216 Abir U. Igamberdiev
The problem of form is generally not only pragmatic but it needs aesthetic criteria, primary
and absolute to any concrete adaptive harmony. According to Lyubishchev (1973, 1982),
evolution passes through the change of canons which includes the period of initial
primitivism (simplicity of form, brightness and contrast of colors), the classical period with
the highest harmony and finely balanced forms and colors, and finally the mannerism period
with some unusual and unbalanced structures. The style unity is the highest level of
wholeness, non-reducible neither to the adaptive harmony nor to the correlation between
parts.
The classical description of evolutionary process views the latter as occurring in the
external Newtonian time. The real evolutionary process forms time by itself — time appears
as a tool for the separation of contradictory statements in the infinite embedding process. This
means that time is a semiotic phenomenon. Evolution in the semiotic time represents a
contradictory process of growing complexity, which includes both the fundamental principles
of perfection of canons regarded as its nomogenetic laws and the free creativity for their
construction based on the internal choice.
THE ANTHROPOGENIC EXPANSION OF THE UMWELT
The expansion of the biosphere via inclusion of new objects of external world in the
Umwelt takes place during the biological evolution (Witzany, 2007). But the growth of this
Umwelt is limited because there is no semiotic structure symbolizing the parameter of the
wholeness of the world which is represented as the class of all classes (actual infinity). The
social evolution takes place only when such a structure appears (Igamberdiev, 1999). In the
human reflection, objective patterns generated in conscious events are associated with certain
types of semiotic loops originally described by Freud who discovered the basic structure of
the organizational invariance for human social behavior (the Oedipus complex). This loop,
being interpreted as a reflection of a subject, is a non-trivial semiotic structure, which
determines the way of internalization of the external world. It can be considered as a logical
pattern describing interrelations between the consciousness and the external world, which
determines the fixation of somebody‘s image into the other as a possibility to substitute the
other (Igamberdiev, 1999). The Oedipus complex represents the generalized archetype for all
social semiotic systems and it is expressed in religious and cultural styles of sociosemiotic
systems. The temporal sequence of a historical transformation of these styles forms a pattern
of transformation of the sociosemiotic system. Sociosemiotic systems have both cultural and
civilization constituents. The development of the civilization constituent is based on gaining
the control of the material/energy flow. The two major steps in it were the agricultural and the
industrial revolutions. The development of the cultural constituent is based on its own internal
principles forming the development of a style and the sequential change of this style.
The transformation and complication of semiotic structures during the evolution of
biological systems ultimately leads to the appearance of possibilities of their own
descriptions. This property arises as a non‐determinable transfinite leap of formation of the
social organization. The biosemiotic reality in the appeared higher organization represents a
lower level of a new more complicated structure and corresponds to the Freudian
unconscious. The initial biosemiotic level of the unconscious attains certain restrictions