Network mannerism


Artists of the Italian Renaissance developed their characteristic styles from the observation of nature and the formulation of a pictorial science. In 1520, when Raphael died, all the representational problems had been solved, painting had been established as a craft to be learned. The artists who followed, however, instead of taking nature as their teacher, took art itself. This epoch is referred to as “mannerism”, because it had turned style into manner. Today it is realized that most styles of art are followed by a period of mannerism, in this context often referred to as “post-modernism”. Umberto Eco, esteemed author of works of science as well as of fiction, wrote: “I have come to believe that “postmodern” is not a movement confined to a particular time, but a state of mind or, more precisely, an approach to intentional art. One could even say that every epoch has its own post-modernism, just as it was said that every epoch has its own mannerism”.


Emergent Property Molecular Identity Associative Recognition Thought Style Characteristic Style 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Chapter 12 References

  1. 1.
    Jerne NK (1985) The generative grammar of the immune system. EMBO J 4: 847–852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jerne NK (1984) Idiotypic networks and other preconceived ideas. Immunol Rev 79: 5–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schöffer N (1981) La Théorie des Miroirs. Ed. Belfond, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coutinho A (1980) The self-nonself discrimination and the nature and acquisition of the antibody repertoire. Ann Immunol (Paris) 131D: 235–253Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coutinho A, Forni L, Holmberg D, Ivars F, Vaz N (1984) From an antigen-centered, clonal perspective of immune responses to an organism-centered, network perspective of autonomous activity in a self-referential immune system. Immunol Rev 79: 151–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bretscher P, Cohn M (1970) A theory of self-nonself discrimination. Science 169: 1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langman RE, Cohn M (1984) The ‘complete’ idiotypic network is an absurd immune system. Immunol Today 7: 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehrlich P (1901) Die Schutzstoffe des Blutes. 73. Vers. Deutsch. Naturforsch. u. Ärzte. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 50/52Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramos GR, Vaz NM, Saalfeld K (2006) Wings for flying, lymphocytes for defense, exaptation and specific immunity. Complexus 3: 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 205: 581–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaz NM, Varela FJ (1978) Self and non-sense: an organism-centered approach to immunology. Med Hypotheses 4: 231–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Varela FJ (1995) The Emergent Self. In: Brockman J (ed): The third culture: Beyond the scientific revolution. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maturana H, Varela F (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D. Reidel, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calenbuhr V, Bersini H, Stewart J, Varela FJ (1995) Natural tolerance in a simple immune network. J Theor Biol 177: 199–213 Stewart J, Varela FJ (1991) Morphogenesis in shape-space. Elementary meta-dynamics in a model of the immune network. J Theor Biol 153: 477–498 Varela FJ, Coutinho A (1991) Second generation immune networks. Immunol Today 12: 159–166 Varela FJ, Coutinho A (1989) Immune networks: getting on to the real thing. Res Immunol 140: 837–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eco U (1976) A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press Eco U (1984) Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. McMillan Press, HoundsmillGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peirce CS, Hartshorne C, Weiss P (1960) Collected Papers of CS Peirce. Belknap Press Sassure DF (1967) Cours de Linguistique general. Harrassourtz, Wiesbaden; Sebeok TA (2001) Global Semiotics. Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Von Uexküll T (1999) The relationship between semiotics and mechanical models of explanation in the life sciences. Biosemiotica 127: 647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Celada F, Mitchison A, Sercarz EE, Tada T (eds) (1988) The Semiotics of Cellular Communication in the Immune System. Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg See articles by Eco U, Von Uexküll T, Violi P, Golub ES, Bona CA, Ohno S, Varela FJ, Jaquemart F and Coutinho A, Vaz NM, Hoffmann GW, Sercarz EEGoogle Scholar

Further reading

  1. Hauser A (1984) Der Manierismus. Die Krise der Renaissance und der Ursprung der modernen Kunst. C.H. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  2. Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1987) The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Shambhala, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag AG 2008

Personalised recommendations