Crucially to Ecosonance Theory, which encompaces Human, other Biotic and Abiotic Relatedness, “communication” goes beyond (non-)verbal human communication. It allows, e.g., two-term combinations of H-H, H-oB, H-A, oB-oB, A-A, oB-A, …

It  includes anthorpologist-evolutionary geneticist-cyberneticist… Gregory Bateson’s “patterns of connectedness”* (such as what tells a human or animal embryo, a plant seed, a dividing amoeba, etc. what morphology to develop), which drive his “mental” evolution of all biological species. Taking the idea to its logical conclusion, Ecosonance explicitluy extends communication to abiotics, imparting to them “mental”, or communicative, capabilities by recruiting Bateson’s admission to “mentality” of nonconscious processes of biotics.

For shouldn’t the guidelines that genes communicate to bodily morphology in ontogenesis be thought of as analogic to “patterns of connectedness” that regulate what mainstream science treats as “natural” laws regulating physical interaction between galaxies, planets, moons, as well as processes of chemical composition and decomposition? Or going even further into the realm of technological cybernetics, what coordinates processes applicable to artefacts ranging from the plough through the steam engine, telegraph and radio, all the way to TV, computers and Wi Fi?

Given the enormous wealth of intellectual heritage on the subject of communication, ES’s Resources as of today open up space for tributary/concurrent bib sources of “profound communication”, comprising

  • Engineering-technological aspects per Shannon and Weaver’s theory
  • The Toronto School of Communications’ explorations, thus work by Innis~Havelock~McLuhan, at its core, and
  • Many subsequent diverging and converging theoreticians of media and communication technologies
  • Other – to be fair to existing and yet to be acknowledged branchings of intellectual endeavour

* Note that this is a loaded concept in Bateson’s evolutionary theory, worthy of a separate post.