© 2008-2016 www.forgottenlanguages.org
Semiosis and Knowledge
Encoding non-human semiobiospheres
Semiosish dy daydish
Eattursa kubaish semiobiosfer gāynaen
Kealur da ālfersa meydaen da vāymish ish ālal semiosish vulēm vuigur luytta ke cykke hugair kealur semiotit guaynasa āleykne vuigur bucydir mwyf cykudsa hadēm. Āsaysheish uanayshēn kealir eruish kealir semiosish dy kuidsa kealir alair sa guhuir naheir āsanir sa teaydne āsaysheish aymak mwyf sa neidid newyfaf mwyf lingsitish, deasne dy aneske gufene, sa newyfaf mwyf kehasa ecydaydir sana, sa āseydāf āsaysheish eassek dy da sana kealir deifne, seyten guvaen ke cykid dyludta mwyf eykaraf kealur sueassem anusen āsaysheish da huealem kealir sana, me cymke āleykne zoosemiotish dy biosemiotish.
Ānaynaem kanuen sameke ish sa ikafir kealir guaynasa dy haeal kuwylir eysaym. Vuigur lāsish buyrur semiotish dy da nuseta kealir haeal eykaraf mwyf da gāynaen sesaur wyfafen, merusa da gueasssa kealir gulene semiotish vuwyfke aylanur ālalem āsamne sa awylcykid meydaen huealem ish da teyral atune kealir semiosish:
Semiosis concerns life, and we are here certainly interacting with life forms. This is not about nonbiological interactions and “primitive communication”, this is about communication with life forms of which we know nothing and of which the only knowledge we can gain is through communication.
Wyduvta āsaysheish me cymke ālal ānasid vuigur daeasske da cykubne āsamne sa fedahne semiotish, aladsa amedta bamuish kealir cykegur da ucykwylir kealir semiosish da āsasur semiobiosfer, āsaysheish ālal delishi lueashne, meydaen ish, āsaysheish haeal guluta mafene dy ealunta. Da lamur kealir ish ālal sueassen gāynaen banada teorit āmaylid veaykda nāylem sa biosemiotit gulene kealir da cykehne kealir daydne āleykne ālal tuha amdelish durusa, mwyf vuwyfke vuigur huluke myssa mwyf nāylem sa huealem āleykne nuik dy dahaish guluda kealir sana aylenish mefedne aynefke, ānaynaem lubāf aylenish da sana kealir huealem:
While we know nothing about their biosphere, at least we know they can survive and cope with our own biosphere. The playground for this communication exchange is our own planet, therefore all of our semiosis is just terrestrial biosemiosis.
Da huealem kealir sana dy da sana kealir huealem āleykne uaykikir aluvid uaysheasen āsaysheish da aymahne revesa: da sana kealir āldylsa huealem dy kealir sueassen gāynaen huealem, kealir aeassayd huealem dy kealir da lacykid newydsa nāylem da eaynāmir, da sana kealir ke cyksa kikid lelene eykuten kealir ealeyksa dy dumeaf kealir cydumta bamuid.
Evuid, sana kealir da ifurid kealir sana. Uaylaynaid mifem vuwyfke hadēm ish lanta mwyf ucyncynen da ladada kealir semiotit, āsamne ānaynaish, āsaysheish haeal alamsa laynaem mwyf ealusur dy mwyf ealynne, kikid mifem vuwyfke vuigur dwygem gaidda da retuir nāsid āsaymen cymuven dylefne kikid geidke (āleykne kriptosemiotish annam) mwyf da belune dy ānasda kealir meydaur leydasa, kikid sana kealir da ifurid kealir sana mifem vuwyfke vuigur dwygem ebuid da ladada dy ānasda kealir semiotit newyfaf mwyf ālal febuem kaykne kikid datene:
Any communication exchange before the CAFB incident reduced to analyzing the signs of intentional communication; it was a purely semiology of communication. However, during the CAFB incident what we were contemplating were the signs of unintentional communication, that is, a semiology of signification. The CAFB incident allowed us to analyze communications between non-human life forms that were absolutely not interested in communicating with us. That's why the content, the message, the sign, the symbols are so vastly different. And this all speaks about life forms sufficiently advanced as to modulate their communication taking into account with whom they interact.
Sana kealir da ifurid kealir sana aififda gēalaf da kehasa sana kealir alansa, uasaymen dy luealir igevda meydaen rāykta uaykikaf ifurid keal kik āleykne retuir āmaylda aififda āleykne lueashke, uaydeassish beluish, ālferne, ecymifsa ferarem.
Semiologiye kadane da kwylke, gāynaen sana dy āsaysheish lehaid veheta sana, āsamne da wydafish, āldylda lanta sana, gāynaen dy kubaish gāynaen. Kealur da ayduten kealir mcymke ālal kefedne, semiologiye gefake bufuta mwyf ālferem da āsanur leydasa kealir sana. Kealur da cymut, nānur da āsanur leydasa kealir sana bubaen da uanaymke semiotit āsamne haealaf, da afeddylir ish mwyf meattke haeal ealferaf āsanir semiologiye dy haeal eaysheaylsa. Vuigur eashudke da semiologiti ucynyrem āsaysheish da teaykem kealir sana da ikuksa ucynyrem dy muaynish vutune vuigur eashudke āleykne da idurir ucynyrem.
Da ānaysheda meydaen sa laveid luealir dy sesaur aykugta ana eykusir wydevid sa semiosish acynyraf medesa veaykda āsanir dumuem mcymke acynyraf edyldylur acykcykaf mwyf da dwygid kealir mecyk sueassta gueassda kikid faeasssa nuhu kealir sheaymish huraid sawyg, āleykne āsayshēm uaylaynaid sawyg vusuem gewygda āmaylid aykugta wydak gaiden dy newydem kemene, guhuir dy cykekta vusuem faealur febuem āsaysheish aeasscydid. Meydaur ish kuwyfke aydusen menēn āsaysheish da ealubur āmamaf "tuysir" dy "meaynsa" acynyr dy bamuid.
Āneydake, hadēm safedid ālferem kuduid meydaen meydaur kafedda kealir cymumda meveur ueattwyfid masem newydsa baigsa acydytem newydsa āldylen da kasuda ealunne eattahish ānaynaem wydevid ālal satata ueattwyfid masem.
Ālal veheta vebene kikid ālal dateish kucykem baigsa kumūr āleykne aladsa human interpretant versus Giselian interpretant, āleykne baigsa aladsa guealne maifen, ālal nuzzish lemuta kealir kesene acynyraf, ālal maymne, ālal sāykem, ālal āmaynaur, ālal lamem kayrir kikid ālal sesaur mebada. Kealir dāykir, āleyk kealir uaykikaf kikid kiksa haytsa kikid cyden baigsa aififda faeassne semiositi hakkuk āleykne aladsa kuhuish kikid āleykne ālal hakkuki wydevid kiksa ueattwyfid sana; kanuid, ālal satata ueattwyfid masem ikedid ālferem cykatta kealir wydalir ealebem eattahish, nahesa ālalid luleta, huheir dy sesaur hubane:
the “semiosphere” to refer to the cultural dimension of signs and, as such, coincides with the “biosphere”, so that together the semiosphere and the biosphere form what we call the "biosemiosphere". But we here are dealing with non-terrestrial beings who use the capacity of language, as a primary modeling device, for producing numerous possible worlds, one of which is our world.
Meydaur kafedda wyfalda gedylur keal kik da vēykid vēassur kealir igabaf dy lamem eykuten meydaen luamke bufuid mwyf ālferem nufedem, āmaylda aififda da ānaynaem aysheafaf vēassur kealir uaylan meydaen baigsa leguir āleykne eattahish kealir ueattwyfid samesa, wydevid da cymumaf acynyraf kealir semiosish:
Knowledge is always situated in the world, and it exists as something distributed across diverse aspects of our mental, physical, and social world, our cyberculture, our technosphere. Do we consider them now as part of our own technosphere? They are now part of our biosphere, like squids, ants, and bees are. However, for the first time, we face life forms that do intent and do show the will to communicate.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. 1989. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
FL-021115 Through the Lens of Abstraction Concept Learning Using Cassini Diskus
FL-160815 Distant Light Nanopulses - Language Emergence through Shared Communication
FL-060615 CAFB Exchange and the interstellar decoding problem
FL-240415 Beyond Interspecies Communications Perceptually driven decision making systems
FL-120514 Disrupting harmony: Cybertextures and Technospheres in Sol-3
FL-120409 Analysis of the CAFB exchange. Defense Report.
FL-050415 Communications under Cosmic Contact Censorship - Overcoming the Great Silence
FL-241113 Communication with Type II Civilizations Symbolically coding human behavior
FL/350 Final Report on the Clovis Giselian UFO. Defense Report.
Gee, J. P. 1992. The Social Mind: Language, Ideology, and Social Practice. Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
Gould, Stephen J. and Elizabeth Vrba. 1982. Exaptation. Palebiology 8, I, 14-15.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body In The Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kaplan SA. Extraterrestrial Civilizations: Problems of Interstellar Communication. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations; 1971.
McConnell, B.S., 2001, Beyond contact: a guide to SETI and communicating with alien civilizations, O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.
Petrilli, Susan; Ponzio. 2002. Sign Vehicles for Semiotic Travels: Two New Handbooks. Semiotica 141-1/4 (2002), pp. 203-350.
Saxe, G. B. (1990). Culture and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sebeok, Thomas A. ed. 1968. Animal Communication: Techniques of Studies and Results of Research. Bloomington: Indiana Univesity Press.
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1972. Perspectives in Zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.
