38. Interacting With Personified Nature

In modelling the natural environment as a social system, the type of social system modelled depends on that of the modellers, whether egalitarian or dominance hierarchy, for example. Fitting in with that environment involves co-operation with the persons of that system through semiotic exchanges, since as semiotic beings, they are construed as fellow interlocutors with their own reasons and purposes.[1] That is, fitting in an environment requires negotiation with personifications of Nature, especially with those that embody more powerful forces than the modellers themselves. The more powerful the personification, the higher up the social pecking order, the more the tenor entails deference, respect, reverence or (alpha) worship of the modellers in such exchanges. 

Moves in negotiatory exchanges involve the semiotic system of speech function.[2] Either information or goods-and-services can be either given or demanded. Giving information constitutes a statement, demanding information constitutes a question, giving goods-and-services constitutes an offer, and demanding goods-and-services constitutes a command. In negotiating with more powerful beings, offers can take the form of sacrifices, which obligate reciprocal offers in response moves, especially in times of natural disaster.[3] Commands can take the form of prayers, in which favours are requested of the powerful. Questions can be addressed with the expectation that statements, in the form of oracles, will be given in response.[4]

Footnotes:

[1] This is ‘nature-as-thou’, as espoused by Romanticism.

[2] See for example Martin (1992: 50ff).

[3] There is an interesting parallel to human sacrifice in prey-predator relations. Once a member of a (less powerful) prey species, such as an emperor penguin, is taken by a (more powerful) predator, such as a leopard seal, the rest of the prey animals benefit by getting free passage. Dawkins (2004: 495) suggests that sacrifice would be an economic solution to the ‘evolutionary arms race’ between prey and predator species:

from an economic point of view, both sides would be better coming to an agreement to call off the arms race. As a ludicrous extreme, prey species might sacrifice a tithe of their number in exchange for secure and untroubled grazing for the rest.

[4] Construing Nature as interlocutors also enables thinking to be attributed to a personified external source. There are also neurological variations which facilitate this. For example, in conditions such as schizophrenia, streams of thought are not recognised as being of the self; the false sensing of the presence of another can be induced by epilepsy or electric fields which increase blood flow to the temporal lobes and away from the parietal lobes.

ChatGPT revised:

The Semiotic Logic of Negotiating with Nature

In modelling the natural environment as a social system, the type of social system modelled depends on the social structure of the modellers — whether egalitarian or based on a dominance hierarchy, for example. Fitting into such an environment entails co-operating with the persons of that system through semiotic exchanges, since, as semiotic beings, they are construed as fellow interlocutors, each with their own purposes and reasons.[1] That is, inhabiting a world of personifications involves negotiation — especially with those who embody more powerful forces than the modellers themselves.

The greater the power attributed to a personification, the higher its rank in the social order; and the more asymmetrical the exchange, the more the tenor involves deference, respect, reverence, or (alpha) worship on the part of the modellers.

Moves in these negotiatory exchanges are patterned by the semiotic system of speech function.[2] Here, four primary moves are available:

• Giving information = statement

• Demanding information = question

• Giving goods-and-services = offer

• Demanding goods-and-services = command

In interaction with more powerful personifications, offers may take the form of sacrifices, which are construed as obligating a reciprocal offer in return — especially in times of natural disaster, when the need for such reciprocity is urgent.[3] Commands may take the form of prayers, requesting goods or services from the powerful. Questions may be addressed with the expectation that statements, in the form of oracles or signs, will be returned in response.[4]

---

Footnotes:

[1] This is the ‘nature-as-thou’ orientation espoused by Romanticism.

[2] See Martin (1992: 50ff) on the system of speech function in interaction.

[3] There is an interesting ecological parallel to human sacrifice in prey–predator relations. Once a member of a prey species (e.g. an emperor penguin) is taken by a predator (e.g. a leopard seal), the rest of the group often benefits from temporary safety. Dawkins (2004: 495) suggests that, from an evolutionary perspective, sacrificing a tithe of a population in exchange for untroubled grazing would be an economically rational solution to the evolutionary arms race.

[4] Construing Nature as an interlocutor also enables external attribution of thought. Certain neurological conditions facilitate this: in schizophrenia, internal streams of thought may not be recognised as one’s own; the sensed presence of another can be induced by temporal lobe epilepsy or transcranial stimulation that increases blood flow to the temporal lobes while reducing it to the parietal lobes.