Andres Luure

Biosmiotics is trying to extend semiotic concepts to biological phenomena and demarcate the biological sphere from the non-biological sphere using the applicability or inapplicability of semiotics as the demarcation criterion. We could call it antireductionsit in the first part of its enterprise as the world of life is interpreted in quasi-human terms; and we coulld call it reductionist in the second part of its enterprise as, for example, causality is excluded from the semiotic sphere. This article promotes a view according to which applicability of semiotic concepts cannot serve as a demarcation criterion to partition reality plainly because the extensions of the concepts of semiosis, cogntion, subjectivity, and -- surprisingly -- causality, coincide. Both positive and negative lessons will be taken from Jakob von Uexküll's ideas by both developing and criticizing them

In the view of the author, the main problem of semiotics is the understanding and advancing of understanding. To contribute to the solution of this problem, a distinction is suggested between two types of understanding: enlogy and empathy. The subject of enlogy reduces what he understands to himself as a code: he hears only what he is himself. The subject of empathy reduces what she understands to herself as a text: she sees only what she is striving to become. Enlogy is possible due to the identity of the communicants as a present unified code. Empathy is possible due to the identity of the communicants as a future common text. Mastering the code is a by-product of empathy; the texts rests on the enlogy that already is possible. Enlogy and empathy do not pereceive each other as understanding. Therefore their mutual understanding remains the hardest problem of understanding. To fulfil its task, semiotics has to address this problem.