BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:< http://www.open2c.de/ > METHOD:PUBLISH X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT12H BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Berlin TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo-outlook/Europe/Berlin X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Berlin CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:19700329T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:19701025T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT CREATED:20170209T224615 LAST-MODIFIED:20170209T224819 ORGANIZER:MAILTO:Andrea Diederichs\nAbteilung für Klinische Psychophysiologie\nForschungsinstitut für Psychobiologie\nJohanniterufer 15\nD–54290 Trier DTSTAMP:20260412T065518Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20170615T000000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20170617T000000 CATEGORIES:Konferenz/Kongress/Tagung URL:http://pug2017.uni-trier.de SUMMARY:43. Tagung „Psychologie und Gehirn" DESCRIPTION:Kontakt Andrea Diederichs Abteilung für Klinische Psychophysio logie Forschungsinstitut für Psychobiologie Johanniterufer 15 D–54290 T rier LOCATION:Trier UID:709f0cf15548c38b8c010abca02d293a@054d0aeb2671403f8b4299b6eb2e8455 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Berlin TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo-outlook/Europe/Berlin X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Berlin CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:19700329T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:19701025T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT CREATED:20160913T212346 LAST-MODIFIED:20160913T212518 ORGANIZER:MAILTO:Dario Martinelli\nInternational Semiotics Institute\nA. Mickevičiaus St. 37\nLT–44244 Kaunas DTSTAMP:20260412T065518Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20170626T000000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20170630T000000 CATEGORIES:Konferenz/Kongress/Tagung URL:http://isisemiotics.eu/iass2017 SUMMARY:13th World Congress of Semiotics IASS DESCRIPTION:Kontakt Dario Martinelli International Semiotics Institute A. M ickevičiaus St. 37 LT–44244 Kaunas LOCATION:Lithuania UID:c2c71c7f68eca196a06c042261a77122@054d0aeb2671403f8b4299b6eb2e8455 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Berlin TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo-outlook/Europe/Berlin X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Berlin CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:19700329T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:19701025T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT CREATED:20161019T204652 LAST-MODIFIED:20161019T210441 ORGANIZER;CN="International Association for Semiotics Studies (IASS/AIS) \nInternational Association for Semiotic of Space (IASS/AISE)":MAILTO:Pierre Pellegrino DTSTAMP:20260412T065518Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20170626T000000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20170630T000000 CATEGORIES:Call for Papers SUMMARY:Semiotics and theory of forms: forms of memories\, forms of invention. Tribute to Martin Krampen DESCRIPTION:Martin Krampen died a few months ago\, we honor here his memory. He was a leading figure in the German semiotics in the twentieth century. Martin was not only a rigorous scientist\, but also a talented artist. He developed the visual semiotics in both theory and practice\, He has made a decisive contribution to the articulation of semiotics to psychology of fo rm. That is  why we want to organize a session in his memory on the contr ibution of theories of form to the semiotics of space. The contribution of Martin to the edification of a semiotic of space explored and formalized\, innovative and methodical way\, the process of industrial design and archi tectural project. His contributions have so brought the spirit of synthesi s that was necessary for a general semiotics that was developing beyond th e only linguistic field. His kindness\, his smile and patience remain a lif e lesson as much as his research and writings.   The human space is a res earch field that is the object of semiotic studies for many years. An asso ciation\, the International Association for Semiotic of Space\, was founded in 1974 already\, in Urbino\, at the invitation of Professor Paioni. Since t hen semiotic's works have been periodically picked up and discussed by tho se who have come together in this Association\; at the begining around Geof frey Broadbent\, Omar Calabrese\, Paolo Fabbri\, Manar Hammad\, Martin Krampen \, then around Pierre Boudon\, Alexandre Ph. Lagopoulos\, Albert Levy\, Josep Muntañola\, Pierre Pellegrino. This researches have resulted in several co nferences and seminars\, publications and several books. We now wish to dis cuss the latest developments of the researches and take stock\, at the 2017 Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies\, in Kaunas \, Lithuania. These researches study the process of production of meaning t hat take forms in the space of human facts. The semiotics of space is a se miotic of spacings as forms given to the artificial world in which we live . With a metric the spatial forms\, forms of location\, orientation and dist ribution\, inclusion and exclusion\, intersecting and overlapping\, give a me asure to the separation or the junction\, as to the proximity or the distan ce\, the amplitude and the density of the facts and human gestures. In that \, the space is not just a scene or a place to manifest facts of sense othe rwise determined\, it produces them. For semiotic of space\, the space is no t a thing\, the relationship between form and substance is very different f rom the verbal semiotic. The substance is absent and the form refers to th e absence. The form of the space gives it boundaries\, open  or closed\, th ose of its outer neighborhoods. Those limits have a substance\; for example \, the limits of an architectural structure\, of a wall\, of a roof\, of a sla b ... And this substance gives to the space within those limits its own va lue. As those limits have a form\, they print it not only to their substanc e\, but also to the space they confine\, as they cut and shape anything that could take place in it. This form has geometrical properties (positions\, orientations\, ...\,   axes\, dimensions\, ...\, sizes)\, properties that help define and mark the relations that human  practices can have in space. I f it is a constructed space\, those limits and the form they print their su bstance are thus not univocally determined by relations of cause and effec t\, but they may be motivated by intentions\, or deliberately chosen by conv ention. Based on the structural definitions of the language of the ninetee nth and early twentieth century\, verbal semiotic are built around an arbit rariness\, not only that one of the relationship between form of expression and form of content (Saussure)\, but also that of the relationship between form and substance\, on the two planes of expression and content (Hjelmsle v). In nonverbal semiotics (Sebeok) it be otherwise\, not only because the cuttings of a plan may be the very ones of another level\, when one of the two planes is signified another\; eg when a door means a door\, when there i s iconicity (Eco)\, but also\, when the cuttings of a plan can be interprete d as being proportional to the cuttings of another (Peirce). In that\, semi otic forms may be motivated by the substances they cut (Krampen) and their relationships depend to it. In terms of semiotics of space\, with the work of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century\, including work at d ifferent scales\, those focused on architecture as a founding act (Boudon)\, these on the topogenesis (Muntañola) and the architecture of the territo ry (Jeanneret)\, like these on architectural typology and urban morphology (Levy)\, semiotics of urban geography (Lagopulos) or morphogenesis (Desmara is)\, there are many developments that each one implement and question the concepts of form and meaning. Around and beyond these works the debates th at we wish to carry out during the 2017 Congress of the IASS / AISE will f ocus on the latest research in the field of semiotics of space\, including   these of Michael Fuchs archaeological semiotics\, those of Emmanuelle Je anneret on shape grammars and energy of bodies\, those of Isabel Marcos on visual semiotics and space  media networks\, those of Maxime Putchkov on p erceptive profiles of urban form\; and we will question the work of the tea ms that these colleagues were able to manage\, the contributions of young r esearchers and the questions they ask\, especially these Krishnendra Shekha wat on patterns of architectural composition\, these of Nikolaos Ion Terzog lou on models in the architectural project\, or these of Mathieu Vonlanthen on the logic of space. Each author called to contribute to the session th at we want to organize in the next congress of the IASS / AIS is invited t o provide a presentation on a semiotics of the principle of emergence\, con struction or deconstruction of forms carrying meaning in  space-time\,  f ocusing on one or more of the following articulations\, recalled here brief ly:   Forms Each author called to contribute to this Special Issue is inv ited to write a text on an epistemology of the principle of  emergence\,  construction  or  deconstruction  (  \, architecture\, archaeology) of the subjacent form of his work\, by puting the emphasis on one or the other of the following articulations\, pointed out here in a brief way: Form - f unction: For some the form “follows” the function\; for others “form and function are the same”\, the form makes possible the function\; or for others the form escapes the function\, is arbitrary\, relatively to its use \, cultivates its arbitrariety. From the modern functionalism to the tradit ional formalism\, the variation is large and reveals deep differences of ep och\, differences in the design of memory and invention\, differences due to cultural codes\, to the language of architecture as well as to its transfo rmations. For the modern one\, the function gives meaning and rationality t o the form\, in an economy of standards\; for the traditional one the form a llows to escape the loss of flavor in the uses\, the monotony of the practi ces\, the less of meaning. Form - fiction: Either the fiction is illusion\, and its form misleads the eye\, leaving in place\, behind appearances\, an un changed reality\; or the fiction is vector of creation\, generating a narrat ive process in which the population of the actors of this creation finds a direction for her action\, a process in which helpers succeed in involving the indifferent ones and put aside the opponents. Either the function is itself only fiction\, registered in a design of the world where\, to justify a generalized order of utility\, it has the aim to produce an effect of re ality\; or the constraints of the function articulate the world of the fict ion to make it operational in the transformation of a real world. Form - m easurement: Either the form gives measurement to reality\, according to a c ontour\, a pattern\, a model\, a measurement to be followed\, not only it give s take on reality but contributes to produce it. Or the dimensions of real ity which are seized in the form give him it measurements\, one or multiple scales\, proportions\, rhythms\, symmetry\, antisymetry\,… one or several si ngularities in a multiplicity of features which compose the partitions and the unit of a whole. The passage from the simple to the complex depends o n the combinative in which the form is made up\, on the repetition or not o f its elements according to a metric\, and on the possible conversion\, or n ot\, of their particular occurrences in scansions of the whole  of the gen erated building\, and on the general work of its author\, his “style” or his “language”. Form - force: For some the form would be the resultan t of forces\, its changes would be generated in a dynamics where in their i nteractions forces would produce conformations of the world\, or\, in a gene sis\, would be producing singularities registered in meaning discontinuitie s. For others\, formal forces would be opposed to the material forces\, the form would not be that only the reflection or the manifestation of a set o f forces\, but would be able to produce forces\, to inflect them or to make them fork\, diverge\, burst\, by opposing to their dynamics not only by its i nertia\, but also by the power of retention and extension of its edges. For m - structure: For some\, by its edges the form allows a capture of reality and its limits (in exclusions\, but also in inclusions or multiple junctio ns) structure the substance they capture\; the seizure of the matter that i t makes possible is done by limits\, by more or less porous membranes. For others\, form is not reducible to its edges\; it contains not only internal tensions between elements in interactions (it constrains them) but it is a structure which equips these interactions with an architecture where the elements are not only assembled as multiple components\, but also organized in a whole following principles of composition. Form - grammar: For the o nes\, grammars of forms regulate the assembly of the elements of a building according to a geometry and only according to the geometrical operations which they admit\, with invariants and variants allowing the stability and the adaptability of the elements with the others in their assembly. For th e others\, the integration of the various elements in a whole and their org anization carry out operations equipped with meaning\, such as to support\, to cover\, to close\, to open\, to implant\,… in a regulated sequence of com ponents such as column\, beam\, cover\, envelope\, door\, base\, …\, whose asse mbly is not only geometrical\, nor even physics or esthetics\, but answers t o uses\, meanings\, values. Form - contents: Either\, for the ones\, equipping the form with an interior consistency the contents is a substance placed in a container whose form envelopes it\, imposes its constraints and prints its contours\, its closing to it. Or\, for the others\, the content has itse lf a form\, and is coiled inside the container or expanded outside\; the rel ation of internality and externality of this form to the form of the conta iner produces meaning\, the opening of the space\, or its closing\, taking me aning. The meaning can be not retained inside\, but projected from the inte rior towards the exterior\, either by its impression on the external face o f the building\, or by the opening of the architectural space on its contex t. And that is not uninteresting that the content (the meaning) is strictl y contained (or retained…) inside or expanded (expressed) outside. To be contained inside or projected outside is thus the architectural meaning o f the contents (of the utility)\, the form of a value of position\; and this form answers (or not) a cultural code (a habitus) which gives a value to the being inside\, a value different of being outside (for example female v s male). There is then interpretation of the architectural form by means o f a social form. Form - tool: Either the instrument is an opening of possi ble\, it allows operations which would not be\, or not easily carried out wi thout it\, but does not involve them necessarily\, and some are not envisage d before its manufacturing. Or the instrument is taken as mean determined in a causal determination of operations aiming at an aim and only one\; the user of the instrument becoming himself as one of the parts which compose a machine\, a machine whose instrument is a tool whose utility is implied in a set of necessary relations of causes to effects. If lived space is th e space of the utilities of life and of the instruments which make that ce rtain praxis and certain existential interactions are possible\, one will w onder how utilities such as they are conceived by the users are referable to the utilities conceived by the architects\, and up to what point the arc hitectural connotations (monumental) of the instruments are to the source of the layouts of the premises of life for the inhabitants. Form - express ion: Either the form is equipped with a transparency which lets its conten ts be expressed\, or it is equipped with an appearance which gives meaning to its contents\, a meaning connoted in its expression. Either the expressi on\, its surface\, its textures and its modénatures are regarded as an adde d decoration\, whose one can make the economy without removing the utility of the projected building\, or the expression gives meaning for the use of the instrument\, increasing by as much its utility. The meaning of the expr ession\, connotation of the meaning in its expression\, asks the question of knowing if the manner is more important than the result or if the means a re justified by a finality. Form - sign: As sign\, the form is the sign of another thing that of itself\, a present or absent value. Either the form i s the mark of a current practical value\, indicating a primary utility\, whe re primariness reduces the use to the satisfaction of present needs. Or it is the monument of an absence\, connoting a virtual practical value\, passe d or future\, whose secondarity transforms the current value of the present uses by bringing them back or forth  to absent uses. In this the form ca n be arbitrary\, of one arbitrariety which\, while respecting constraints of substance\, returns to an expression of sign\, a style\, esthetics or rhetor ic\, with a pragmatic practical value. Form - figure: Either the figure rev eals the contents on the shape of the object\, and obliges the subject to a posture [modernity]\, or it veils the contents\, filters and expresses it b y deforming it [classicism]. The figure interposes between the expression and the contents\, so that the form of the contents can be not cut out acco rding to same contour as the form of the container while being expressed o n it. The principal process according to which the figure acts on the form is the transport\, of a whole on another (metaphor) or of a part on the wh ole of which she belongs (synecdoche) or on another whole (metonymy)\, in o rder to amplify\, condense or oppose the meaning on an aspect with which it equips the form which accommodates to it. Form - icon: Either the form re produces the object to the identical\, as the object of a series\, a multipl e\, and shows in this series a manufactoring process that was to remain hid den (blasphemes). Or the form brings closer the things and causes an all t he more  strong emotion that they are initially more distant between them (irony). For some\, the reproduction in an image is the object of interdic ts\, a little like if\, represented\, the form of the subject was to be betra yed\, and lost its devoted character (iconoclasts). For others\, for which t he form is supposed to give a presence alive to the subject\, the reproduct ion is the object of a figurative code which devotes this presence (iconop hiles). Rejected or seized\, the icon establishes an equivalence\, or an equ ality\, between the object and its representation\; in this it can be monoto nous. Form - symbol: Either the symbol is what goes with the instrument\, a ccompanies it as a singular\, instructive element of its code of handling\; or\, refering to a program of actions\, it condenses the totality of the mea ning of it and not only its technical dimensions. Either the symbol is a f orm which is seized in the act which it implements\, like a variable can ta ke meaning in a calculation\, or it is a form codified apart from the act w hich it implements\, a disconnected form of the current processes\, of their successive moments\, so that it can be operative here or elsewhere\, curren tly or virtually. In a current process\, if the symbol announces something which goes with data\, without depending in its form\, in a formula offering a virtual computing power\, indices are coupled with it which refer to pos sible instances. Form - myth: Word pronounced in a devoted form\, the myth is a variable combined in articulations between variants and invariants. E ither the myth is the memory of the  foundation of a tradition\, is pronou nced in a ritual practised periodically to reproduce the cohesion of a who le\, and the form is the object of a repetition\; or the myth is in formatio n\, is registered in the liquidation of a lack of current meaning\, in a sin gular fact to come\, and the form in its value is the object of a change. R emaining the secrecy of a foundation\, shared locally by some\, the myth is combined with the past\; to be too much pronounced\, it looses its power of foundation. Opened to all\, it calls a singular actor coming from elsewhere to carry out a change of state of the involved actors. Form - space: Eith er space is continuous\, homogeneous and open\, or space is  discontinuous and dislocated into partitions according to successive closings or which i mbricate themselves in the others. Or gradually\, from the close relationsh ip until the far\,  from the present to the absent\, space underlies forms of interaction\, prolongs them here\, there and elsewhere. Or discontinuitie s between over there and there (fort-da) enter the construction of the sub ject\, a subject which\, separating himself from the other and distinguishin g himself in the space\, recognizes and affirms to be himself as only being him. The distances introduce tensions between one and the other\, and spac ings produce appeasing. Closings and openings control interactions with an energetics where an economy of space\, between scarcity and abundance\, ins talls forms of singularity vs multiplicity [numeric] by crossing them with forms of identity vs difference [specific]\; it gives forms to the places\, in an architecture of the territory which directs and centers the space t owards one or the other of the subjects excluding the others [center vs pe riphery]. Form - time: Lived\, semiotic time\, is opposed to physical\, cosmi c time. On the human scale\, physical time is continuous\, from the beginnin g to the end of the world\, running out in a permanent flow where everythin g changes unceasingly\, whereas only the form\, including the form of the ch ange\, remains permanent. Lived time\, on the contrary\, can be discontinuous \, stopped by ruptures\, or continuous\, extended by extension of the meaning to be still. Human time\, lived\, is of a paradoxical extension\, it is the relation with what was but already is not more\, as with what will be but i s not yet. It is also tension towards what will be as towards what was. Ap oretic\, it is the moment of a passed relation\, in a transitory genesis\, di scontinuous\, as it is also the persistent relation with what was and exist s still\, in a continuous duration. It passes and looses itself in the infi nite\, or it settles itself and flows in the permanence of an epoch.   Spa ce - time\, semiotic : traces\, vestiges\, symptoms Cosmic time\, metric time\, chronic time\, historical time are as many temporal forms which contribute to the development of the spatial form of human reality. If space and obj ects who insert on it are offered to us as index\, instrument or sign\, time is articulated to in a meaning each time different. But always\, the meani ng of time is measured in space. Whatever is its surface of emergence in s pace\, time is a relation\, it is seized in an inference\, like a semiotics b etween two states of the being. The being in the world finds its meaning i n the time of a permanence or thru a rupture\, a finitude or an infinite\; a nd its time is read in a space\, present at the present\, presence of one pa st\, presence of one future in a form\, a model\, or it implies destruction o f the matter and guaranties permanence of the form in an abstract scheme r elevant in other present forms\; it can also be destruction of the form\, re main of one of its previous shape\, trace of another in its material\, sympt om of the causes of its decrepitude.   Perspective To grasp the relations hip between the invention of contemporary forms of human space and past fo rms of its production\, all the expected topics will review the progress of research on forms\, in interdisciplinary works where semiotics hangs a lar ge share. To help develop the semiotics of space\, to seize how between pre sent spaces and absent objects are invented the forms that articulate forc es and produce meaning\, topics will show how\, in the space\, emergence proc esses of forms that produce meaning can articulate sensation \, possibility of consciousness\, cutting of the substantial continuum and formation of t races\, comparison and recognition of objects. They will notably question t he relationship between schemes and diagrams\, they will treat their relati ons in the various of intuition and their unification in forms. Thus they will show how the semiotic process is made by decomposing\, extracting\, lay ering and nesting\, emoving and adding forms\, some of expecting\, asking or announcing others. To make it\, and record the results in a general theory of semiotic forms\, presentations with epistemological character will draw upon disciplines such as mathematics\, artificial science\, cognitive scienc e\, ontologies and logic of space and time. Organisator International Assoc iation for Semiotics Studies (IASS/AIS) International Association for Semi otic of Space (IASS/AISE) Kontakt Pierre Pellegrino LOCATION:Kaunas\, Lithuania UID:b0479eb5d7cc07e2b359d7dc3cfb3d8c@054d0aeb2671403f8b4299b6eb2e8455 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR