0710 The intersection is a mystery because two actualities constitute one actuality.  Two category-based nested forms come together because their actualities apply to the same entity.

That is sort of confusing, especially when the single actuality₂ has yet to be framed with a normal context₃ and potential₁.

0711 Let me consider each actuality₂ on it own.

The first actuality is adaptation₂.  Adaptation₂ corresponds to the “darwinism” of “neodarwinism”.   The normal context of natural selection_3b brings the actuality of an adaptation_2b into relation with an organism’s niche_1b.  The subscript, “b”, denotes the situation level.  So, there must be a content-level actuality_2a (at a minimum).  The niche_1b serves as the potential of that content-level actuality_2a.

0712 Here is a picture.

0713 Yes, a niche_1b is the potential_1b of an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.

This formula applies to all sorts of “niches” fashioned within the boutiques of academic biology.

For example, “niche construction” fits the formula.  Beavers build a dam on a fast moving stream and the stream becomes a glen that provides plenty of food for the beavers.  The dam serves as a home.  Surely, when one dams a fast moving stream, the result is a glen that beavers can flourish in.  So, the term “niche construction” points to the fact that the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a may be a process.  Plus, “niche construction” does not not stop there.  “Niche construction” indicates that the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a may be purely relational structures, such as… um… triadic relations.

0714 I shudder to think what type of genus would adapt into a niche containing the potential of triadic relations.

0715 The second actuality is phenotype₂.  Phenotype₂ corresponds to the “neo” of “neodarwinism”.  The normal context of body development_3b brings the actuality of a phenotype_2b into relation with the organism’s genotype_1b.  Or maybe, I should use the word, “genome_1b“.  I guess the words are both different and the same.  The subscript, “b”, denotes the situation level.  DNA_2a is the content-level actuality.

0716 Ah, the genotype_1b is the potential_1b of DNA_2a.

0717 What else is curious about the two-level interscope for phenotype_2b?

0718 The situation and content levels constellate a specifying sign-relation.  DNA_2a (SV_s) stands for the phenotype_2b(SO_s) in regards to body development_3b operating on the variety of ways that DNA can be translated into proteins (the genotype_1b) (SI_s).

If this is the case, then I wonder, “Does this specifying sign-relation fit into Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay?”

The answer is, “Yes, here is a picture.”

0719 Isn’t that curious?

The specifying sign-object (SO_s) of phenotype_2b does not take the inquirer to the biosemiotic fullness of semiotic agency. The exemplar sign-relation remains occluded.  Remember that the exemplar sign-relation associates with emergence (points 0280 through 0292).  It also associates with a goal_2c that a biosemiotician recognizes as meaning_2c.

0720 What does the biosemiotician recognize with respect to the “neo” component of neodarwinism?

The biosemiotician recognizes DNA_2a (SV_s) as message and phenotype_2b (SO_s) as presence.

0718 What about the “-darwinism” of “neodarwinism”?

The same principle applies.  The situation and content levels constellate a specifying sign relation.  The exemplar sign remains occluded.  An actuality independent of the adapting species_2a (SV_s) stands for an adaptation_2b (SO_s) in regards to natural selection_3b operating on an organism’s niche_1b (SI_s).

0719 The first point (S) is stated in points 706 and 707.  NeoDarwinism may be a factor in evolution.  But, it is not the only one.

Maybe I went down the wrong rabbit-hole by raising the fact that neodarwinism is an intersection, because the lesson is not that intersections are mysterious (even though this lesson is true).  The lesson turns out to be that the two-level interscopes of natural selection_3b and body development_3b recapitulate the specifying sign-relation in independent ways.

0720 Why is that lesson important?

Consider the second point in the conclusion (T): The single actuality, the living being, operates on the basis of self-reinforcing cycles.

What does that imply?

Ah, the author shifts the reader’s focus in an unexpected manner.

Living being₂ is the intersection of two actualities.

For non-human agency, self-reinforcing cycles are both adaptive and phenotypically expressed.

0721 What is natural selection selecting for?  Self-reinforcing cycles exploit opportunities and avoid dangers in regards to real initiating (semiotic) events.  If I drop a 2% glucose solution in the center well of a petri-dish containing a maze, the slime mold on the periphery of the dish will start making its way through the maze.  Glucose signals opportunity.

What is body development selecting for?  Self-reinforcing cycles allow the slime mold to move.  Also, receptors allows the slime mold sense a glucose gradient.  Plus, when the slime mold hits a wall and has to backtrack, a slime mold can deposit a chemical agent that says, “I’ve been here before.”  Yes, the slime mold is using its tools to solve the maze.

0722 So, how does this change of focus manifest when I return to the Sharov and Tonnessen noumenal overlays?

To me, self-reinforcing cycles replaces natural selection_3b because the operations of these cycles_3b pursue objective opportunities_1b.

The adaptive presence_2b is slime mold moving towards the source of glucose_2a.  Glucose_2a (SV_s) sends a message, meaning food_2c (SO_e).  

0723 Here is a picture.

0724 Yes, the slime mold tries to find a way to the source of glucose (SO_s) because glucose (SV_s) objectively means food (SO_e).

Why do I say, “Objectively.”?

In the introduction, section 15.1, the author distinguishes between objectivity and subjectivity.  Here, the presence of glucose is objective (SV_s).  So is the reality that glucose means food (SO_e).

Indeed, the biosemiotician considers these (SV_s, SO_s [&] SV_e, SO_e) to be the bases of phenomena.  Observations related to these phenomena go into modeling [the self-reinforcing cycles], as well as [objective salience], that is [SI_s] and [SI_e], respectively.

The author’s shift of focus, along with the example, transfers the concept of adaptation_2b, within the normal context of natural selection_3b and arising from a niche_1b, into the milieu of semiotic agency.  The shift may be rhetorical, but it is effective nonetheless.  Adaptations go with the objective world, that is, the Umwelt as the world of signs.

0725 Well, then, what about “subjectivity”?

Well, maybe “subjectivity” can be called “relative objectivity”.

Relative to what?

The slime mold in the petri-dish.

0726 Here is a picture.

0727 “Subjective” is the right word in so far as, from a modern point of view, “subjective” means “self”.  The scholastics offer a different view, “subjective” means “the subject that has the attention of the self”.  Indeed, the latter view associates to the real initiating (semiotic) event (SV_s).

As before, capturing attention of a slime mold in a petri dish_2a (SV_s) stands for its sensing, moving and marking_2b(SO_s) in regards to self-reinforcing cycles_3b manifesting the slime mold’s subjective capabilities_1b (SI_s).  Plus, the exemplar sign-relation is now relevant.  The goal_2c is to solve the maze (SO_e) that the researcher has imposed.

0728 And, that raises the question, “If the slime mold were to be conscious, what would it be thinking?”

I suspect that the answer would be the objective opportunity and its salience.

0729 In section 15.2, the author dwells on the distinction between subjectivity and relative objectivity.

So, I guess I got it wrong.  Subjective is not “relatively objective”.  Objective is.

0730 I attribute the error to my own incoherent self-reinforcing cycles.

Maybe, my confusion may be lifted, if I make a distinction between my Umwelt-oriented self-reinforcing cycles and Innerwelt-oriented self-reinforcing cycles.

The former can be objective (or “relatively objective”) and the latter can be subjective.

0731 This works as long as I remember that they both contribute to semiotic agency₂ for a single individual (or species or genus).

Here is a picture of semiotic agency that tells me what Neodarwinism cannot convey (see S and point 707).

0732 Yes, semiotic agency is a bit of a mystery.

That brings me to (U) the third point.

Point (S) says that Neodarwinism is not all there is.

Point (T) says that the living entity lives by way of self-reinforcing cycles.

Point (U) says that subjectivity and objectivity should be regarded as “equivalent”.

Yes, they are two actualities that constitute the single actuality that is semiotic agency₂.

Is that the same as equal (“equi-“) in combination (“-valence”)?

0733 That brings me to the sad reality that the author has never had the opportunity to cast eyes upon the diagram of Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.

Point (V) says that the “equivalence” uses Peirce’s natural signs, that is, icons, indexes and symbols.

0734 The author elaborates this point in sections 15.2, 15.3, 15.4 and 15.5 and arrives at the conclusion that directionality and originality are indispensable concepts in evolutionary science.  Indeed, they are.  Directionalityassociates to the objective presence of message_2H.  Originality associates to the subjective presence of message_2V.

Yes, directionality and originality constitute semiotic agency as a singular actuality.

The inquirer does not have to explain the mechanisms of self-reinforcing cycles that are crucial for sign-processing.  Instead, the inquirer may appreciate what biosemiotics really accomplishes.

Biosemiotics offers an account of the one thing that all living processes and organisms have in common.

In doing so, it makes biology comprehensible.

0765 Section 17.2 deals with models.

Is it possible to couple concepts of modeling with semiotics?

Thomas Sebeok and Marcel Danesi collaborate on a book, titled Forms of Meaning: Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis (2000, Morton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany).  They conclude that a model is a sign-vehicle (a form, real or imagined) that stands for a sign-object (referring to the matter at hand) in regards to a sign-interpretant (a referential domain).

Instead of “is”, may I say, “appears to be”?

0766 Sebeok and Danesi’s formulation of “model” as a sign-relation may be reconfigured into into a category-based nested form, where each categorical element takes on the appearance of belonging to a sign-relation.

0767 Here is a diagram.

0768 Notice that a simplification has occurred. For Sebeok and Danesi, a “model” mimics a sign-relation.  In this reconfiguration, a form (SV_app) [stands for] matter at hand (SO_app).

Yes, a sign-relation simplifies into a hylomorphe.

The subscript says that “is” may be changed to “appears to be”.

0769 But, really – and this is a little confusing – I can configure the dyad another way, so that it looks even more like Aristotle’s hylomorphe of matter [substance] form.

In this switcheroo, a “model” is a hylomorphe where the matter at hand (apparent SO) [makes present] its form(apparent SV).

0769 Here is a picture.

0770 Does this make sense, especially when it comes to danger?

Well, how about an example?

I am walking on a forest trail.  I can see, far up the trail, that there is something and it appears to be blocking the path.  It is hard to determine what it is.  But, if it is a bear, I am going to turn around before it sees me.

0771This fits a situation-level nested form.

Plus, a few caveats are in order.

Recall that the situation-level normal context_3b and its potential_1b contribute to a specifying sign-interpretant (SI_s).  The situation-level actuality_2b goes contains the dyad, {SO_s [&] SV_e}_2b.

Plus, for the S&T noumenal overlay, the situation-level_2b actuality is labeled, “information_2b“.

0772 This raises the questions, “Does information_2b contain a ‘model’?  Does that ‘model’ fit Sebeok and Danesi’s formulation of a ‘model as a sign-vehicle?”

0773 Section 17.2 addresses the question, “Is it possible to couple concepts of modeling with semiotics?”

The answer is yes and now I am going to repeat myself.

Indeed, Sebeok and Danesi demonstrated one coupling.  The model participates as a sign-vehicle in the appearance of a sign-relation.  The model is a form (SV_app) that stands for the matter at hand (SO_app) in regards to a referential domain(SI_app).

The sign-relation is in appearance because there does not seem to be any categorical changes.  All the elements appear on the same categorical level.

0774 In what follows, I assign all the elements to the situation-level of an interscope.  The elements retain the appearance of a sign-relation.  At the same time, the elements correspond to features in a category-based nested form.

Domain₃ becomes the normal context.  The qualifiers, “representational” and “referential”, enter the realm of potential₁.  Then, the two real elements in Peirce’s secondness, matter at hand₂ and form/model₂, are arranged in actuality_2, along the lines of Aristotle’s hylomorphe, matter [substance] form₂.  The actuality₂ becomes the matter at hand [makes present] the form or model₂.

0775 Section 17.3 addresses the question, “Can the inquirer characterize the coupling?”

The answer is yes.

Or, I should say, “This examiner’s answer is yes, as shown in the following comparison.”

Both category-based nested forms occur in the situation level.

0776 One aspect of the apparent sign-relation associates to the specifying sign.

0777 The sign interpretant for Sebeok and Danesi’s approach (SI_app) says, “The situation-level normal context of domain_3b operates on the possibilities inherent in reference and representation_1b.”

This compares to the specifying sign-interpretant in semiotic agency.  The normal context of self-governance_3b operates on potential courses of action_1b.

0778 What about the apparent sign-vehicle and sign-object for Sebeok and Danesi’s approach (SO_app [makes present] SV_app).

The author suggests that the coupling is like a gestalt.  A gestalt is a spontaneous recognition.  Often, something in background becomes foreground in a gestalt shift.  For the example of log down the trail (SV_s) [specifying] a bear(SO_s), a gestalt moment transits from something that may be blocking the path further along (SO_s) to what if that something is a bear (SV_e).

0779 SO_app [makes present] SV_app seems to be a two-way street.

The author’s suggestion changes the character of information_2b from {SO_s [&] SV_e} to {SO_s [presence] SV_e].  [Presence] is the contiguity between the specifying sign-object (SO_s) and the exemplar sign-vehicle (SV_e).  The contiguity entails a gestalt moment.

0780 Have I learned something new about the S&T noumenal overlay?

In section 17.3, the author offers a diagram that pictures the model of semiosis that he has in mind.  Here is a reproduction.  The three dimensions correspond to three corners of a triangle.

0781 While this diagram may seem far less sophisticated than the pictures of semiotic agency developed in this examination, there will be a lesson to learn.

How so?

Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay acts like an amoeba, it engulfs whatever it can devour.

0782 So, let me look at how the S&T overlay embraces this depiction of a model and semiosis with its pseudopods.

0783 The first concession to make is that the incident where a fallen tree appears to be a bear fits nicely into the author’s model.

The model is a bear.  Or, a bear is the model.

0784 When the author uses the term, “gestalt”, to describe the congruence of model and semiosis, the author means that the entire relation comes into being as a whole.  The sign-relation is not a sum of dyadic causes [and] effects.  The sign is an indivisible, purely relational being.

Matter enters into the being through existential (as SV), representational (as SO) and interpretive (as SI) portals or “dimensions”.

0785 Of course, I tend to work with a very different looking picture of sign-relations.  A category-based nested form is one of the simpler triadic relations.  Thirdness bring secondness into relation with firstness.  Normal context₃ brings actuality₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘something’₁.

The category-based nested form is fractal.  An interscope is a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms.  Perspective_c brings situation_b into relation with the potential of content_a.

In the framework of category-based nested forms, a sign-relation crosses levels of an interscope.  The specifying sign-relation crosses from content (SV_s) to situation (SI_s and SO_s).  The exemplar sign-relation crosses from situation (SV_e) to perspective (SI_e and SO_e).

0786 The problem is that an interscope containing specifying and exemplar sign-relations is not available to science.  It is sort of like a model.  And, triumphalist scientists love to place successful models into the slot for the noumenon in the Positivist’s judgment.  Then, the model (as a substitute for the noumenon) [can be objectified by] its phenomena.  That is the nature of the laboratory sciences.  The goal is to replace the noumenon with a successful model.  The model becomes as real as the noumenon, the thing itself.

0787 Compare a tree falling in a forest and the concept of gravity.

Which is more real?

0788 Now, look at the above figure and see how it models why I turn around in my hike when I think I see a bear on the path in the distance.

Which is more real, me seeing a bear or the sign-relation of a log way ahead?

0789 Now comes the amoeba business.

The sign-relation depicted above is a specifying sign-relation.

The specifying and exemplar sign relations are incorporated into Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay.

0790 One of the benefits of engulfing the morsel of Sebeok and Danesi’s concept of “model” as a sign-vehicle that stands for the matter at hand is that I arrive (through two steps, conversion into a situation-level nested form and re-arrangement of the actuality into a dyad similar to Aristotle’s hylomorphe) at a familiar label for the contiguity between the real elements of actuality_2b.  Instead of [&], the contiguity is [presence].

0792 This raises two questions.

0793 One, in S&T’s noumenal overlay, the sign-vehicles and sign objects support phenomena and the sign-interpretants are what needs to be modeled by biosemioticians.  So, an explicit scientific “model” is not the same as the semiotic “model” of [SI_s] or [SI_e].

The question takes off from there, asking, “If the sign-interpretants that need to be modeled are contiguities in semiotic agency, and if [presence] is the contiguity between SO_s and SV_e, does [p] need to be explained as well?”

My abbreviation for “presence” is [p].

0794 Two, I thought that “presence” associated to the entire situation-level actuality, {SO_s [&] SV_e}_2b and now “presence” replaces [&].  Then, what about the “message” for the content-level actuality, {SV_s}_2a, and what about “meaning” for the perspective-level actuality, {SO_e}_2c?

Where are the contiguities [mg] for “message” and [mn] for “meaning”?

0795 Those are two good questions.

Section 17.3 offers a clue in how to address the second question.  The author produces a figure for the growth of signs by fractal extension of each corner of a sign-triangle.

0796 Here is my version of Figure 17.2.

0797 At the top, a specifying sign interpretant branches into the situation-level category-based nested form, reflecting how the sign-interpretant anchors into both thirdness and firstness.  This corresponds to the representative dimension.  Because normal contexts₃ and potentials₁ are not actualities₂, they_3b((1b)) cannot be observed and measured.  They_3b((1b)) are not phenomena.  So, they_3b((1b)) must be explained.  Plus, they_3b((1b)) scaffold back into the one interscope as elements on the situation level.

0799 For the corner on the right, the situation-level actuality stands as a dyad, SO_s [presence] SV_e.  This occurs in the interpretive dimension.  SV_e stands for its SO_e in regards to its SI_e.  Both the SO_e and the SI_e are located on the perspective level. The SI_e branches into the perspective-level normal context_3c and potential_1c.  These_3c((1c)) scaffold back into the one interscope as elements on the perspective level.

0800 For the corner on the left, the content-level actuality should stand as a dyad, SO_? [message] SV_s.  Unfortunately, fractal extension of the specifying sign-relation implicates a sign-relation that does not appear in semiotic agency.  And, this makes me want to start a conspiracy theory.  Exactly who owns and operates this missing sign-relation, if not semiotic agency?

0801 Just kidding.

This sign-relation may be missing, simply because it does not appear in semiotic agency.

And that makes me wonder, “What makes danger modeling so difficult?”

Oh, it must be because a sign-relation is in play that does not belong to semiotic agency.

0802 Hmmm.  Let me think about this.

This sign-relation has to be missing because it connects the perspective level and the content level of a three-level interscope.  That is definitely different from the specifying and exemplar sign-relations.

Another odd feature is that the missing sign-relation shares two contiguities, one with the specifying sign-vehicle on the content level (corresponding to [message, mg]) and one with the exemplar sign-object on the perspective level(corresponding to [meaning, mn]).

One more feature is that the missing sign-interpretant occurs on the content-level and so branches into the content-level normal context_3a and potential_1a.

0803 Finally, this missing sign-relation is located in the existential dimension.

0804 Yeah, “the existential dimension” sounds a lot more dangerous than “the representative or interpretive dimensions”. 

0805 Section 17.4 concerns danger modeling.

The author quotes a great reference.  According to Danesi, existential danger is (more or less) “any initiating real event that imperils the existence of things, if allowed to continue without refrain”.  For a biological living being, the “thing” is “me”.

For this examiner, danger starts with a real initiating (semiotic) event (SV_s).

0806 When Daisy and I, the leashed dog and her apparent pack-leader, round a corner on our morning walk, we come upon an unfamiliar dog, head buried in a pile of brown leaves.  Immediately, Daisy barks.  So much for stealth.

The unfamiliar dog stands erect, with the body of a big duck, a whirl of black and white feathers, in its mouth.  I quickly gather information_2b.  The dog is not much larger and more long-snouted than Daisy.  Is the dog growling?  It is hard to hear because Daisy is barking as she drags me forward.

0807 Here is Daisy’s exercise in semiotic agency, at this moment, as far as I can figure.

0808 The beautiful fat ornamental duck, a loner among the geese and the woodland ducks familiar to the neighborhood, was doomed from the start.  It lived two years without any other waterfowl of its breed.  Now, I suppose, the poor thing met its end by nesting in a pile of leaves where a car decided to park.  I wonder whether the driver heard its cries of distress?

Well, at this time of the morning, the car is gone and this dog from some other neighborhood has found a treat to scavenge.  Daisy wants a bite of the treat.  But, I am not sure that she appreciates what satisfaction of that desire entails.

I do.

0809 I yank Daisy’s chain so hard that she yelps.  Then, I drag her in the opposite direction, from whence we came.

0810 In doing so, I exercise my semiotic agency.  In the dimension of representation, I specify information_2b about what this means to me and Daisy.  I do this through the specifying sign.  In the dimension of interpretation, I exemplify what a human pack-leader might do in the face of this type of danger.  I do this through the exemplar sign-relation.

0811 At the same time, I face an existential interventional sign-relation.  A real initiating event imperils the existence of Daisy, and perhaps me, if Daisy continues without restrain.

0812 As we retrace our steps, I wonder, “Why is that unfamiliar dog snarfing a recently deceased ornamental duck there in the first place?”

I suspect that the unfamiliar dog wonders the same after our rude interruption of its joy of discovery, so worthy of protection, since the corpse is already in mouth.

0813 To me, the unfamiliar dog intervenes in our morning walk.  To that stranger’s dog, Daisy and I intervene in his unanticipated discovery.

To me, the exemplar sign-object (SO_e) is “take Daisy on her morning walk”.  To the roving dog, the SO_e is “chomp down on something both dead and delicious”.

0814 Then, a real initiating (semiotic) event (SV_s) occurs.  Information (SO_s) is specified, within the dimension of representation, then spun into an exemplar sign-object (SO_e) in the dimension of interpretation.

To me, the exemplar sign-object (SO_e) is “Daisy and I are in danger”.  To the roving dog, the SO_e is “this competitor is not going to take this treat our of my mouth without a fight”.

That is precisely where our semiotic agencies terminate.

“Terminus” is such a great word.  It comes from Latin and means, “an end-point”.

0816 Here is a picture of the three termini and their dimensions.

0817 In this case, the human agent, directly, as the pack-leader for Daisy and indirectly, for the unfamiliar dog who innately senses that humans are better pack-leaders than any creature walking on four legs, makes a meaningful decision.

If only that were true.

The subsequent action is an interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) that must be regarded as an expression of intention (SO_i) in the normal context of canine pack-leader₃ as agent₃ and ‘final causality’₁ or ‘intention’₁ (SI_i).

0818 Both Daisy and the unfamiliar dog accept the message (SV_s) that my expression of intention (SO_i) extends.

Indeed, if one is not a semiotician, then my actions of pulling Daisy’s chain and force-marching a retreat (SV_i) constitutes the real (semiotic) event (SV_s) that initiates semiotic agency.