Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, ERT, and Semiotics

referring to:
Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:09:34 +0200 (MET DST)
Bob Artigiani <artigian@novell.nadn.navy.mil>

> ... information about social
> collectives is qualitatively different from the biological information
> stored in genes and tissues. Collectives are not always easy to perceive,
> especially if you are burdened with an Anglo-American sensibility...

Somewhat reluctantly, I feel compelled to address an issue that is
called 'ethnocentrism' in the CA discourse. It has to do with the
mechanics of the cultural conditioning of perception,
(also philosophically called the 'epistemology').
There is some relation to the current theories of radical constructivism
(Maturana, Watzlawick, v.Glasersfeld, v. Foerster, Roth, Schmidt).
So, instead of 'Information War' (see my last message)
we might as well talk about 'applied constructivistic engineering'.
http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/diskur05.htm#Heading100

IMO, there 'may be' a perceptive problem in the culturally
conditioned cognitive (and epistemological) bias of european-descended
'whitefellas' (as the Aboriginals say), which
other cultures do not possess in the same extent.
Dolores LaChapelle (1988, 9), as a proponent of the deep ecology
movement, quotes Needham (1959):
"While European philosophy tended to find reality in
substance, Chinese philosophy tended to find it in relation."
>From p. 22-28, she gives a short rundown of the philosophical
roots and implications of this epistemological bias,
and on p. 41, she denounces the fundamental fallacy
of the Hobbes/Rousseau ideas of primitive man
as brutish, and isolated, solitary creature.
Most of part III of her book, from p. 119 on, is a
description of ritual that could directly be
contrapositioned to the VEM / ritual dichotomy of
the previous FIS discussion.

The ERT triangle
============
I have systematized and abstracted on the dynamics of the
different possible culturally conditioned
fundamental orientations of perceptive
dynamics, which I have called the ERT triangle:
Entity-Relation-Transaction:
        {Entity/State/Substance} {Relation} {Process/Transition/Transaction}
or the world centers of
        {SUB} {SEM} {OBJ}
http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/poly03.htm#Heading5
also:
http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/inform01.htm#Heading4

and in:
http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/poly06.htm
I have described this ERT triad as a kind of three-way
Gestalt flip switch, which can only be in one position for
the cognitive outlook of a person.

The Chinese philosophy, and deep ecology are both fundamental
epistemological positions from the Relation-SEM center, and
as such are quite difficult to understand from the traditional
western position of {Entity/State/Substance}.
The catch is that these position presuppose society as given,
and a priori to individuals and entities. Therefore, the question
of an 'emergent property' of society arising is moot in their
view.

The world of the SEMsphere
====================
Semiotics can possibly be better understood if viewed from the
Relation corner of the ERT triangle. Semiotics presupposes
'society' (in a Whiteheadian sense), since a sign 'makes sense'
only in the setting of a societal exchange.
If it were not, then it would be just a Newtonian impulse.
That is: communication presupposes as well as
establishes (a kind of) society.
(It therefore makes sense to speak of a 'society of molecules').
See also:
http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/poly04.htm

Merrell (1994) gives a fairly complete description of the
semiotics position, and he ties in the Peircean view,
as well as the dissipative systems, thermodynamics
and system theory, mainly with a Prigogine, Jantsch,
and Eigen, Maturana, Varela, emphasis, so that there
should be lots of connections to the FIS discussions.
He also stresses the Heraclitean, process aspect (p. 224).

On p. 203, he states: "Information ... is the necessary
companion to signs and their semiotic objects".
If we accept this, then Peirce's views can with some
grain of salt be taken as a statement to the
information character of the universe:
"The universe is perfused with signs...
if it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448n).
Needless to say, this is better understood if we assume
a fundamentally Whiteheadian universe.
http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/poly04.htm

Literature:
LaChapelle, Dolores: Sacred land, sacred sex, Finn hill arts, Silverton,
(1988)
Merrell, Floyd: Of signs and life, Semiotica 101-3/4 (1994), 175-240
Needham, Joseph; Wang Ling: Science and Civilization in China, Cambridge
(1959)

-- 
Andreas Goppold 
URL: http://www.uni-ulm.de/uni/intgruppen/memosys/
c/o FAW Ulm, Postf. 2060, D-89010 Ulm , Germany
Tel. ++49 +731 501-8757/ -915 , Fax: +731 501-929