Umweltforschung as a Method of Inquiry: Jakob von Uexküll's 'Semiotics' and Its Fortune Home and Away, 1920-2004

美國符號學家西比奧克(Thomas A. Sebeok)自一九七O年代開始推廣「生命符號學」(biosemiotics)，以德國生物學家烏也斯庫爾(Jakob von Uexküll)所提出之Umwelt為此運動之終極指標。西比奧克於二OO一年謝世前，仍不改初衷，堅持Umwelt應為生命符號學與全球符號學之最佳實體典範，並以此對抗義大利符號學家艾柯（Umberto Eco）所提出之歷史、文化語用學論調。然而，回顧烏氏於漢堡建立「生命自我研究」學會(Institut für Umweltforschung)之目的與此學科於德法哲學、科學界被解(誤)讀的歷程，不難發現烏氏所抵抗的正是將Umwelt視為實體自然界的傳統；烏氏仔細觀察有機體之內在與外在生活環境，戮力轉化Umwelt為一種哲學思考方法、某種哲學家與科學家皆可賴以客觀思考生命意義之憑藉。因此，本論文旨在重建一九二O至五O年代間，這一段兩次世界大戰紛擾加上新學科興起之年代，烏氏理論如何穿越語言的疆界，由德語被轉化至法語知識範疇當中。本論文作者亦強調，烏氏理論隱含的另類形而上學以及人獸分野問題，早已於這一段容易被忽略且壓抑的文本歷史當中獲至初步解答，Umwelt逐漸為神經語言學家修正與肯定為人獸共享、有效的主體方法論。 導論勾勒出烏氏同時代之本國與他國科學家如何批評或肯定「生命自我研究」，此跨哲學與科學研究於當時莫衷一是，然而，可以確認的是烏氏欲脫離十九世紀由達爾文(Charles Darwin）與戴納（Hippolyte Taine）所建立之演化論、其所發展之遺傳與非演化觀點得到詮釋循環哲學家史潘爾(Eduard Spranger）極為有力之背書，且成為納粹所推行國族純粹計畫之理論基礎。第一章追本溯源，檢視milieu(x)如何於十七世紀以降，由牛頓主導之法國科學傳統，其字義逐漸為往返於單、複數型而掏空，導致十八、十九世紀之法國理論家必需添加形容詞或另起新字型，才能貼切表達其所欲傳達之理論。Umwelt與milieu之競爭則於十九、二十世紀之間進入了白熱化的階段，一方面，語言學家認為Umwelt雖遲至十九世紀才由德語詩人創造，但其直接承繼希臘以降之溫暖、和諧的大自然傳統，在字義方面較milieu更能表現透明度與純粹性；另一方面，此語彙之爭戰則僵持於兩國所各自代表的科學傳統--機械論與生機論。第二章揭示烏氏與哲學家卡西爾(Ernst Cassirer)、海德格(Martin Heidegger)於觀念與語彙使用上之落差。卡西爾雖自理想型與圖示論(eidos; schema)為烏氏覓得認識論基礎，但其死後出版之手稿與講座中，仍突顯其所堅持人獸不可跨越之鴻溝，認為Umwelt僅能解釋人類語言與行為的病態時，病人降低為與動物相似的行為模式。海德格雖於其一九三O之前的文本仔細評論烏氏生物學如何啟發哲學思考，然而，他並不認為Umwelt可以取代他所建構之Dasein與Seiend，他認為Umwelt僅是某一限定之實體自然界中，動物本能地向外敞開其自身之方式，尚無法形成人類抽象的Welt。第三章介紹德國神經語言學家戈德斯坦(Kurt Goldstein)、法國精神分析學家拉岡(Jacques Lacan)，以及法國科學史家岡吉郎(Georges Canguilhem)如何於其各自思考方法論之文本當中，以Umwelt/milieu交錯使用之方式吸納烏氏理論。岡吉郎亦極力推薦Umwelt為翻轉法國機械論傳統之最佳代表，並以此彌合兩國長久以來科學傳統的分裂與偏見。結論則將二、三章之討論帶回第一章所揭示之跨文化、跨學科之語言溝通問題，並強調Umwelt於一九二O至五O年代間為數門學科激盪出不同的定義；然而，為法語收受之歷程中，它並沒有出現如西比奧克所推廣之自然實體論。生物學與符號學原為不相容之學科，Umwelt之定義亦分裂於生命自我機轉、遺傳密碼、語言符號，以及自然實體之間。如何以此語彙安然無恙地結合生物學與符號學為生命符號學，仍有待商榷。In his international movements of biosemiotics and global semiotics, Thomas A. Sebeok has been consistent to claim Uexkull's Umwelt as the ultimate evidence. Actually, a critical parting of ways of Umwelt happens in the 1960s, in which the word is used to designate "the whole earth" in the discipline of bio-engineering on the one hand, but on the other, it just starts to receive a wider attention in the French philosophical and scientific settings. Sebeok's use of Umwelt as a physical entity of the whole earth has unfortunately removed the heuristic function of Umwelt for a particular type of phenomenon, defined by Goldstein, Lacan and Canguilhem during the 1930s and 1950s. Their efforts of relocating and enriching the Umwelt cycle from the perspectives of their developing methods have been concealed as a missing chapter in the history and aesthetics of receiving Uexkull's research. In addition, in terms of the method of semiotics, Sebeok's panoramic view to subscribe all the geo-, bio-, politico-, socio- and semio- phenomena under the master trope of Umwelt has clashed awfully with Eco's closer looks into the pragmatic conditions of the addressees. Therefore, I will justify the intensive crossings between Umwelt and milieu during the 1930s and 1950s as a variation of Sebeok's project on the European continent, which somehow helps us recollect the methodological vitality of Umwelt and the biological nature of human communication.Acknowledgements (i) Abstract in Chinese (ii) Abstract in English (iii) Table of Contents (iv-v) Introduction: The Fortune of Uexkull's Umweltforschung 0.1 Umweltforschung before Umweltwissenschaft (1) 0.2 Its historical context, controversy, value and revival (3) 0.3 My critical language and method (12) 0.4 The issues to be addressed (14) 0.5 The issues to be chapterized (16) Chapter One: A Survey of the Translingual and Transcultural Communications among Umwelt, Milieu(x) and Environment 1.1 Problematic and purpose (19) 1.2 Starting from the OED and structural linguistics (19) 1.3 A historical project or uneven communications (22) 1.4 The metalinguistic function of code in pragmatic situations (26) 1.5 The encyclopedic competence of dictionary and encyclopedia (29) 1.6.1 Milieu and Umwelt in the history of linguistics and sciences (31) 1.6.2 Milieu and Umwelt in the discourses of poetry and biology (35) 1.7 Rereading milieu(x) in biology in the light of structural semantics (42) 1.8 The renewal of the French system by Uexkull’s Umwelt (51) Chapter Two: Uexkull in Germany: The Controversy of Umwelt as a Philosophical Method 2.1 Problematic and purpose (54) 2.2 The problematization of Gestalt in Uexkull’s Bedeutungslehre (56) 2.3.1 Cassirer's canonization and criticism of Uexkull (70) 2.3.2 Cassirer's denigration of Umwelt as a speechless animal model (75) 2.3.3 Uexkull's idea of language between animals and its implications to the communication between human beings and the observation of life (78) 2.4 Cassirer's parting of ways from Heidegger's (82) 2.5.1 The commonplace and non-place between Heidegger and Uexkull (87) 2.5.2 The animal regarded as poor in world formation in comparison with man (93) 2.5.3 Heidegger's identification of an instinctive open world within Umwelt (94) 2.6 The myths about Uexkull within the German system (97) Chapter Three: Uexkull in France: Umwelt and Milieu as Methods of Inquiry 3.1 Problematic and purpose (99) 3.2 The extracodings of Umwelt across the Germany-France boundary (99) 3.3 The Suchbild in Uexkull and the imago in Lacan (103) 3.4 The unconscious working like a functional cycle (114) 3.5 The discrepancy of viewpoints in Cassirer and Lacan (120) 3.6 The revision and integration of Umwelt-milieu by Goldstein (121) 3.7 Umwelt-milieu envisaged as an intermediary symbolic space by Canguilhem (124) 3.8 Umwelt as a method constrained by conventions and appropriations (131) Concluding Chapter: A Regional Variation of Global Semiotics 4.1 The controversy of methods between Eco and Sebeok (134) 4.2.1 Sebeok's research trajectory of Uexkull (135) 4.2.2 The problem of linking without distinctions in Sebeok's projects (144) 4.3 Confirmation of the historical and cultural approach of semiotics (148) 4.3.1 Several conceptual models required in a new method or paradigm (148) 4.3.2 The semiotics of a method achieved by incessant intermediations (148) 4.3.3 Umwelt as a genetic code not qualified for the mechanism of semiotics (149) 4.3.4 Umwelt enriched as a model of human communication in the small history of semiotics (151) Index one: A chronological table on the traveling of Umwelt/Milieu/Environment (154) Index two: A horizontal table on the traveling of Umwelt within and across the boundaries (158) Index three: The letter from Johannes Holtfreter to Friedrich Brock (159) Bibliography (160