Dialogues and Criticism
1. Criticism of Biosemiotics
OCE is on a collision course with Biosemiotics (Thomas Sebeok, Jesper Hoffmeyer), who studies the "life of signs". For OCE, life is not made of signs; It is made up of chemical and physical reactions. Calling an enzyme reaction "interpretation" is a poetic metaphor, not a rigorous description.
"When everything is a sign, nothing is a sign in a strict sense: the possibility of distinguishing between what only functions and what is also symbolized is lost."
Pontos Robustos
- Strict and restrictive definition of language (avoids "anything goes").
- Respect for the specificity of physical-chemical processes.
- Clarity in the distinction between sign (physical) and sign (symbolic).
Reception Weaknesses
It may seem that OCE "devalues" nature by denying it language. The answer is that nature doesn't need language to be complex and wonderful.
2. Dialogue with Structuralism
Classical structuralism saw language as a model for everything (the unconscious is structured like a language, culture is a text, etc.). OCE says: this is only true for humans. The rest of the universe is not structured like a language; It is structured like...matter.
Three Proposed Ruptures
- Contra o Textualismo: The world is not a text waiting to be read.
- Against the Universal Metaphor: We should not project our tools (words) onto the things we study (atoms, cells).
- For Real Autonomy: Matter has its own "grammar" (physical laws), which is not a linguistic grammar.