Meaning = Life (+ Culture): An outline of a unified biocultural theory of meaning

84 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis (2008, background): “Others have suggested a similar “mimetic stage” in ontogeny, but have proposed quite different interpretations of its scope (Nelson 1996; Zlatev 2002, 2003), making it clear that the concept of mimesis requires a more precise definition.”
Sociality and the life–mind continuity thesis (2009, background): “This thesis has been proposed in a wide variety of formulations (e.g. Maturana & Varela 1987; Godfrey-Smith 1996; Stewart 1996; Wheeler 1997; Zlatev 2002; Thompson 2007; Di Paolo 2009), but most of them essentially revolve around what has been called „strong‟ continuity, i.”
The challenges of joint attention (2006, background): “Zlatev describes the ontogeny of meaning with four developmental stages (cue-based, associational, mimetic and symbolic) ( Zlatev, 2002 ).”
The semiotic hierarchy: life, consciousness, signs and language (2009, unknown): “As a preliminary to an attempt at defining a “unified biocultural theory of meaning”, I had previously written (Zlatev 2003: 253): Our conception of meaning has become increasingly fragmented, along with much else in the increasing ‘postmodernization’ of our worldview.”