Category: crealectics

  • Umwelt, Woolf, Guattari and language

    1. In order to form a territory, an Umwelt, you need, it seems, a homogeneous language. There needs to be a fluid sign circulation between different zones of the world you want to inhabit as a privileged species. Territorialising is translating the disparity of the Creal into one discourse, a text written in the same […]

  • Enactivism and biosemiotics (de Jesus)

    A very clear text by Paulo de Jesus about the connections between enaction and biosemiotics. I am still wondering if the notion of sign is the best atom of understanding to elucidate the relationship between nature and culture. For example, a sign is isolated, while a discourse is an articulated network of signs. This is the […]

  • Poinsot, Deely and the Doctrine of Signs

    I am discovering the work of John Deely, quite fascinating at this early stage. As far as I can tell for the moment, one of Deely’s major ideas is expressed in the term physiosemiosis, ‘the probability that semiosis not only surrounds life but pre-existed living things, and indeed shaped the universe so as to make […]

  • Umwelt and language

    I would like to recommend an interesting chapter written by Morten Tønnessen, entitled Umwelt and language, in Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. He speaks of language as a perception system developed in interaction with non-human entities (for him mostly animal, but why not include plants, the wind, etc.). He cites biologist Maturana for his idea of language […]

  • Theory in the making

    This blog is a theoretical puzzle in the making, except that the final image is not predetermined by its author. I shall start however with a few elements and intuitions rather than nothing, as arguable hypotheses. Firstly, a new concept, which I have taken to calling crealectics. This derives from my concept of Creal and the […]