Salvatore Tedesco

Lecture Notes in Morphogenesis is an interdisciplinary book series which aims to face the questions of emergence, individuation and becoming of forms from several different points of view: those of pure and applied mathematics, of computational algorithms, of biology, of neurophysiology, of cognitive and social structures. The set of questions above concerns all the manifestations of Being, all the manifestations of Life. At the heart of contemporary embryogenesis lies an essential question: How can form emerge from the constant, chaotic flow? How can a sequence of purely informational elements — an a-signifying combination of chemical substances organized in the DNA molecule — evolve into the highly complex and structured forms of the living organism? A similar question can be asked when we deal with the morphogenesis of vision in neural systems and with the creation of evolving synthetic images, since digital technology makes possible the simulation of emergent processes both of living bodies and of visual forms. Finally the very idea that abstract structures of meaning could be captured in terms of morphodynamic evolution opens the door to new models of semiolinguistics, semiotic morphodynamics, and cognitive grammars.

Nature doesn’t seem reducible to rigid systems and classifications. Although resorting to metaphors may give rise to contradictions, it allows the elaboration of explanatory models which help us to organize thought and to find orientation in the natural world. Giving form through metaphors stands for seeking the way by which mankind looks for both solutions and new configurations to face nature’s enigmas. The creation of morphological and/or evolutionary metaphors framed in a schematic way what Hugo called “man’s groping in the universe of nature”. Circles, arrows, spirals, scales, etc. stood for research directions: for example, scale became metaphor of an “animal universe” that – as it was thought to be in the Eighteenth Century – organized itself in a bottom-up scale. The circle referred to “metamorphosis” , which reminds us of Goethe’s thinking. Metaphors are never an aim in themselves: they always determine a way of thinking as well as choices and research directions. Such a use of the linguistic image deeply influences the very notion of metaphor as figures of speech . If, on the one hand, metaphor shows unknown structures of nature, on the other it rediscovers its own ‘naturalness’. Starting from the deep interconnection between functional and formal tasks in morphological discussion, metaphor turned from “figure” to “figuration”, Gestaltung , and in doing so it revealed a dynamic structure able to make us understand new links and directions in the sense of a metamorphic nature. Far from limiting itself to a historical retrospection, the methodological significance of having recourse to metaphor profoundly informs the most recent questions in the scientific field and notably in life sciences, in the very moment in which it leads and encourages a renewed dialogue between sciences and philosophy

Is it achievable to read aesthetic experience as a modular adaptation, and what would be its implication on the image of man, on aesthetics and on evolutionary theory itself? An alternative path is offered by evolutionary morphology, starting from the elaboration of a biologic concept of organism and from the notion of homology of function as a system of interconnections organized in a hierarchy. We deduce the possibility of thinking the peculiar innovation of aesthetic experience in an evolutionary way.

Il concetto di omologia riveste un ruolo centrale nella biologia teoretica contemporanea perché attorno ad esso e per suo tramite trovano articolazione numerosi progetti di ricerca miranti a ripensare la centralità dell’organismo, i suoi percorsi evolutivi e il significato della sua interazione con la realtà ambientale. La rete di omologie che tesse l’organismo permette di strutturarne e canalizzarne le innovazioni morfologiche e funzionali. Appunto questa componente sistemica rende dunque l’omologia un concetto fondamentale per una considerazione dinamica della forma vivente, come quella cui mira un’estetica che non intenda limitarsi a indagare sull’atteggiamento estetico e sulle produzioni artistiche, ma sappia tematizzare in senso più comprensivo la questione (eminentemente propria della tradizione morfologica) dell’unità dell’agire e del percepire come configurazione estetica del vivente.Il presente studio propone una ricognizione di alcuni dei principali momenti fondativi del concetto di omologia, a partire dalle ricerche botaniche di Goethe e dal significato che esse rivestono nel progetto morfologico goethiano, per proseguire con l’elaborazione del concetto di “elemento anatomico” da parte di Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire e la sua problematica rilettura da parte di Arthur Schopenhauer, conducendo sino alla fondazione del concetto moderno di omologia con Richard Owen, alla sua messa in relazione col concetto di analogia e all’elaborazione del concetto di “archetipo del vertebrato”. In tal modo, il presente studio mira a individuare alcuni motivi salienti di attualità del concetto e delle potenzialità teoriche che in esso trovano espressione, fra prospettiva morfologica e attenzione ai vincoli materiali della forma.

The concept of homology is the most solid theoretical basis elaborated by the morphological thinking during its history. The enucleation of some general criteria for the interpretation of homology is today a fundamental tool for life sciences, and for restoring their own opening to the question of qualitative innovation that arose so powerfully in the original Darwinian project. The aim of this paper is to verify the possible uses of the concept of compositional homology in order to provide of an adequate understanding of the dynamics of creative thinking

Aim of this paper is to outline a new evolutionary interpretation of aesthetic emotions, in the light of the most recent developments in Evolutionary Biology, in particular the so-called “Extended Synthesis of Evolution” (Pigliucci-Müller 2010). Focussing on the biological concept of homology, the Author argues that, in order to effectively understand role and evolutionary value of aesthetic emotions, it should be asked not “what aesthetic emotions are for?”, rather “what kind of constraints and homologies influence the specific “shape” of human aesthetic emotions?”. In a few words, we should move from a functionalist approach to human aesthetic emotions towards a morphological one