in a way
specific for the subject field (include taxa of different categories
(18)). The type DP synthesis does not go beyond the limits of adequacy
(which is an obstacle to reductlonism (4)). These DP can be correlated
with biological disciplines and Aristotle's causes (C (Table 2; cf.
(23)).
Table 2
B C active bioenergetics material C B
physiology f functional energetic eg substrate sb biochemistry
genetics pr program DP structural st anatomy
B C final purposeful pp formal C B
teleonomy (adaptation)
17. TB in the SR biology represents a configurator synthesizing six
DP for actualized body and wave (14) components of the organism (in
substrate and semantfc aspects these are two-side cube planes - Fig.
I, (6)). In the theoretical space (8) of postscience, and describes
properties of this configurator and space. Particularly, it explicates
the a priori components (frames) of biological knowledge projected
upon the LB in an enlog (10). Application of the configurator results
in a speculative generic being (GB, Fig. 1 [12]) which generalizes the
empirical data in the enlog with LB, but is not so rigidly
structurized as in deductive theories. The GB is a product [12] of a
dialogue between theorists and empiricists, and the theorists' work
(cf. (11, 20, 27, 24)) is an enlog with GB. Its value is independent
of the empiricists' work.
18. The GB as a centaur of DP is heterogeneous, heterohierarchic and
heterochronous (G. P. Tschedrovitzky). This corresponds to a
populative existence of its empiric incarnations and requires a
typological approach to its description [12; 13]. The aim of taxonomy
as an extensional aspect of typology is to bring forth essential signs
of LB which represent the form of LM and constitute (together with a
fixed combination of facultative signs, i.e., styles [13, 15]; (8, 12,
15)) the subject matter of morphology [1, 4, 9, 13] (including
meronomy) as an intentional aspect of typology. The unity of these
aspects is related to type as a distinctive figure, an arithmology
number (the higher plants as the triad of "root - stalk - leaf", Table
I; cf. ideas of mathematics of relations as relevant for biology [3,
7]). The central generalization of systematic reductive biology is the
S. V. Meyen's idea of refrain (R) [l3] - a set with a structure which
corresponds to different types of changeability (onto-, phyla-,
teratogenetic, cf. (?????) dismembering leaf-like organs). The R
members are incarnated in figures of different forms (forms of
species, fratriae are built from a holomorph of semaphoronts (W.
Hennig, see [13]) R, i.e., typological categories themselves are
polymorphic). The R member can be expanded into a R and the R can be
reduced to a member of the other R i.e., the R and its members, as
unity and its parts, are related through automodel symmetry, which
retains a semantic invariant [13], the result of which is the
possibility to reconstruct the organism by its fragments (as in
palaentology).
19. Macroevolution of LM as a centaur-object is described by a cross
-section of semaphyleses (cf. Empedocles) which are greatly preformed
(13) as trajectories in the refrain. The stabilization of a new
combination of properties in some population, i.e., the appearance of
a new type (mammalization in different taxa and "assembly" of mammals
from its result) due to epigenetic changes in umwelt (15).
20. Self-organizing seminar-dialogue (cf. [1], 8) capable of
self-reproduction is a type of biomorphic (7) organization of
theoretical study (reflexive experiment as collective activity
following personal experience) which is (similarly to the empiricists'
enlog with LB) an aspect of the way of life. Therefore the results of
work incarnated in multidimensional, inherently h eterogeneous texts
produced by different means (terms, metaphors, formulae, figures: but
the given text would be rather compared with a fossil due to its
laconicism) and recorded in charts, on Moblus's band, in tables. Thus
such texts are centaurs of epos and the daily round and are formed as
organons, organisms of ideas (Hegel). Their interpretations are
adequate when the reader is correctly (by contact with a tradition
bearer - cf. the role of types and standards in taxonomy as means of
the centration (8, 18)) centred upon the focal points (8). When
distorted, these texts become senseless, i.e., they are impervertible.
21. Methodological reflection of expertise which enables reduction to
enlogies (as centaurs of different organizations, cf. (6, 9, 10, 13 -
20)) and reinterpretation of general biology (cf. (11, 17) is the way
to formal biology (23).
Biocentrism and culture
22. The idea of a man who lives in culture as his umwelt (an enlogical
type - cf. (21)) and describes it variously (8, 10, 11) is the last
link in the biocentric picture of the Universe. The logical-epistemic
approach [12] (by constructing invariants) c arries out an extensional
umwelt reduction to a physical world and is oriented at mechanisms
(cf. unity of construction of real numbers, Newtonian time and space,
energy, money as an universal equivalent; cf. (3, 4, 6)). Umwelt
corresponding to such a culture is similar to the umwelt of the
explerents (5) and is reflected as a physical world which can be
interpreted as a dead umwelt. The anthropomorphic approach oriented at
personality and working with sense reduces the man's umwelt to his
intentional aspect (the medieval umwelt is similar to the patient's
umwelt; cf. (24)).
23. Formal biology (B) studies the form of the LM and reinterprets
the descriptive biology (cf. (18)), supplements modern B
(physical-chemical one) which studies matter, substrate (6) and
presupposes the creation of 1) active B covering medicine (cf. Arabic,
or homeopathic medicine, or the one aimed at correcting the form),
agriculture (cf. biodynamic agriculture with its mixed crops and
closed cycles; journals "Biodynamics", "Compost"), biotechnology which
does not include LM into physico-chemical technologies (bioindication,
organoleptic tests, chemical equipment for biosynthesis) but develops
biomorphic technologies as a special enlog (account of umwelt's
specific features, use of biodevices - LB as means for enlog
organization with cultivated beings) and 2) purposeful B (biosophy)
forming values based on discovering the aim of LM development (Table
2).
24. Biomorphic TB is possible (7) in a biocentric culture necessary
to overcome the ecological crisis (cf. (23-1)) where, alongside with
the four B there exists heterogeneous hylozoism (which takes account
of life specifics in different classes contrary to the homogeneous,
the Aristotelian one), i.e., vitacentrism which treats life as a
continuing violation of regularities (a permanent miracle) and ensures
reflection in conception of LM, finds adequate applications to results
of this conception which are deprived of fatal side effect.
Acknowledgements. The author thanks all those who contributed to this
work and have made it possible all these years.
REFERENCES
I. Вышенская Т.Д.. (1981). Развитие полимерного андроцея у некоторых
представителей семейства Теасеае D. Don. Автореф. на соиск. уч. ст.
канд. биол. наук, Л.
2. Гогин А. В. (1983). Диалектика абсолютного и относительного в
познании пространственно-временных отношений. - Проблемы философских
наук. Ч. 1. ДЕП. в ВИНИТИ 22.8.1983 N. 1390, 36-42.
3. Дворкин И. С. (1983) . Рефлексивно-логический подход к учению о
классификации. - Теория и методология биологических классификаций. М.:
Наука, 127-135.
4. Дымшиц В. А. (1982). Явление перекрывания генов с точки зрения
эволюционной теории. - Ж. общ. биол., 43, 571-573.
5. Карпов В. Л. (1909). Витализм и задачи научной биологии в вопросе о
жизни. - Вопр. философ. и психолог., 98 (111), 341-392, 99 (IV),
524-573.
6. Крупицкий Е. М. (1983). Концепция детерминирующих районов и
локальных целых в описании эмбриогенеза. Л., 27 с. (рукопись).
7. Левич А. П. (1982). Теория множеств, язык теории категорий и их
применение в теоретической биологии. С. А. Рощин. Приложение. М.: МГУ.
8. Морозов А. (1978). Самопознание симпозиума. - Знание-сила, 10,
39-41 .
9. Спиров А. В. (1982). Об эмбриональном структурообразовании на
основе волн цитодифференцировки. - Онтогенез, 13, 469-477.
10. Чебанов С. В. (1977) . Умвельт и аналог корпускулярно-волнового
дуализма в биологии. - Organismi teooria. Puhtu, 5-6 /рукопись/.
11. Чебанов С. В. (1980). Внутренние и внешние системы в теории
классификации. - Системные исследования. 1979, М.: Наука, 140-
146.
12. Чебанов С. В. 11983). Единство теоретизирования о способах
упорядочивания. - Теория и методология биологических классификаций.
М.: Наука, 18-28.
13. Чебанов С. В. 11984). Представления о форме в естествознании и
основы общей морфологии. - Schola biotheoretica, 1О. Tartu, 25-40.
14. Чебанов С. В. (1986). Комплексность в биостратиграфии. - Системный
подход в геологии. Ч. 1. М.: МИНГ им. И. М. Губкина, 84-86.
15. Шорников Б. С. (1984) . О некоторых проблемах эволюции и
математической биологии. - Системность и эволюция. М.: Наука, 82-91.