Can Cybersemiotics Solve the Paradox of Transdisciplinary Knowing?

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference abstract in proceedingsResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Humans are embodied, feeling, knowing, and culturally formed beings, participating in semiosis and language processes. They are living simultaneously in four different worlds: 1) The physic-chemical part of the natural world that also constitutes the pure material-energetic aspect of our body; 2) Our integration with a living body as the source of life, which we share with other living species; 3) Our experiential world of feeling, will, drives, affects, and thoughts, manifested as consciousness; and 4) The cultural world of language, meaning, power, and technology. Language, pragmatically conceived, connects our perception with our thinking, communication, and acting in the social world.
    Unfortunately,each of the four worlds has historically developed its own type of narrative, with its own fundamentalist and reductionist verions vitiating the project of transdisciplinarity. Physicists and chemists tend to view the universe as consisting of matter, forces, and energy. Mechanistically oriented biologists extend this view into their subject area. But cybernetic- and semiotic-oriented biologists perceive living systems as the basic organizers of reality, possessing self-protecting, and self-promoting capacitites, as well as perception, instincts, and communication through signs. The social ad cultural sciences, especially the radical social constructivist ones, see the world as constructed from social, human, and linguistic interpretations. This is why energy-matter-information, life consciousness, and mening have become separated in four different worlds, which are in conflict with our everyday life world experience, where they are not in any way absolutely separated. We therefore lack a transdisciplinary, 'scientific' explanation of how these narratives are itegrated, given that, as has been broadly accepted in all four 'worlds', the 'unity of science' idea of the logical positivists has failed because it was predicated on the excessively narrow epistemological foundation of verificationism. The fallibilism of Percean pragmatism, integrated with the autopoietic system theory of Luhmann, may pave the way for an autopo-semiotic process view.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publication39th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America : Paradoxes of Life
    EditorsFarouk Y. Seif
    Place of PublicationSeattle, WA
    PublisherSemiotic Society of America
    Publication date2014
    Pages29-30
    Publication statusPublished - 2014
    EventThe Semiotic Society of America 39th Annual Meeting - The Westin Seattle Hotel , Seattle, Washington, United States
    Duration: 2 Oct 20145 Oct 2014
    Conference number: 39
    http://semioticsocietyofamerica.org/2014-annual-meeting/

    Conference

    ConferenceThe Semiotic Society of America 39th Annual Meeting
    Number39
    LocationThe Westin Seattle Hotel
    CountryUnited States
    CitySeattle, Washington
    Period02/10/201405/10/2014
    Internet address

    Bibliographical note

    CBS Library does not give access to the material

    Cite this

    Brier, S. (2014). Can Cybersemiotics Solve the Paradox of Transdisciplinary Knowing? In F. Y. Seif (Ed.), 39th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America: Paradoxes of Life (pp. 29-30). Seattle, WA: Semiotic Society of America.
    Brier, Søren. / Can Cybersemiotics Solve the Paradox of Transdisciplinary Knowing?. 39th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America: Paradoxes of Life. editor / Farouk Y. Seif. Seattle, WA : Semiotic Society of America, 2014. pp. 29-30
    @inbook{2649adcdcdcd46a1ae23d8114e930b3c,
    title = "Can Cybersemiotics Solve the Paradox of Transdisciplinary Knowing?",
    abstract = "Humans are embodied, feeling, knowing, and culturally formed beings, participating in semiosis and language processes. They are living simultaneously in four different worlds: 1) The physic-chemical part of the natural world that also constitutes the pure material-energetic aspect of our body; 2) Our integration with a living body as the source of life, which we share with other living species; 3) Our experiential world of feeling, will, drives, affects, and thoughts, manifested as consciousness; and 4) The cultural world of language, meaning, power, and technology. Language, pragmatically conceived, connects our perception with our thinking, communication, and acting in the social world.Unfortunately,each of the four worlds has historically developed its own type of narrative, with its own fundamentalist and reductionist verions vitiating the project of transdisciplinarity. Physicists and chemists tend to view the universe as consisting of matter, forces, and energy. Mechanistically oriented biologists extend this view into their subject area. But cybernetic- and semiotic-oriented biologists perceive living systems as the basic organizers of reality, possessing self-protecting, and self-promoting capacitites, as well as perception, instincts, and communication through signs. The social ad cultural sciences, especially the radical social constructivist ones, see the world as constructed from social, human, and linguistic interpretations. This is why energy-matter-information, life consciousness, and mening have become separated in four different worlds, which are in conflict with our everyday life world experience, where they are not in any way absolutely separated. We therefore lack a transdisciplinary, 'scientific' explanation of how these narratives are itegrated, given that, as has been broadly accepted in all four 'worlds', the 'unity of science' idea of the logical positivists has failed because it was predicated on the excessively narrow epistemological foundation of verificationism. The fallibilism of Percean pragmatism, integrated with the autopoietic system theory of Luhmann, may pave the way for an autopo-semiotic process view.",
    keywords = "Autopoiesis, Incompatible ontologies, Transdisciplinary frameworks, Biosemiotics, Cybersemiotics",
    author = "S{\o}ren Brier",
    note = "CBS Library does not give access to the material",
    year = "2014",
    language = "English",
    pages = "29--30",
    editor = "Seif, {Farouk Y.}",
    booktitle = "39th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America",
    publisher = "Semiotic Society of America",
    address = "United States",

    }

    Brier, S 2014, Can Cybersemiotics Solve the Paradox of Transdisciplinary Knowing? in FY Seif (ed.), 39th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America: Paradoxes of Life. Semiotic Society of America, Seattle, WA, pp. 29-30, Seattle, Washington, United States, 02/10/2014.

    Can Cybersemiotics Solve the Paradox of Transdisciplinary Knowing? / Brier, Søren.

    39th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America: Paradoxes of Life. ed. / Farouk Y. Seif. Seattle, WA : Semiotic Society of America, 2014. p. 29-30.

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference abstract in proceedingsResearchpeer-review

    TY - ABST

    T1 - Can Cybersemiotics Solve the Paradox of Transdisciplinary Knowing?

    AU - Brier, Søren

    N1 - CBS Library does not give access to the material

    PY - 2014

    Y1 - 2014

    N2 - Humans are embodied, feeling, knowing, and culturally formed beings, participating in semiosis and language processes. They are living simultaneously in four different worlds: 1) The physic-chemical part of the natural world that also constitutes the pure material-energetic aspect of our body; 2) Our integration with a living body as the source of life, which we share with other living species; 3) Our experiential world of feeling, will, drives, affects, and thoughts, manifested as consciousness; and 4) The cultural world of language, meaning, power, and technology. Language, pragmatically conceived, connects our perception with our thinking, communication, and acting in the social world.Unfortunately,each of the four worlds has historically developed its own type of narrative, with its own fundamentalist and reductionist verions vitiating the project of transdisciplinarity. Physicists and chemists tend to view the universe as consisting of matter, forces, and energy. Mechanistically oriented biologists extend this view into their subject area. But cybernetic- and semiotic-oriented biologists perceive living systems as the basic organizers of reality, possessing self-protecting, and self-promoting capacitites, as well as perception, instincts, and communication through signs. The social ad cultural sciences, especially the radical social constructivist ones, see the world as constructed from social, human, and linguistic interpretations. This is why energy-matter-information, life consciousness, and mening have become separated in four different worlds, which are in conflict with our everyday life world experience, where they are not in any way absolutely separated. We therefore lack a transdisciplinary, 'scientific' explanation of how these narratives are itegrated, given that, as has been broadly accepted in all four 'worlds', the 'unity of science' idea of the logical positivists has failed because it was predicated on the excessively narrow epistemological foundation of verificationism. The fallibilism of Percean pragmatism, integrated with the autopoietic system theory of Luhmann, may pave the way for an autopo-semiotic process view.

    AB - Humans are embodied, feeling, knowing, and culturally formed beings, participating in semiosis and language processes. They are living simultaneously in four different worlds: 1) The physic-chemical part of the natural world that also constitutes the pure material-energetic aspect of our body; 2) Our integration with a living body as the source of life, which we share with other living species; 3) Our experiential world of feeling, will, drives, affects, and thoughts, manifested as consciousness; and 4) The cultural world of language, meaning, power, and technology. Language, pragmatically conceived, connects our perception with our thinking, communication, and acting in the social world.Unfortunately,each of the four worlds has historically developed its own type of narrative, with its own fundamentalist and reductionist verions vitiating the project of transdisciplinarity. Physicists and chemists tend to view the universe as consisting of matter, forces, and energy. Mechanistically oriented biologists extend this view into their subject area. But cybernetic- and semiotic-oriented biologists perceive living systems as the basic organizers of reality, possessing self-protecting, and self-promoting capacitites, as well as perception, instincts, and communication through signs. The social ad cultural sciences, especially the radical social constructivist ones, see the world as constructed from social, human, and linguistic interpretations. This is why energy-matter-information, life consciousness, and mening have become separated in four different worlds, which are in conflict with our everyday life world experience, where they are not in any way absolutely separated. We therefore lack a transdisciplinary, 'scientific' explanation of how these narratives are itegrated, given that, as has been broadly accepted in all four 'worlds', the 'unity of science' idea of the logical positivists has failed because it was predicated on the excessively narrow epistemological foundation of verificationism. The fallibilism of Percean pragmatism, integrated with the autopoietic system theory of Luhmann, may pave the way for an autopo-semiotic process view.

    KW - Autopoiesis

    KW - Incompatible ontologies

    KW - Transdisciplinary frameworks

    KW - Biosemiotics

    KW - Cybersemiotics

    M3 - Conference abstract in proceedings

    SP - 29

    EP - 30

    BT - 39th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America

    A2 - Seif, Farouk Y.

    PB - Semiotic Society of America

    CY - Seattle, WA

    ER -

    Brier S. Can Cybersemiotics Solve the Paradox of Transdisciplinary Knowing? In Seif FY, editor, 39th Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America: Paradoxes of Life. Seattle, WA: Semiotic Society of America. 2014. p. 29-30