Mike, thanks for raising the issue of the "semiosphere". It
intersects perfectly with the second half of my project, in which I
propose the use of both Charles S. Peirce's and Mikhail M. Bakhtin's
works within technology studies.
1) "Information Ecology"
In my work, I do not use the term "information ecology". As Matvey
and Phil commented, the term _information_ can be confusing, and I do
not particularly like its possible connotations with "information
processing". At the same time it is important to consider the cultural
and historical roles that such a cognitive model have played in the
involved community. Part of the interdisciplinary barriers and bridges
are densely embedded with such a form of thinking and a conceptual
reorganization of the field depends on how much resilience the
associated praxes can support without either collapsing or being
reinforced. Taking that into account, and considering the addressed
audience in the case of Bonnie's book, I strongly support the term in
that context.
Jay suggested that the "eco-social-semiotic system (its full but
cumbersome name)" _is_ the "semiosphere",
"The semiosphere is the semiotic totality of the meanings made in the
activities which are linked to one another in networks of
cross-dependence and which intersect in actants/artifacts/agents."
Phil has referred to information as "not a thing, but rather a
particular manifestation which emerges from a complex and dynamic
system of relationships."
I agree. In my writings, I have been using the term "cultural
oecosystem". The initial breadth that the term "ecosystem" had when
introduced in the twenties has been narrowed mostly to "natural" ones,
but "oikos" in Greek comes from "house", from "dwelling", what is
constructed, what is lived. In this reading the _oeco_ comprises the
the social, the semiotic, and the architectural. The cultural
emphasizes these dimensions and qualify the phenomena under scrutiny
as related to human praxis.
In the same way that ecology has been narrowed to nature, semiotics
has been narrowed to text. Therefore, the term "semiosphere" may
nurture the practice of only understanding "everything as a sign" or
that "the meaning is the message". This can be observed very often in
quick appropriations of models used in the field, and depending on the
adopted school of thought and action, it silences the _eco_ and the
_social_ at different degrees.
2) Mike, in answering your question:
"What might the relation of an information ecology be to a
semiosphere. It must involve the conditions under which meanings
constitute information (differences that make differences in the
semiosphere?)"
I would like to say that within a _cultural_oecosystem_ "differences
that make differences" can happen not only at the semiotic facet, but
are intertwined with the social, and the natural. When people use
technology to sustain practices, as it occurs in the field of
human-computer interaction, deeds which may change the future dynamics
of the system as a whole are enmeshed in the web of relationships that
may sustain or develop its organization during its historical
existence. They are not restricted to one domain, or even to one
stratum within a domain, as the boundary between the individual and
the group suggests, for example. They cut across them. They are
percolated with different voices, they simultaneously support and
suppress different axiologies. This is related to uses of scales,
hierarchies, and heterarchies, as Jay has mentioned.
Tchau,
Luiz