Elizabeth Kelly wrote:
>Alfred,
>Brief informational question, regarding your note on the assumption of
>semiotic ecology -- could you tell me what this word "affine" means? Thanks,
>Elizabeth
Elizabeth and others,
here is a selection of some of my notes toward a chapter entitled:
affinity. You have a good question about a key concept: although
borrowed from general language and taking up its general meaning,
"affinity" is a term used in semiotic ecology in a quite specific
way, namely as the potential of any one structure to selectively
interact. Affinity may occur both in various qualities and in varying
degrees and may rather be based on complementarity than simply
similarity.
(American-)English dictionaries (Webster) quite adequately to my
purpose describe the meaning of "affinity" and "affinities" (1)
generally as "any natural drawing or inclination; close relation or
agreement" (so Comprehensive Webster) and add a couple of more
specific meanings that can readily be subordinated to the above: (2)
biological: a structural or physiologic likeness in different
organisms indicative of a common origin; (3) structural likeness
indicating a common origin, as in languages; (4) chemical: the force
of attraction by which differing chemical element unite to form
compounds; (5) connection through certain relations formed, as by
church or state, especially, relationship; through marriage (as
opposed to blood relationship); (6) a Platonic or spiritual
attraction held to exist between certain persons, especially between
those of opposite sexes.
In fact the Latin original of all this appears to imply two meanings:
adjacency (as at a border) and relationship by structural similarity
or complementarity (as in mating capability and Seelenverwandtschaft
or shared beliefs and values etc.). The interesting thing here is
that affinity of two structures must have its basis in structural or
content relationship; but in actuality affinity will only play when
the two structures encounter in some way and that implies a
contingency in space and time.
As to "affine", this is simply the adjective thereof. Webster appears
to treat of the word in (to me) strange ways, since it restricts the
adjective to meaning (5) above: a relative by marriage or a kinsman.
Semiotic ecology uses the term in the whole spread of meanings given
above. Yet it prefers an abstract way of conceiving it within the
conception of semiosic structure formation: affinity is the potential
of a structures to interact with another structure in specific ways.
Usually this is a result of the two structures being relatively near
to each other in terms of the place in the genetic tree of an
evolution; exception to this is possible in both ways: relatively far
removed structures in the tree can be affine; relatively near
structures may happen to fail it. In principle, any presentation of
something in a certain respect (which is what semiosis does) implies
affinity between the referent and the presentant. And presentants of
presentants of presentants ... will probably retain some of that
affinity which eventually faints with increasing distance in origin.
In a kind of illustrative rather than definitive way I tend to say
that affine structures incorporate or have available some "knowledge"
of each other. Take "knowledge" in the very broadest possible sense.
It implies recognition as well as treating the other in fitting and
effective ways. Which is what happens in evolutions both in their
innovative and in the evaluative phases.
I could mention by way of example the chemical valencies and and
special receptive or bonding substructures in large molecules
including the capabilities of membranes and carriers to be permeable
to or to transport a selected set of (affine) molecules. In organisms
there are substructures such as roots or leaves or neurons etc.
finding (growing to, connecting with) particular regions or other
structures leading to optimal function. Similarly hormones and
pheromones may present certain states of some subsystem to other
subsystem, whether within or between organisms and so regulate social
systems. Whenever organisms recognize something, this is based on
affinity; as is the subsequent procedures of interaction, whether
instinct or program, plan etc. And so on. On the level of highest
complexity you may think of humans looking for and eventually finding
a related soul; partners must be affine, naturally in many respects,
with some disaffinities tolerable; parents and their offspring are
affine, both on organismic and on individual experience / cultural
tradition levels. The same is valid for friends, for cooperating
people, etc. etc. Add to this the affinities between indivdiuals and
the many parts of their environments with which they have relations.
In an overall perspective you may say that the sum total of
affinities in the world or in a subset thereof is an expression of
the degree of unity of that world and at the same time of the limits
of its unity. Everything is affine to much, but not to everything.
Peirce's idea of synechism or the connectedness within an universe so
is expressed in terms of affinity rather than only by the abstract
idea. Which allows for realistic accounts of what can happen or not.
An especially interesting perspective opens when you compare kinds
and degrees of affinities among the units in some world with those
among the presentants of those units existing in some psychic or
cultural subsystem, say: things, notions thereof by this or that
individual (e.g. as part of their brain-mind), linguistic or other
symbolic forms such as written or spoken words, bytes, phrases etc.
(such as in texts etc.). Look e.g. at two ecosystems (persons with
their respective environments) in a shared cultural world. In their
minds they will probably use or have connections between their
notions of things that might be impossible or improbable for the
things themselves; also they may miss some possible relationships due
to their limited knowledge about some things. Probably, using verbal
mediators and often not well enough differentiating between the
things and their notions thereof, they will find out that the two of
them have not totally the same notions of some things or events they
can point at. Etc. etc. An interesting generalization of such
relations may be that presentants in mind-brains tend to increased
affinities compared with the things presented themselves while the
symbolic terms induce restrictions compared to both, things and
internal notions; e.g. they may neglect what is called connotations
which are often so important in the notions; and these may change
with context in the notions and in dealing with things while
linguistic fixations must forbid this to same extent or otherwise
loose their utility.
This may be more than enough, you have asked only a brief informal
question. Yet affinity is an important concept in semiotic ecology.
And depending an the degree of semiosic secondarizations it may vary
a great deal and bring much flexibility, particularly in the cultural
worlds.
Also the affinity perspective may throw much light on the problem of
"units of analysis" that has been discussed on this forum time and
again. My "non-solution" or dissolution of this problem would be: do
not rely on units decided upon and retained under all circumstances
if you do not want to loose connection to the real world. The world
does not consist of units; rather it operates on the basis of
relations; relations constitute what we can discern as things or
units. The consequence is to follow possible relations. The sum total
of possible relations of something focussed by an observer is the set
of its affinities.
Best, Alfred
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland --- alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch Website: http://www.psy.unibe.ch/ukp/langpapers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:48 PDT