184 Morten Tønnessen
understand relation as a mode of being, not simply a comparison that the
mind makes – as the moderns conceive of it. All of our knowledge has to
start with our experience. And that is where the idea of phenomenology, or
Phaneroscopy, comes in.
MT: Who are ―we‖ here? We are not talking just about human subjects, are we?
Are we talking about all living creatures?
JD: I am talking about human understanding of semiosis.
MT: So here Peircean phenomenology would be first of all about the human
mind?
JD: About human perception and human experience.
MT: Why only human experience?
JD: Because that is the only kind of experience we have.
MT: But Uexküll talks about the experiences of any living creature – why would
not he be better suited as the foundation of phenomenology – in this case,
Uexküllian phenomenology? If you rid him of some of his Kantian
inheritance?
JD: As you know, I agree that the concept of Umwelt is of a seminal and
important character. But if you understand the concept the way it is in
Uexküll, and if that is where you stop, you are still trapped in modern
epistemology.
MT: Uexküll died 65 years ago, so there is really no reason why anyone but
historians should resist the temptation to further develop the concept.
JD: That is exactly what Sebeok did about it. The developed concept of Umwelt
is quite a different matter ─ it is not a modern epistemological notion, but a
properly semiotic notion. But I find it amusing of Susan to talk about Sebeok
as an ontologist. I know what she is getting at, but the terminology is
questionable: Are you going to rethink the understanding of the sign through
and through? Or are you going to take the understanding of the sign and try
to make it fit in? That is the fundamental paradox that semiotics faces. That
way of talking about signs in terms of phenomenology and ontology – it is
not necessarily or wholly wrong, I just do not think it is the most effective
for the longer term.TO FORESEE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF MIRACULOUS
TECHNOLOGIES
MT: To return to these points on Susan‘s work: She uses the term ―globalization‖
frequently. How do you relate to that concept, as she uses it? And how do
you judge the term ―globalization‖ as it is commonly used?
JD: It is usually used in the context of capitalist economics, is it not?
MT: Partly, but not only. When people talk about ―the problems of the era of
globalization‖, sometimes it is used in this other sense of us all being,
metaphorically, ―in the same boat‖ – that a problem for one is a problem for