Communicology

First comprehensive explication of the Philosophy of Communication in two parts as (1) Communicology and (2) Semiology within the methodological context of Phenomenology as Applied Research.  Each Part contains two sections: (1) Eidetic Studies based in Logic and (2) Empirical Studies based in Experimentation as Lived-Experience. Thus, a unique Discourse comparison of both the Philosophy Approach (eidetic studies grounded in logic) and the Human Science Approach (empirical studies grounded in linguistics).

Abstract The analysis takes up the conjunction of semiotics and cybernetics as a problem in theory construction in the human sciences. From a philosophical per- spective, this is also the ontological problem of communicology: the disciplinary study of human communication. My analysis suggests current conceptions of “semiotics” and “cybernetics” are misunderstood because “information” is assumed as synonymous with “communication” and that the axioms of “mathematics” are identical to those of “logics”. The evidence contained in the misunderstandings is a conflation of reductionist ecology ideas about the “environment” differentiation of (1) human beings [apperceptive organic life], (2) animals [perceptive organic life], and machines [inorganic and constructed mechanisms]. The communicological view argues that a correct understanding of these issues requires a competence in logics and linguistics to determine the metatheory criteria for choosing evidence among humans, animals, and machines. The domain thematic is the phenomenological synergism of human embodiment as expression and perception. In this context, my criterion for evidence is the structure or form of a pure concept of reason (choice making judgment) that is given a priori in consciousness, the notion demonstrated by Immanuel Kant: A notion is a rule that you know before you experience it as a result.

In the classic Greek conception, axiology is the study of values or decisions displayed in behavior (ethics, aesthetics, politics, rhetoric). Whereas, dialogue is the study of discourse or choices displayed in judgement (dialectic, sophistic, rhetoric, maieutic). I examine, in a preliminary way, the dynamics of human communicology (decision choices) wherein the method of semiotic phenomenology accounts for Husserl’s (1929; 1933) maxim that “subjectivity is intersubjectivity” (155). The primary methodology for this analysis is the chiasm logic of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Foucault, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, identifying middle voice [G. gērys] as the essence of the human.

An analysis of existential communication focused on Maurice Merleau-Ponty's place in the study of logic and discourse from both an American (USA) and continental philosophy perspective. (1) Phenomenalism is compared to Phenomenology as a logic method, (2) existential modalities of direct and indirect communication are examined, (3) models of semiology are compared (Peirce, Morris, Ogden and Richards, Russel, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre), (4) Merleau-Ponty’s radical cogito as intentionality, (5) existential speaking (parole, langue, langage, discours), and (6) Film Studies / Cinema Theory pop Perception is used as an empirical example of eidetic principles.

Abstract: The analysis explores the main arguments of Noam Chomsky’s short book, Media Control that also reprints the monograph “The Journalist from Mars: How the ‘War on Terror’ Should Be Reported.” The problematic is Aristotelian rhetoric and Enlightenment rationality (justice) in civic discourse (Lógos) as compared to the thematic of dialogic reasonableness (Eulógos). Chomsky’s assumption of, and critique of, “old rhetoric” [Aristotle’s rhētorikḗ] is followed by a discussion of Chiam Perelman’s “new rhetoric” [presocratic poiētikḗ / epideiktikos / gērys] and his “incarnate adherence” (giving voice to) concept of the Universal Audience as a function of Epideictic argumentation. This is also a critique of Stephen Toulman’s neo- Aristotelian model of rhetorical “warrant” and its connection to Charles S. Peirce’s normative semiotic of the “argument cycle.” Heidegger’s and Lakoff’s concept of discourse framing is associated with Michel Foucault’s rhetoric concept of an ethic of social discourse for the common good (parrhe- sia) in the age of Umberto Eco’s hyperreality media that displays Baudrillard’s simulacra, such as Donald Trump.

Communicology is the science of human communication where consciousness is constituted as a medium of communication at four interconnected levels of interaction experience: intraper-sonal (embodied), interpersonal (dyadic), group (social), and inter-group (cultural). The focus of the paper is the group level of communication across generations, thus constituting inter-group communication that stabilizes norms (forms a culture). I propose to explicate the way in which the method of semiotic phenomenology informs the pioneering work at the University of Toronto by Tom McFeat, a Harvard trained cultural anthropologist, on small group cultures as an experimental research methodology. Rather than the cognitive-analytic (Husserl's tran-scendental eidetic) techniques suggest by Don Ihde as a pseudo " experimental phenomenol-ogy " , McFeat provides an applied method for the empirical experimental constitution of culture in conscious experience. Group cultures are constructed in the communicological practices of group formation and transformation by means of a self-generating group narrative (myth) design. McFeat's method consists of three steps of culture formation by communication that are: (1) Content-Ordering, (2) Task-Ordering, and (3) Group-Ordering, i.e., what Ernst Cassirer and Karl Jaspers call the logic of culture or Culturology. These steps are compared to the descriptive phenomenology research procedures suggested by Amedeo Giorgi following Husserl's approach: (1) Find a sense of the whole, (2) Determine meaning units, (3) Transform the natural attitude expressions into phenomenologically, psychologically sensitive expressions. A second correlation will be made to Richard Lanigan's semiotic phenomenology method following the work of Cassirer, Jaspers, and Merleau-Ponty: (1) Description of Signs, (2) Reduction of Signifi-ers, and (3) Interpretation of Signifieds.

Es passierte, während ich an dem Vorwort zu Innis' Empire and Communications arbeitete, daß ich die größte Entdeckung meines Lebens gemacht habe. Kurz gesagt besteht die Entdeckung in folgendem: 2.500 Jahre lang haben die Philosophen der westlichen Welt jede Technologie aus der Behandlung von Materie-Form-Problemen ausgeklammert. Innis hat viel Zeit seines Lebens darauf verwandt, um die Aufmerksamkeit auf die psychischen und sozialen Folgen von Technologien zu lenken. Er konnte noch nicht sehen, daß unsere Philosophie systematisch die techne aus ihren Meditationen ausschließt. Einzig natürliche und lebendige Formen werden als ganzheitlich-morphologisch klassifiziert.« 1 1

Abstract: The Human Science of Communicology culminates several disciplinary developments, largely viewed as singular constitutions and foundational to differential attitudes about the nature and function of philosophy and science in apposition (triadic relation) to human embodiment. In more familiar terms, the idea of Culture stands in contrast to the idea of Science, because there is a measured distinction between what human beings express and what they perceive. In Modernity, we know this apposition (Human–Culture–Science) as the emergence of (1) the distinct cultural disciplines (expression of human embodiment) over against the (2) the distinct scientific disciplines (perception of physical nature). Ernst Cassirer explores this problematic in The Logic of the Cultural Sciences (1942) where he distinguishes Culture as the perception-of-expression and Science as the perception-of-objects. Cassirer’s thematic explication is to be found in The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923–1996) where his semiotic phenomenology of human communication is articulated in detail such that Science is bracketed by Culture. In Cassirer’s terms of symbolic forms, we can distinguish the semiotic distinction among (1) the Perception of Expression (Culture) where (a) Myth (Langage) and (b) Knowledge (Parole) contrast with (2) the Perception of Objects (Science) in the form of (c) Speech (Langue) and (d) Art (Discours). Symbols are constitutive of social semiotics (sensuous expression) and the intersubjective phenomenology of human embodiment (intuitive expression) in the tradition of Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl.

Abstract: The article consists of a brief biographical account of Immanuel Kant’s life and career, followed by a discussion of his basic philosophy, and a brief discussion of his pivotal point in the history of Rhetoric and Communicology. A major figure in the European Enlightenment period of Philosophy, his Collected Writings were first published in 1900 constituting 29 volumes. He wrote three major works that are foundational to the development of Western philosophy and the human sciences. Often just referred to as the “Three Critiques” informally, the First, the Second, and the Third. These are respectively: The Critique of Pure Reason focused on issues in logic, The Critique of Practical Reason relating ethical guide- lines, and The Critique of Judgment exploring issues of aesthetics. He is most famous for his philosophy of transcendental idealism. This version of idealism argues that in logic statements are analytic (subject and predicate are the same; no new information) or synthetic (predicate differs from the subject; new information is constituted). He further argues that statements are a priori (before experience) or a posteriori (a result of experience). Models of rhetoric (tropic logic), phenomenolo- gical methodology, and the contemporary Perspectives Model of interpersonal communicology are included as the Kantian legacy in the US. Notes provide a guide to edition and philological issues in the Kantian corpus, especially for the hermeneutics of Vorstellung (‘presentation’) versus Darstellung (‘representation’).
Keywords: aesthetics, chiasm, ethics, communicology, idealism, phenomenology, rhetoric, tropes

ABSTRACT
The foundation of disciplines is often associated with initial books and their authors. The discipline of speech–communication– communicology is no exception. Books by Albert Craig Baird, Lester Thonssen, and Franklin Hayward Knower serve as the definition of our early discipline. This article is about foresight— the anticipation of future developments for what was initially called “general speech,” whose practitioners have ever since been known as generalists. Departments and schools of communicology are now emerging worldwide as a synthesis of problematics and thematics that used to be called general speech. Knower suggested in 1962 that the beginning of theoretical and applied coherence must begin with a descriptive single-term name. Long overlooked, if known at all, and certainly never reprinted, is Knower’s candidate for a name and definition of a discipline he called communicology. This article is an edited

Presentation paper on "The Philosophy of Communication: Centennial Symposium" at the National Communication Association (USA) annual conference. Focus on the origin of the discipline of "Philosophy of Communication" internationally and in the USA. EXTENDS: "Paradigm Shifts: Recalling the Early ICA and the Later PHILCOM" (2005).

Intercultural communicology is a complex system of intergroup communication and, in consequence, is a specialized case of human communication in which discourse is constructed in a semiotic world of experience, i.e., the Semiosphere. I look at the Netizen (online citizen) application of semiotic phenomenological theories and categories as we explore their emblematic presence as cosmologies and logics in the sociocultural discourses of the People's Republic of China. The analysis examines stories published (2010–2011) in the online version of China Daily, a quasi-official newspaper of the Chinese government. The analysis is the main task that Umberto Eco called the semiotic quest for " the logic of culture ". I shall periodically cite the longitudinal statistical research of Richard E. Nisbett reported in his popular book The Geography of Thought. It is important to note that Nisbett's research confirms the applied practice of the cultural group semiotic in use, rather than theoretically describing the logic constituted by the semiotic systems, which is my goal. In consequence as we shall see, Nisbett makes the mistake of describing the Asian semiotic in terms of a Western logic perspective – not the Asian perspective per se!

Czy optymistyczna ocena kondycji nauki o komunikacji w Polsce jest zasadna? 55-70 ISSN 1230 55 We wstępie do pracy pt. Nauka o komunikowaniu. Podstawowe orientacje teoretyczne Barbara Dobek-Ostrowska pisze: "Nauka o komunikowaniu ma przeszło pięćdziesiąt lat i jest dojrzałą dyscypliną akademicką […] Komunikologia jest najmłodszą nauką społeczną"1. Z kolei we wstępie do zbioru tekstów pt. Studia nad mediami i komunikowaniem masowym pod redakcją Janiny Fras czytamy:

Among the philosophers who undertook the task of thinking about the status of culture and the key advents of the twentieth century, Vilém Flusser deserves prominent recognition.
A multifaceted thinker, Flusser produced sophisticated theories about a reality in which man advances towards the game, endorsed by the emergence of a kind of technical device that is dedicated, mainly, to the calculation of possibilities and to the projection of these possibilities on reality, generating a veil that conceals the natural reality and creates layers of cultural and artificial realities.
This technical device, designated by Flusser as “apparatus”, being the index of a civilisatory stage where societies are characterised by the fact that they are programmed from discourses that point to a highly abstract shared language exposed through “technical images” which, just like Indian screens, are calculated and projected on the natural reality of the world, hiding and recreating it.
During this brief introduction, we can note the convergence between the main principles exposed by Flusser and that of the field which studies the theories concerned with video games, including the concept of gasification.
Although such connections have yet to be formally established and, in some points, the philosopher himself reaches different and opposing conclusions, the categories created by Flusser, such as apparatuses, technical images, and “projection systems”, can be found, analogously, within the field of video game studies.
To conduct part of this process, of reflecting on Flusserian theories ap-plied to video games, is one of the objectives of this text. My current research intends to verify whether the hybrid codes of video games and their syntac-tical strategies, in which the concept of gamification can be positioned, are suitable for the production of scientific knowledge in a reality that I concep-tualise, via Flusser, as post-historical.

This essay frames the insights of pragmatics within the stream of everyday life as a normatively dialogical communicative activity. Pragmatics understood
as existentially dialogical moves from abstraction to concrete engagement of events and persons. Dialogic pragmatics eschews the assumption that one can single-handedly construct the world, embodying a humble and simultaneously creative social task of infinite semiosis. In order to illustrate this perspective, I turn to a brief outline of pragmatics and then illuminate this perspective with emphasis on the holistic and relational insights of Gregory Bateson’s work and life. I end with discussion of Bateson’s life as a complex object that reveals dia- logic pragmatics in unceasing framing of action and reaction, an act of infinite semiosis.

Troubled by the consequences of humanity’s inability to engineer a sustainable “modus vivendi” with the planet it inhabits, this paper asks if part of the solution might not lie in the conception of a “function system” specifically designed to negotiate an “entente cordiale” with our more-than-human Lebenswelt. It considers the communication strategies premised by the tenets of ‘constructivism’ and ‘realism’ and demonstrates that they lead nowhere. Neither do those wrought of “consilient” syntheses of these two approaches. It therefore proposes something “radical”. It suggests that a model to follow to deal with the communication challenge at issue might be found in the “magical worldview”. I define this as a “pre-rational rationality” against which both “Modernist” and “Post-modernist” rationalities define themselves in the way they forswear any mediating role for a “transcendental agency” acting as a middleman between the human and non-human worlds. To keep considerations within manageable limits I confine myself to “incantatory magic” in archaic Greece, focusing in particular on those aspects of it which illustrate how it facilitated “dialogue” between humankind and its non-human Other. Key to success in making this dialogue “meaningful” was the “music” composed and performed by inspired “Poet-Singers”. First by giving a voice and a language to the astro-meteoro-hydro-geological realities of the place where the client community dwelt; Second, by making the intelligence related through this language a source code out of which the community synthesised its “encyclopaedia” and organised the totality of the ways it interfaced with the world; Thirdly, by using the “enchantment” of hearing it a means to instil in its listeners a desire to observe modes of perceiving, thinking, desiring and behaving whose net effect was to foster an “ethological attunement” between the community and the natural environment. I conclude by making the case that there is nothing far-fetched about asking Religion and Science to embrace this rationalism, factor it into their respective acceptations of “progress” and, in tandem, negotiate an “entente cordiale” between Nature and Global Society.

The theme of this convention inscribes itself into the investigative domains of biological-evolutional psychology, semiotic phenomenology of human communication, educational sociology as well as cultural anthropology. It merges two interrelated mind/brain-and actuality/virtuality-oriented research traditions, namely, epistemology as a metascientific theory of knowledge or psychophysiological theory of knowing and ecology as a theory environmental embedding of organismic and social systems. The respective topics of inquiry may include modelling systems of reality, possible worlds, mind & care, psychotherapy, medicine, and communicology. Against this background, the subject matter of the 2018 conference may focus on the living-systems development in the realm of plants, animals, and humans engaged in species-specific cognizing activities and meaningful relationships within and with their genuine and artificial environments. University scholars, independent researchers and students, interested to take part in the " Ecosemiotic Paradigm for Nature & Culture " , will be asked to send to the address: <[email protected]> their abstracts including 200 words and a bionote including 150 words, prepared on a special form available through correspondence. Organized working groups consisting of at least six members may send one unified abstract with bionotes. Abstracts will be peer-reviewed by two members of the Scientific and Program Committees. Estimated on the basis of self-financing costs, the conference fee is aimed at covering expected expenditures for coffee breaks and lunches and organizational works. Individual participants pay early bird fee 200 EUR i.e. 850 PLN and regular fee 250 EUR, i.e., 1000 PLN. Members of working groups and accompanying persons of individual participants will pay early bird fee 180 EUR i.e. 760 PLN and regular fee 200 EUR, i.e., 850 PLN. The fee with the information: " conference fee for Ecosemiotic Paradigm, participant's name (and the name of working group where applied), and the amount " should be paid to the account of: Mikołowski Bank Spółdzielczy, ul. Krakowska 29, 43-190 Mikołów; Bank account number for Polish citizens: 59 8436 0003 0000 0022 7531 0001; International Bank Account Number = IBAN PL 59 8436 0003 0000 0022 7531 0001, SWIFT (BIC CODE): POLUPLPR. Due to organizational demands, this fee is non-refundable after the date following the final registration. Details about the accommodation in Mikołów will be provided on the web page of the Botanical Garden. IMPORTANT DATES: Deadline for early-bird sending the presentation/participation proposals = extended to February 15, 2018 Notification of the abstract review process = directly after evaluation of the abstract Deadline for early bird fee payment and registration = extended to March 15, 2018 Deadline for final sending of abstract proposals = extended to March 15, 2018 Deadline for final registration and regular fee payment = extended to April 15, 2018

Présentation et discussion des sept sujets suivants:
1) Domaines et problématiques de la recherche actuelle.
2) Rapports entre cultures des médias et langues/langages.
3) Contacts et évolution des ressources de communication dans le contexte des (nouveaux) médias.
4) La question sémiotique des ressources de communication dans le contexte des (nouveaux) médias.
5) L’appropriation des ressources de communication par les utilisateurs des (nouveaux) médias.
6) Traditions et politiques « linguistiques ».
7) Les exploitations pratiques et technologiques.