To be precise, the semiosis that integrates the inside, the outside, the individual and the collective dimension, on one hand and, on the other hand, the semiosis that integrates levels of development, states and types of consciousness. It is a metatheory because any theory can be analyzed from this same matrix or global perspective.įrom what we have just said, we can explore the application of the integral matrix also to semiotics. It is called “integral” because this model integrates four dimensions, aspects or planes of the human being, namely, the inside, the outside, the individual and collective. When applied to a research methodology it means that one aspires to cover as many perspectives as possible” ( Helfrich 2007). “Integral means balanced, inclusive, and comprehensive. This approach could help us to better understand the consciousness from the perspective of semiotics, because it integrates levels of development, states and types of consciousness. Nonetheless, the Integral metatheory (or even paradigm) has the categories to continue the path begun by Wilber because has the potential to show how “science, art, spirituality, and everything in-between provide valid insights that, when taken as a whole, provide the most complete view of human consciousness currently available” ( Helfrich 2007). Thus, the latter cannot be reduced only to the study of a single level. In addition, signs are just a level among others in the “hierarchy of levels of analysis” ( Fontanille 2008) studied by semiotics. It is a more complex process than the relationship referent/sign. Actually, the object of study of semiotics is semiosis: the production and interpretation of sense. Sometimes, he even seems not to distinguish between referent and object. We say the first step, because he just focuses on the Integral linguistics subject more specifically, on the relationship between signs, their referents and their specific “worldspaces” of existence (see, e.g., Wilber 2014: 1–45 on this important subject). Ken Wilber (2014) is the only one who has taken the first step towards an Integral Semiotics. So much so, that still cannot be explained the “emergence” of consciousness from complex systems. Although there seems to be a consensus on the impossibility of reducing the mind to physical systems (an organ like the brain, for example), there is no agreement on the precise relationship between them.
2009 Demertzi and Whitfield-Gabrieli 2016 Murillo 2005). However, there is much research about consciousness and its relationship to the brain in the neurosciences ( Berlucchi and Marzi 2019 Chennu et al. Unfortunately, we find almost nothing about the role of consciousness (and its structures and states) in semiosis – with the exception of Jean-François Bordron (2012). At present, there is a lot of development about perception ( Petitot 2009 Darrault-Harris 2009 Dissanayake 2009).