Theories of perception between semiophilia and semiophobia

This paper argues that there exist philosophical disagreements over the nature and function of signs when it comes to theorizing perception. For this purpose, the paper compares three thinkers in terms of how they position themselves towards the thesis of perception as sign-mediated, namely Uexküll's semiotic biology, Gibson's ecological psychology, and Harris' integrationism. While Gibson stresses that perception is direct and unmediated, Harris suggests that perceptions are semiologically complex. In the final part, the paper introduces Tim Ingold's concepts of ‘semiophilia’ and ‘semiophobia’ within the context of a philosophy of semiotics and applies them to the theories of perception discussed. The conclusion that the paper draws is that the three thinkers subscribe to incompatible views on human-animal and human-world relations. • The word sign designates different things in different theories. • Both Uexküll and Harris espouse subjectivist theories of the sign, however Harrisian semiology is confined to humans. • Harris takes an approach to perception which is based on the ‘retinal image’ doctrine. • Harris' semiological approach to perception presupposes ‘a stimulus’, whereas Gibson suggests a continuous flow of stimulation. • Gibson's direct perception is an unmediated process, while for Harris perceptions are always interpretations.