Andreas Weber

In contrast to vertical gene transfer from parent to offspring, horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer moves genetic information between different species. Bacteria and archaea often adapt through horizontal gene transfer. Recent analyses indicate that eukaryotic genomes, too, have acquired numerous genes via horizontal transfer from prokaryotes and other lineages. Based on this we raise the hypothesis that horizontally acquired genes may have contributed more to adaptive evolution of eukaryotes than previously assumed. Current candidate sets of horizontally acquired eukaryotic genes may just be the tip of an iceberg. We have recently shown that adaptation of the thermoacidophilic red alga Galdieria sulphuraria to its hot, acid, toxic‐metal laden, volcanic environment was facilitated by the acquisition of numerous genes from extremophile bacteria and archaea. Other recently published examples of horizontal acquisitions involved in adaptation include ice‐binding proteins in marine algae, enzymes for carotenoid biosynthesis in aphids, and genes involved in fungal metabolism.Editor's suggested further reading in BioEssays Jumping the fine LINE between species: Horizontal transfer of transposable elements in animals catalyses genome evolution Abstract.

What factors drove the transformation of the cyanobacterial progenitor of plastids (e.g. chloroplasts) from endosymbiont to bona fide organelle? This question lies at the heart of organelle genesis because, whereas intracellular endosymbionts are widespread in both unicellular and multicellular eukaryotes (e.g. rhizobial bacteria, Chlorella cells in ciliates, Buchnera in aphids), only two canonical eukaryotic organelles of endosymbiotic origin are recognized, the plastids of algae and plants and the mitochondrion. Emerging data on (1) the discovery of non‐canonical plastid protein targeting, (2) the recent origin of a cyanobacterial‐derived organelle in the filose amoeba Paulinella chromatophora, and (3) the extraordinarily reduced genomes of psyllid bacterial endosymbionts begin to blur the distinction between endosymbiont and organelle. Here we discuss the use of these terms in light of new data in order to highlight the unique aspects of plastids and mitochondria and underscore their central role in eukaryotic evolution. BioEssays 29:1239–1246, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Sein heißt Teilen. Teilen heißt Sein, auf allen Ebenen, vom Atom bis zu unserer Erfahrung von Glück. Lebendigsein folgt der Sehnsucht, ganz Individuum zu werden - und diese erfüllt sich nur in Austausch und Verwandlung. Erst aus Teilhabe entsteht Stimmigkeit, das Gefühl, ein eigenes Selbst, Zentrum der eigenen Erfahrung zu sein. Unser Stoffwechsel, gelingende Beziehungen, Sinnerfahrungen, aber auch der Austausch von Gütern und Leistungen können nur gedeihen, wenn wir sie als gemeinsame Teilhabe an einer schöpferischen Wirklichkeit erschaffen. Diese ist Stoff, und sie ist Fantasie. Atmen heißt Teilen, Körpersein ist Teilen und Lieben bedeutet Teilen. Sein durch Teilen ist die Seele der lebendigen Wirklichkeit. In dieser durchdringen sich Innen und Außen. Sie ist ein leidenschaftlicher Beziehungsprozess, in dem das Begehren nach Identität erst im Leuchten des Anderen eingelöst wird.

Sein heißt Teilen. Teilen heißt Sein, auf allen Ebenen, vom Atom bis zu unserer Erfahrung von Glück. Lebendigsein folgt der Sehnsucht, ganz Individuum zu werden - und diese erfüllt sich nur in Austausch und Verwandlung. Erst aus Teilhabe entsteht Stimmigkeit, das Gefühl, ein eigenes Selbst, Zentrum der eigenen Erfahrung zu sein. Unser Stoffwechsel, gelingende Beziehungen, Sinnerfahrungen, aber auch der Austausch von Gütern und Leistungen können nur gedeihen, wenn wir sie als gemeinsame Teilhabe an einer schöpferischen Wirklichkeit erschaffen. Diese ist Stoff, und sie ist Fantasie. Atmen heißt Teilen, Körpersein ist Teilen und Lieben bedeutet Teilen. Sein durch Teilen ist die Seele der lebendigen Wirklichkeit. In dieser durchdringen sich Innen und Außen. Sie ist ein leidenschaftlicher Beziehungsprozess, in dem das Begehren nach Identität erst im Leuchten des Anderen eingelöst wird.

This paper describes the semiotic approach to organism in two proto-biosemiotic thinkers, Susanne K. Langer and Hans Jonas. Both authors develop ideas that have become central terms of biosemiotics: the organism as subject, the realisation of the living as a closed circular self, the value concept, and, in the case of Langer, the concept of symbol. Langer tries to develop a theory of cultural symbolism based on a theory of organism as a self-realising entity creating meaning and value. This paper deals mainly with what both authors independently call “feeling”. Both authors describe “feeling” as a value-based perspective, established as a result of the active self interest manifested by an organic system. The findings of Jonas and Langer show the generation of a subject pole, or biosemiotic agent, under a more precise accent, as e.g. Uexküll does. Their ideas can also be affiliated to the interpretation of autopoiesis given by the late Francisco Varela . A synthesis of these positions might lead to insights how symbolic expression arises from biological conditions of living

In this paper I pursue the influences of Jakob von Uexküll’s biosemiotics on the anthropology of Ernst Cassirer. I propose that Cassirer in his Philosophy of the Symbolic Forms has written a cultural semiotics which in certain core ideas is grounded on biosemiotic presuppositions, some explicit (as the “emotive basic ground” of experience), some more implicit. I try to trace the connecting lines to a biosemiotic approach with the goal of formulating a comprehensive semiotic anthropology which understands man as embodied being and culture as a phenomenon of general semioses.

In this paper I pursue the influences of Jakob von Uexküll’s biosemiotics on the anthropology of Ernst Cassirer. I propose that Cassirer in his Philosophy of the Symbolic Forms has written a cultural semiotics which in certain core ideas is grounded on biosemiotic presuppositions, some explicit (as the “emotive basic ground” of experience), some more implicit. I try to trace the connecting lines to a biosemiotic approach with the goal of formulating a comprehensive semiotic anthropology which understands man as embodied being and culture as a phenomenon of general semioses.

In this paper I pursue the influences of Jakob von Uexküll’s biosemiotics on the anthropology of Ernst Cassirer. I propose that Cassirer in his Philosophy of the Symbolic Forms has written a cultural semiotics which in certain core ideas is grounded on biosemiotic presuppositions, some explicit (as the “emotive basic ground” of experience), some more implicit. I try to trace the connecting lines to a biosemiotic approach with the goal of formulating a comprehensive semiotic anthropology which understands man as embodied being and culture as a phenomenon of general semioses.

This paper describes the semiotic approach to organism in two proto-biosemiotic thinkers, Susanne K. Langer and Hans Jonas. Both authors develop ideas that have become central terms of biosemiotics: the organism as subject, the realisation of the living as a closed circular self, the value concept, and, in the case of Langer, the concept of symbol. Langer tries to develop a theory of cultural symbolism based on a theory of organism as a self-realising entity creating meaning and value. This paper deals mainly with what both authors independently call “feeling”. Both authors describe “feeling” as a value-based perspective, established as a result of the active self interest manifested by an organic system. The findings of Jonas and Langer show the generation of a subject pole, or biosemiotic agent, under a more precise accent, as e.g. Uexküll does. Their ideas can also be affiliated to the interpretation of autopoiesis given by the late Francisco Varela (embodied cognition or “enactivism”). A synthesis of these positions might lead to insights how symbolic expression arises from biological conditions of living.

Meaning, feeling and expression - the experience of inwardness - matter most in human existence. The perspective of biopoetics shows that this experience is shared by all organisms. Being alive means to exist through relations that have existential concern, and to express these dimensions through the body and its gestures. All life takes place within one poetic space which is shared between all beings and which is accessible through subjective sensual experience. We take part in this through our empirical subjectivity, which arises from the experiences and needs of living beings, and which makes them open to access and sharing in a poetic objectivity. Biopoetics breaks free from the causal-mechanic paradigm which made biology unable to account for mind and meaning. Biology becomes a science of expression, connection and subjectivity which can understand all organisms including humans as feeling agents in a shared ecology of meaningful relations, embedded in a symbolical and material metabolism of the biosphere.

Francisco Varela highlighted many links between his philosophy of cognition and Buddhism. This paper focuses on those connections which Varela did not make explicit. Varela was a disciple of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, a renowned master of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism. This school emphasizes the direct experience of the 'nature of the mind' — hence, reality. Only by taking into account how this experience formed Varela's thinking do we understand the full scope of his idea of life. For Varela, living beings act from the perspective of a self, although this self does not exist as a place or organ in the organism. In his training with Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Varela realized that this 'selfless' self in the centre of an organism is the activity of giving life. In it, matter and inwardness, the subjective perspective and the perspective of 'being everything', are not separate. An organism is the gift of life coming from this centre, which is pure original consciousness — the 'nature of the mind'.

This essay analyses the career of the German chemist and government functionary Caspar Georg Carl Reinwardt through the layered lens of governance and management. By conceptualizing governance as the historical result of the interaction between locally situated accumulation and management projects and the ‘metropolitan’ assessment of their value, it uses Reinwardt’s experiences to shed fresh light on the idiosyncrasies through which Europe and Southeast Asia were linked in the early nineteenth century. The discussion of three closely related episodes exemplifies this point. Taken together, the essay problematizes simple center-periphery relationships by demonstrating that such global connections be understood through a comparison between ‘metropolitan’ and ‘colonial’ science. Rather it demonstrates the insights drawn from employing a framework that unites narratives of ‘imperial’ and ‘metropolitan’ histories of accumulation, and brings them under one analytical umbrella.