6
1 Morphogenetic Universe
of signs by phonetic transcription, which provides a loose correspondence with the
letters of a written language.
Likewise, the hierarchy between DNA and proteins, on the one hand, and cells
and tissues, on the other, or between individual human beings and societies is not
as straightforward as the one between atoms and molecules. Perhaps, Nature uses
hieroglyphic script as well, recognized by different kinds of differentiated cells and
driving intracellular dynamics. It may support the unity both of the organism and of
terrestrial life as a whole, but it is much harder for us to decipher than the alphabet
of elementary particles, atomic structures, and genetic code.
1.4 Mutability
Breaking a continuum into discrete parts brings about stability. Our computers are
digital: it is far easier to make a mistake by slightly shifting a number along the
continuous scale of an analogous machine than by reversing the state of a binary bit.
Alphabetic systems are the most precise and logical; the atoms of Democritus are
immutable – but living alphabets are never as precise as their counterparts in physics
and chemistry. There are numerous examples of illogical spelling in any language,
and first of all in English where, as Bernard Shaw teased, “fish” could be spelled
“ghoti” by borrowing odd sound–letter correspondences from different words.
All alphabetic systems are subject to mutations with a frequency that depends
both on the strength of an underlying structure and on the level of noise. Moreover,
a living system needs mutations in order to develop. Mutations can also be deadly,
but death is another stage of life. In physics, the measure of noise is temperature, and
mutability depends on the ratio between thermal energy and the strength of bonds.
Applying this back in the language context, we can say that the strength of bonds
grows from spoken to written language, and further to established orthography and
sacred texts. The temperature here goes up in times of upheaval, invasion, and social
change, and down when the language ceases to be spoken.
Bonds between sounds in a spoken language are very weak, although not all
sounds are equal. The level of noise is at its strongest when the alphabet, though
discernible in the background, is not formalized. Languages evolved and branched,
as Steven Pinker (1999) observed, following the same mechanism as the kids game
of Broken Telephone. Written language is more stable, to the extent that it would not
react to changes in pronunciation, just as English spelling ignored the Great Vowel
Shift of the 15th–16th centuries. Stability is further enhanced when orthography is
standardized, but new words keep creeping in and the usage of old words shifts.
The same Samuel Johnson (1755) who fixed the English spelling used to this day
(though not across the ocean) wrote:
When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to
century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with
equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of
1 Morphogenetic Universe
of signs by phonetic transcription, which provides a loose correspondence with the
letters of a written language.
Likewise, the hierarchy between DNA and proteins, on the one hand, and cells
and tissues, on the other, or between individual human beings and societies is not
as straightforward as the one between atoms and molecules. Perhaps, Nature uses
hieroglyphic script as well, recognized by different kinds of differentiated cells and
driving intracellular dynamics. It may support the unity both of the organism and of
terrestrial life as a whole, but it is much harder for us to decipher than the alphabet
of elementary particles, atomic structures, and genetic code.
1.4 Mutability
Breaking a continuum into discrete parts brings about stability. Our computers are
digital: it is far easier to make a mistake by slightly shifting a number along the
continuous scale of an analogous machine than by reversing the state of a binary bit.
Alphabetic systems are the most precise and logical; the atoms of Democritus are
immutable – but living alphabets are never as precise as their counterparts in physics
and chemistry. There are numerous examples of illogical spelling in any language,
and first of all in English where, as Bernard Shaw teased, “fish” could be spelled
“ghoti” by borrowing odd sound–letter correspondences from different words.
All alphabetic systems are subject to mutations with a frequency that depends
both on the strength of an underlying structure and on the level of noise. Moreover,
a living system needs mutations in order to develop. Mutations can also be deadly,
but death is another stage of life. In physics, the measure of noise is temperature, and
mutability depends on the ratio between thermal energy and the strength of bonds.
Applying this back in the language context, we can say that the strength of bonds
grows from spoken to written language, and further to established orthography and
sacred texts. The temperature here goes up in times of upheaval, invasion, and social
change, and down when the language ceases to be spoken.
Bonds between sounds in a spoken language are very weak, although not all
sounds are equal. The level of noise is at its strongest when the alphabet, though
discernible in the background, is not formalized. Languages evolved and branched,
as Steven Pinker (1999) observed, following the same mechanism as the kids game
of Broken Telephone. Written language is more stable, to the extent that it would not
react to changes in pronunciation, just as English spelling ignored the Great Vowel
Shift of the 15th–16th centuries. Stability is further enhanced when orthography is
standardized, but new words keep creeping in and the usage of old words shifts.
The same Samuel Johnson (1755) who fixed the English spelling used to this day
(though not across the ocean) wrote:
When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to
century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with
equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of