From Complementarity to Semiosis

  • Felice Cimatti
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 18)


Giorgio Prodi poses a fundamental philosophical problem: how was the emergence of immaterial meaning possible within the world of material things? In order to answer this question, Prodi develops an original relational ontology. The world is made of relations between things, not of things. The world is relation; semiosis is relation: it follows that the world itself is semiosis. This chapter will expose Prodi’s natural history of meaning.


Complementarity Selection Proto-semiosis Phylogenesis of semiosis 

BibliographyIn ItalianOther Works Cited

  1. Alač, M., & Violi, P. (Eds.). (2004). In the beginning: Origins of semiosis, Semiotic and Cognitive Studies 12. Bologna: Brepols.Google Scholar
  2. Barbieri, M. (1985). La teoria semantica dell’evoluzione. (Thom, René, preface.) (Saggi, Scienze.) Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  3. Barbieri, M. (2000). I codici organici: La nascita della biologia semantica. (Capire la vita 1.) Ancona: peQuod editore.Google Scholar
  4. Barbieri, M. (2001). The organic codes: The birth of semantic biology. (Capire la vita 2.) Ancona: peQuod editore.Google Scholar
  5. Bardini, T. (2017). Relational ontology, Simondon, and the hope for a third culture inside biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 10(1), 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cimatti, F. (2000b). The circular semiosis of Giorgio Prodi. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 351–379.Google Scholar
  7. Cobley, P. (2016). Cultural Implications of Biosemiotics, Biosemiotics 15. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eco, U. (1988b). Una sfida al mito delle due culture. In: Saecularia nona, 2. [In English, Eco 1994.]Google Scholar
  9. Eco, U. (1999 [1997]). Kant and the platypus: Essays on language and cognition. (A. McEwen, Trans.). San Diego: A Harvest Book, Harcourt.Google Scholar
  10. Florkin, M. (1974). Concepts of molecular biosemiotics and of molecular evolution. Comprehensive Biochemistry, 29A, 1–124.Google Scholar
  11. Gianfranco, M., & Mangano, D. (Eds.). (2018). Semiotics of animals in culture: Zoosemiotics 2.0, Biosemiotics 17. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Kull, K. (2015). Semiosis stems from logical incompatibility in organic nature: Why biophysics does not see meaning, while biosemiotics does. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 119(3), 616–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lehman, N., Bernhard, T., Larson, B. C., Robinson, A., & Southgate, C. (2014). Empirical demonstration of environmental sensing in catalytic RNA: evolution of interpretive behavior at the origins of life. BioMed Central Evolutionary Biology, 14, 248.Google Scholar
  14. Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2005). Semiotics unbounded: Interpretive routes through the open network of signs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prodi, G. (1983). Linguistica e biologia. In C. Segre (Ed.), Intorno alla linguistica (pp. 172–202). Milano: Feltrinelli (Discussione su “Linguistica e biologia”, 308–319).Google Scholar
  16. Prodi, G. (1988d). La cultura come ermeneutica naturale. Intersezioni, Rivista di storia delle idee (Bologna: Società Editrice Il Mulino) 8(1): 23–48. [English translation in Prodi 1989b]Google Scholar
  17. Prodi, G. (1988e). La biologia come semiotica naturale. In M. Herzfeld & L. Melazzo (Eds.), Semiotic theory and practice: Proceedings of the third international congress of the IASS Palermo, 1984 (Vol. 2, pp. 929–951). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Prodi, G. (1989b). Culture as natural hermeneutics. In W. A. Koch (Ed.), The nature of culture. Proceedings of the international and interdisciplinary symposium, October 7—11, 1986 in Bochum, Bochum Publications in Evolutionary Cultural Semiotics; BPX 12 (pp. 215–239). Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer [Translation of Prodi 1988d].Google Scholar
  19. Sebeok, T. A. (1997b). Foreword. In R. Capozzi (Ed.), Reading Eco: An anthology (pp. xi–xvi). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sebeok, T. A. (1998). The Estonian connection. Sign Systems Studies, 26, 20–41.Google Scholar
  21. Sharov, A., & Vehkavaara, T. (2015). Protosemiosis: Agency with reduced representation capacity. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prodi, G. (1979). Orizzonti della genetica. Milano: Espresso Strumenti.Google Scholar
  23. Prodi, G. (1988c). La cultura come ermeneutica naturale. Intersezioni, VIII, 23–48.Google Scholar
  24. Prodi, G. (2010b). Signs and codes in immunology. In D. Favareau (Ed.), Essential readings in biosemiotics: Anthology and commentary (pp. 323–336). Berlin: Springer (originariamente apparso in: Sercar E ed. The semiotics of cellular communication in the immune system, NATO ASI Series H, Cell Biology. Heidelberg).Google Scholar
  25. Barbieri, M. (2014). From biosemiotics to code biology. Biological Theory, 9(2), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. Miami: Miami University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Buchanan, B. (2008). Onto-Ethologies. The animal environments of Uexküll, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Deleuze. New York: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  28. Darwin, C. (2009). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  30. Fouts, R. (1997). Next of kin. New York: A Living Planet Press Book.Google Scholar
  31. Galef, B. (1988). Imitation in animals: History, definition, and interpretation of data from the psychological laboratory. In T. Zentall & B. Galef (Eds.), Social learning: Psychological and biological perspectives (pp. 3–28). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felice Cimatti
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Studi UmanisticiUniversità della CalabriaArcavacata di Rende CSItaly

Personalised recommendations