posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 12:02 AM
I wonder: can we come into such semiotic contact with the way and being of the animals we observe - have knowledge of their actions i.e. why, in terms
of context and history, and how, in terms of biological dynamics, and emergent structures such as sounds, faces, or appearance, which guide the
structure of other creatures which keep track of large-scale objects, they do what they do?
What I mean to say is: brain structure and function can serve as a rough-guide for what kind of experience is possible for this creature (in terms of
reconstructed biosemiotic history) as well as an examination of it's Umwelt - or the way it cognitively "intersects" with it's world, and what
sort of images/signs would be relevant or existent with that creature.
One wonders whether, the closer we get to "knowing" our object, the more biodynamically 'entrained' we become with the object of our observance.
In effect, to 'speak the language' of an animal, say, a deer, would be to feel, at a basic regulatory, and deer-related level, the semiotic reality
of a deer.
It's hard at this moment to even conceptualize how this can be, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if such power literally does reside
within the human imagination.
Attunement, or imaginatively allowing ourselves to assimilate the propositional structure of a sign (physical, or abstract, in origin) - is not
something happening in a vacuum - but is literally an electrodynamical 'super-positioning', or quantum entanglement, whereby the observing, tracking
system (the human) interacts via the zero point energy field with the dynamical object (the organism), whose own functionality, or regularities of
behavior, "speak their meanings", or transmit their signs, via the language of their expressed behavior.
One could, or would, then, experience a phenomenological 'movement into' the language of the animals experience - so at one in your understanding of
what they are doing, or involved with, is your mind. At this point, you are merely observing, but at some point, the animal and you would interact,
and what matters, here, is how you are in your body with the animal.
The animal, in sum, is an expressed object. But on way to becoming what is expressed, are neural bodies which respond selectively to different parts
of the environment, as well as bodily homeostatic needs, and higher, social ontologies, and all of them working together to generate a 'gestalt'
center of experience.
By speaking to animals, one does not mean anything other than this: "the ability to effect, or influence, in a positive way, an animals feeling of
comfort, interest, or connectedness with you." What is not implied is any "warg" type power, where an animal is taken over by a human.
Communication simply means connection. To be able to interact with an animal - any animal, perhaps - simply by being recognized by that animal as
'non-threatening', itself something present in the electrodynamical waves of your body field, which contains the 'sum' of what you are,
"semiotically", as it were, containing the structure of your development, and all that that 'holds' inside of it, would be pretty astonishing, if
The reason this is plausible, is that most mammals respond to the physiological, regulatory part of our behavior, which is usually being covered over
by emotional baggage streamlined into thinking processes, making most people very bad at understanding their self-experience, and in being unable to
differentiate fantasy from reality, or false impressions with true ones, have nothing to hold onto to pull themselves out of the ontological muck.
It is sad, to me, how poorly we recognize the beautiful meaning of the world around us - begging us, provoking in us, the thoughts we think about it.
Yet we deny this chord of connection - the sign - its value as the irreducible property of evolution.