Cognitive Landscape and Neutral Landscape

It seems like a word game, but the relationships between cognitive landscape and landscape as we intend today, as a matrix or a mosaic, are quite complicated. The observed mosaic is largely the result of the interactions of several cognitive landscapes. Each cognitive landscape has a precise border that could be copied into a larger landscape. Every species enters into semiotic closure with the surroundings, creating new assets and self-changing, but it must be clear that there is no master plan for this. Most of the effects depend on the species considered and on the presence of certain types of species. The recent extirpation of bison in North America has dramatically changed the "neutral landscape" of many other species. At the same time the colonization of Australia by Western societies has changed the mosaic of the arid lands of most of this continent. There is not a master plan acting in nature: Each species operates independently of the others, inside certain limits, and there is not a goal-function to guide the totality of species toward some specific common target. The "human-observed landscape" is a representation of the cognitive landscape, but it could be any of several cognitive landscapes by definition. In conclusion, the landscape is the sum of individual-based cognitive landscapes (IBCL) and species are the components of a landscape. The landscape is the spatial dimension of perception, and it is the cognitive elaboration of the perception that creates this entity. The environment is considered an entity apart from the species, the space in which species are living, but species are the main producers of the environment. Again we are dealing with a closure, a circle from which it is not possible to escape, but that we have to accept.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment