Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2017 Heft: 214 Seiten: 91-110.

RESUMO A confrontação entre o modelo da semiosfera, a teoria greimasiana e a antropologia contemporânea coloca em evidência a dificuldade de se implementar uma epistemologia da diversidade a partir da obra de Lotman. Essa dificuldade leva a questionar sistematicamente as condições necessárias para uma enunciação antropológica, convocando em particular as posições de Descola, Latour e Viveiros de Castro. Esta confrontação busca atualizar o modelo de semiosfera. ABSTRACT The confrontation between the model of semiosphere, the Greimassian theory and contemporary anthropology highlights (...) the difficulty of implementing an epistemology of diversity starting from Lotman's work. This difficulty leads to question systematically the conditions required for an anthropological enunciation, in particular summoning the positions of Descola, Latour and Viveiros de Castro. This confrontation tries to update the semiosphere model. RÉSUMÉ La confrontation entre le modèle de la sémiosphère, la théorie greimassienne et l’anthropologie contemporaine met en évidence la difficulté à mettre en œuvre une épistémologie de la diversité en partant de l’œuvre de Lotman. Cette difficulté conduit à interroger systématiquement les conditions requises pour une énonciation anthropologique, en convoquant en particulier les positions de Descola, Latour et Viveiros de Castro. Cette confrontation s’efforce de réactualiser le modèle de la sémiosphère. (shrink)

Telos is in vogue in biosemiotic researches, which present the teleological solution as anti-Darwinian, while it is more often, for biologists, only ante-Darwinian. The assimilation of structuring contents to a “function”, and of the function to a “goal”, in an irreversible temporality, is the most frequent basis of this methodological creepage. The teleology is based on a projective and ascending epistemic orientation, to which we can oppose a retrojective, descending and achronic one, including modal and sensitive interactional semiotics. For semiotics, (...) the challenge lies in the nature of its relationships with other disciplines, particularly biology. Indeed, we see that the temptation is great for semioticians to dwell precisely in the shadows and shams of other disciplines, and to call “sign” or “semiosis” what other sciences seem to have still some trouble to explain, with the risk of only confronting problems that will soon be obsolete. We propose here the theoretical and methodological principles of structural biosemiotics, and precisely attentive to the problems that biologists face, solve and renew. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2015 Heft: 207 Seiten: 411-441.