Interpretări şi aplicaţii semiotice

40 Traian D. STĂNCIULESCU
Traian D. STĂNCIULESCU

The ”Living Light” Language: A Methodological

Approach

Abstract. The fact that, in its quality of both energy and

information, the ”LIVING LIGHT” – (bio)electromagnetically
generated by the biological systems – is a real or a potential sign
for any world reality, represents an intuition that is more and more
widely accepted. Suffice it to think that, through visible light, “the
physical eye” reproduces the forms of reality (their significant) and
through cerebral bioluminescence – “the mental eye” (“the third
eye”) – generates the semantic dimensions (the signified) of the
reality exterior and interior to the human being, so that such an
intuition becomes as explicit as possible.

Keywords: biophotonics, semio-logics, resonance, language,

methodology.

1. A biophotonic and semio-logic methodology

If it were only for these elementary considerations and it would

be enough to consider that biophotonics – very generally assumed as a
inter- / multidisciplinary science of the ”Living Light” – represents the
introduction to a (bio)semiotics of the ”living language” too: an attempt
to consider the world able to double “the innate ability of the brain and
of the sensitive system to produce and to understand signs” (Danesi
1998, 14) through the competence to create explicative models of the
world.
Referring, in a retrospective manner, to the philosophical
thinking of humanity, through which the world itself was reflected in
many ways, the founder of modern semiotics, the American Charles
S. Peirce, presented two essential methods of creating a new theory
(philosophic / semiotic system) (1990, 158-159):
— an idea that is considered to be interesting and fertile is
adopted, developed and “forced” to produce new


”Al. I. Cuza” University of Iasi.
42 Traian D. STĂNCIULESCU

explanations for a set of phenomena more or less

known;
— reformulating previous knowledge by solving the
theories that have been in fashion for a certain period of
time.
Both methods may be found in the genesis of the scientific
and semio-logical (philosophic) perspective created by biophotonics.
Having this role, biophotonics observes a few fundamental principles
of scientific research that will be briefly mentioned in this book. In
semiotic terms, we would say that everything that follows, “stands as
a sign” for a series of aspects such as: the aspiration toward scientific
accuracy, the desire of an honest and mutually beneficial dialogue,
the possibilities of experimental validation of the statements and
future recognition of what is nowadays considered with
astonishment.
As we have already showed in our book Signs of Light
(Stanciulescu 2003a, 83), under the circumstances in which scientific
knowledge started to reveal the complex forms of cosmic and human
reality, it is absolutely necessary for an integrating science of this
reality to be created. It can no longer be identified with philosophy,
religion or science proper, but with a “complexity science" created at
the interface of all the disciplines for whom the world represents an
object of interest. It represents the emphasis of certain unifying
paradigms, the elaboration of a unitary methodology, respectively.
From the biophotonics perspective, the ”Living Light” / auric
bioluminescence (energy and information) could represent the
unifying “language-object” for the living and the nonliving, for the
physical and the metaphysical, while the semiotic organon could be
the integrating “metalanguage”. Consequently, biophotonics could be
defined as a ”complexity science” having as methodology a
“Semiotics of Light” (Stanciulescu 2003b). From such a perspective,
we can only mention a few categories of methodological arguments
that support the biophotonics hypotheses: the methodological
arguments of a “semiotics of light” (semio-photonics), able to unify
the content elements of biophotonics with the form elements of
semiology.
We could mention in this context some other categories of
justifying arguments: instrumental arguments, having a general-
theoretical or / and technologic character, useful to all types of scientific
analyses (such as mathematics and computer science, computational
 The ”Living Light” Language: A Methodological Approach 43

technology at the applicative level) and theoretical-applicative arguments,

specific to one theoretical approach or another (such as those of the
complex systems: the dissipating structures theory, the catastrophes
theory, synergetics and ”holonics”). By means of this intellectual
approach, we pass from “metaphysics” (specific to humanities) to
“physics” (set of sciences of nature).

2. Virtues of the logic thinking

If in the already mentioned book Signs of Light we have

especially defined the language-object of interest for biophotonics,
in the following lines we will synthesize a few considerations about
the research methods on which such a discipline is based, its meta-
language namely, extensively presented in our Semiotics of light.
The attempt to create a coherent image of the macro- and
microcosmic world in which the human being is integrated as a
reference element is an implicitly or explicitly formulated goal of the
complexity science. The pioneers of such a perspective, who are
forced to introduce into their papers information coming from the
mythical tradition, art and poetry, from symbolic and formal
languages, from religion, the sciences of nature and those of the
living (biology, zoology, medicine etc.) in order to subordinate them
to unique paradigms, are implicitly animated by an interdisciplinary
opening, without being “experts in interdisciplinarity” (such a quality is,
nevertheless, impossible) (Nicolescu and Cazenave 1994, 13). Such an
opening cannot lack the sine-qua-non contributions of two disciplines,
but, at the same time, tools of research of the unique and unitary reality:
logic and semiological.
A heuristic approach such as that created by biophotonics
could not have been carried out if lacking the privileges of the logic
thinking. It is enough mentioning, in this context, that the whole
ideological system of biophotonics is the result of the use, in one
way or another, of the fundamental operations of logic, of the
reference principles of correct thinking. We will mention only a few
of them:
● analysis and synthesis are involved in the decomposition of
the structures and functionality of the “biological lasers” systems, for
example, in component elements, on the one hand, to argument their
cooperation at the whole body level, on the other hand. Such a
constructive effort could not be accomplished without following
44 Traian D. STĂNCIULESCU

analytically the theoretical and experimental research carried out in

different fields of knowledge, to be then correlated synthetically, at
the theoretical, coherent and global level defined by biophotonics;
● induction and deduction become premises necessary for the
formulation of generalities starting from particular cases (such as, for
example, the extrapolation of certain BEMPh (Biochemical, Electric,
Magnetic, Photonic) processes and mechanisms described at the visual
analyzer level, at the level of other analyzer system, of other sets of
“biological lasers” that function in the human body) or, on the
contrary, to reveal functioning principles specialized by the
suggestions provided by the knowledge of certain global mechanisms
(such as, for example, the analysis of the correspondence between
macro-traps of energy-information of the chakra type and micro-traps
at the level of the mitochondria and the DNA in the cellular nucleus).
*
At the same time, the two thinking operations were
efficiently used in order to formulate general conclusions, starting
from data of certain relevant empirical experiments:
— describing the structural-functional mechanism of the
bioluminescence emission at the level of the “molecular laser” system;
— transposing the knowledge regarding the liquid crystals to
the level of explaining the photonic phenomena characteristic to
biological structures;
— explaining the biophotons fluxes presence at the DNA
level.
● comparison and analogy are involved in the
accomplishment of the main objective of biophotonics: modeling the
biological processes through the comparison and analogy with the
technologic ones (see, for example, the correspondence between the
systems of technical and biological lasers, between the brain and the
cybernetic-computational systems, respectively).
● As integrating operation of the already mentioned aspects,
the inference (the reasoning) constitutes, as Petru Ioan justifies (1995),
an essential logic tool of founding statements with other statements. In
the case of the construction represented by biophotonics – by its
theoretical core, the "Biological Lasers" Theory (BLT) (Stanciulescu
and Manu 2002) – we consider the “statement” of an existent theory,
validated or to be validated, a theoretical hypothesis or an
experimental conclusion that, as premises, permit the formulation of
the conclusions that represent the further basis of the biophotonic
 The ”Living Light” Language: A Methodological Approach 45

heuristic approach. The distinction between the “valid inference” and

the “invalid inference” is superposed up to a certain point to the
Aristotelian distinction between the apodyctic reasoning (used
especially in the scientific demonstration or as a “didactic” argument)
and the dialectic reasoning (used in debates or in critical
examinations). Therefore, we can say that through its heuristic
qualities, the inferential operation represents an essential method of
achieving the interventions of a demonstrative-argumentative nature
and, through this, it is a method of achieving the cognitive model
created by biophotonics.
*
Beside creatively using thinking logic operations, the
biophotonics also respects logic thinking principles, the way they were
formulated by the Aristotelian logic, the identity principle, the sufficient
reason principle, the noncontradiction and the excluded middle
principle, or by modern logic, such as, for example, assuming a
paradoxical “included middle” principle (Lupascu 1983).
With regard to this last principle, we have to mention Basarab
Nicolescu’s opinion, who formulates two postulates meant to support a
coherent and unitary image of the world (nature), in accordance with
modern sciences data (1994: 20): the existence of the (hierarchic) levels
of reality and the “included middle” logic.
On the one hand, even if the passage from the macrophysical to
the microphysical (and, implicitly, human, the human being representing
both a macro- and a microcosmos) level has not been sufficiently well
mathematically formalized, the co-existence of the two “worlds” cannot
be denied: they simply exist. As a particular case, their complementary
and continuity can be found, for example, at the level of the ”bio-lasers”
systems, that manifest themselves at the level of human organism both as
hierarchic systems (of intricate bio-lasers) and as relatively autonomous
co-functional systems (of chained bio-lasers, such as cells are).
On the other hand, the physical or / and bio-psychic reality,
implicitly described by biophotonics, reveals the reality of some
contradictory couples, such as: corpuscle and wave, continuity and
discontinuity, separability and inseparability, symmetry and
antisymmetry, manifest and nonmanifest etc. Such couples can be
described by another principle, different of that of the Aristotelian
“excluded middle”, by the “included middle” principle, respectively:
there is a third “T” element that is, at the same time, A and non A. Such
a paradoxical manifestation of the “T condition”, which, in fact, re-
46 Traian D. STĂNCIULESCU

actualizes intuitions of the archaic tradition (see the primitive man’s

belief that he fulfils simultaneously and ontologically the quality of
human being and totemic animal) or intuitions of the philosophical
thinking (let us remember, for example, Hegel’s unity principle and the
fight of contraries principle), “proves to be the ideal tool for the
complexity analysis” (Nicolescu 1994, 23).
*
Among the values of the “included middle” logic there also
exists the one that emphasizes the visible-invisible relationship. Such a
relationship is the main object of semiological research: the analysis of
the empirically revealed aspects for the discovery of deep causes and,
consequently, hard to detect. The semiological analysis is implicitly
logic because, in most of the analyzed effects, the procedures of finding
the causes that are based on syllogisms, operations mentioned above,
which do not allow but a mediated formulation of conclusions. In this
direction, semiosis (action of the signs), the main object of semiology,
seems now to be a fundamental process, as John Deely defines it,
including the physical universe in the human biosemiosis (1997, 5-6).

3. Virtues of the analogic modeling

The significans quality, which defines the human being, is the

result of hierarchic modeling competence that is activated, as
Thomas Sebeok shows (1986), within the limits of the following
three "systems” (cf. Danesi 1994, 39):
— primary modeling system, that refers to the capacity of the
human being to replicate, simulate, imitate, represent;
— secondary modeling system, that presupposes the use of
the first system in the fields of the abstract meaning, in the forms of
the symbolic language that “translates” nature (the referential
element) into culture sign systems;
— tertiary modeling systems, that refer to the competence of
elaborating abstract ideas, on the ground of the first two systems
(through the logical operations of induction, deduction, analogy etc).
The analytical exercise of this paper is subordinate to the last
modeling competence. Because, at the crossroads between the
principles and the operations that logic thinking provides for the
scientist, biophotonics has established as heuristic manner of
reference that of the analogical modeling. In order to reveal in an
explicit manner the virtues of such an approach of the biological
 The ”Living Light” Language: A Methodological Approach 47

body, we can efficiently use the synthesis proposed by Gheorghe

Mustata (2002) with regard to this topic.
We can see that defining the modeling process as material or
mental imitation (approximation) of an existent system through the
creation of analogies that reproduce the organization and functioning
principles of the system, implicitly implies the idea of analogic
correspondence (which proves a certain redundancy of the phrase
“analogical modeling”). In this first interpretation there appear two
references that need to be compared: the reference reality and its
model. In a more complex perspective, for the (theoretical and
empirical) approximation of the reference reality (the human body
system, in our case) one may use, for comparison, a mediating
system, a tertiary “witness” (the technical laser system or the
computer, in the case of biophotonics explanations).
The two procedures, that presuppose semiological
approaches, are justified through reference heuristic and pragmatic
reasons and through (Mustata 1982, 6, 36):
— the simplification and the reduction of the too complicated
terms of the original to more accessible terms of an intuitive knowledge;
this objective is correlated with all the figurative schemes, drawings and
approximations, the algorithms and the mathematical formalizations used
in this paper as ideal (theoretical) models;
— the knowledge of structural and functional reference
points as the analogic model of the artificial type (for example, the
technical lasers system represents such a model type), allows for the
explanation through comparison and extrapolation of certain
unknown or / and directly inaccessible of the original (the human
body system, as a system of intricate and chained “biological lasers”,
in our case), on the one hand, allowing a series of experimental
accomplishments (such as the use of the biological substratum for the
holographic data stocking in computer technology), on the other hand.
With the help of these attributes, we can state that the model
proposed by biophotonics is defined as an analogon that can substitute
the original in the process of its scientific knowledge. In order to check
this statement, we only have to remember the main features of a model
(Mustata 2002, 12-13) and to see to what extent they correspond to the
biophotonics assertions:
● the model creates a scheme of the analyzed object by
emphasizing its essential features: defining the human body in terms
of the structural and functional points of reference of the “biological
48 Traian D. STĂNCIULESCU

lasers” system type represents such a scheme;

● the model also simplifies the issue by means of the
approximation of biological laws with mathematical formula:
finding, at the human body level, some phenomena of a physical-
chemical nature that can be mathematically formalized allows for
such an approximation;
● the model has to correspond to a technical accomplishment
and has the role of reflecting it: the analogy of the human body
systems with “technical lasers” systems, even if this reflection is not
always completely appropriate (given the existent differences
between the two categories of systems);
● the model contains an element of scientific imagination: the
biophotonics represents a creative synthesis of a data set coming
from different disciplines;
● the model presents a character of a limited historical
reality reflection: the description of the nervous system with
analogical terms with computational technology could be surpassed
by the creation of computers with field memory, able to provide new
suggestions for the better understanding of the human brain.
In this last perspective, the biophotonics could constitute one
of the latest gains of the “biological revolution” that presupposes,
according to Edgar Morin, the following phases (1973, 25-30):
— an opening of biology toward the sub-adjacent physical-
chemical structures;
— an argumentation of the fact that there is no “living
matter”, but “living systems”, a particular organization of the
physical-chemical matter, respectively;
— the introduction of some organization principles unknown
in physics and chemistry, implying cybernetic notions of
information, code, messages, programs, control etc, but specific to
modern technology.
Revealing all these perspectives can transform biology /
biophotonics in a discipline / theory able to couple two principles,
both ontological and epistemological: the self-organization and the
complexity principles. Such principles are described by von
Neumann as being very important for the new biology, as:
“Complexity refers not only to the “natural machine” that sets forth a
number of unities and interactions superior to the artificial machine,
but also to the fact that the living being is submitted to a totally
different functioning and development logic, a logic where inter-
 The ”Living Light” Language: A Methodological Approach 49

determination, chaos, hazard interfere as factors of a superior

organization or self-organization” (cf. Morin 1973, 29). Such a
description is found in the main statements of biophotonics that
model the attributes of the "living machine" by analogy with the
artificial one.
Thus, they introduce an order principle in the living generating
mechanisms: that of light carrying energy and information.

4. Semio-logics of the “Living Light”

Taking into account the fertility proved by the modeling

method at the level of scientific research (let us only remember that
it stood at the basis of the helicoid screw that Crick and Watson
associated with the DNA), we express our hope that it would become
for biophotonics too a frame of value reference. In other words, we
hope that the model conceived by us regarding the biophotonic (bio-
electro-magnetic) activity of the human body and its complex
consequences manifest an essential virtue: that of the scientific
prevision, of its opening to the future in a double hypostasis,
deductive and inductive.
We have to mention that any prevision has a semiotic
character, standing for an accomplishment that is supposed to be
carried out. For example:
● The deductive prevision deals with the formulation of
certain conclusions through the passage from the known to the
unknown, from the objective law (expressed in empirical or abstract
terms) to the consequences of its possible manifestation in one
context or another.
In the case of biophotonics, one may say that the prevision
manifests itself in hypostases such as:
— all the concrete described effects regarding the penetration
of light in the cellular body through the liquid membranous crystals
(such as the cell optic activity, the creation of energetic centers in the
zones of the constitution of the organites, the nuclear and cellular
division, the creation of energy resources and deep information of
the body etc) are empirically inferred from the well-known action of
the difraction, refraction, dispersion laws etc;
— the theoretical application of the anti-Stokes rule at the
semiconductor “molecular laser” system level suggests the deviation
to the left of the emitted radiation, in relation to the incident one; in
50 Traian D. STĂNCIULESCU

accordance with this mechanism, for example, the biophotonics

stipulates the increase of the incident flux frequencies in the visible
spectrum through their deviation toward the ultraviolet spectrum, a
mechanism that has been confirmed by a series of experimental
research;
— formulating certain hypothetical laws of the brain
holographic activity, for example, permits the elaboration of some
predictions regarding insufficiently known aspects of language,
thought etc, aspects that may be checked by experimental means.

● The inductive prevision presupposes the passage from the

existent to the inexistent, from certain data manifested in reality to
those that are still in a virtual condition and are to be expressed in the
future. In this category of previsions may be included the possible
predictions regarding the future health condition of a human subject,
through the evaluation of his bioluminescent emission (aura). The
validation of such correlations constitutes an empirical proof for certain
hypotheses formulated by the BLT, such as the hypothesis according to
which the bioluminescent field comprises an information able to
determine gradually the structural modification of the cells, tissues,
bodies submitted to its influence.

By means of these deductive-inductive mechanisms, that

anchor the human knowledge from the present to the future, we
express once again our hope that, by its predictive force, the model
conceived with regard to the influence of light on certain processes
and bio-psycho-logic phenomena may contribute to the obtaining of
certain nuanced answers to questions such as: Who are we? Where do
we come from? Where are we heading to?
All in all, we could say that all the categories of arguments
mentioned in this chapter have, finally, the role to reveal:
— the necessity of approaching the complex structures (such
as the living body) with inter- and transdisciplinary research
methods, taking into account the presence and manifestation of
(bio)physical, (bio)chemical, biological, psycho-logic phenomena at
the level of these structures;
— the use of certain theoretical or practical (experimental)
results of these disciplines with the goal of validating the
biophotonics; hypotheses;
— the justification of the conclusion that, being established at
 The ”Living Light” Language: A Methodological Approach 51

the interference of border (interdisciplinary), theoretical and

applicative sciences with the sciences of complex systems, the BLT
may be able of a kind of generalization in the terms of a
“metaphysical physics” that the future seems to be needing, having
light as a unifying paradigm, in the multitude of its forms and
interferences with living and dead matter.
*
I am fully aware of the fact that many of the statements or /
and justifications present in this volume will be ignored by extremist
analytical minds who will consider them as “doctrines of the limbic
system and of the right hemisphere, rituals of the dream, natural
human reactions, the term is definitely appropriate here, to the
complexity of the environment they live in” (Sagan 1976, 186). Even if
some phenomena may be considered in this manner, others, whose
reality cannot be denied, have to be assumed also by modern scientific
rationalism. For example, if we were to give credit to Weddington, and
we do not have reasons not to, it seems that the epoch of the ”anti-
metaphysical aggressiveness” has passed.
This, because scientists, just as philosophers, have started to
understand what Aristotle understood long ago: that physics has its
crown in metaphysics, and the latter has its roots in physics. Jean
Charon’s pleading for a ”metaphysical physics” (1977) has as its target
both the rationalist positivism and the holistic spiritualism. This is a
principle which the present study is essentially reconsidering, in a
theoretical and applicative modality, too. Because, in essence, this
introductive study is arranging in a coherent manner the puzzle-
elements of an amazing subject: the connection between the human
being and his / her frame of life, mediated by the principles of the
”Language of Living Light” (Stănciulescu and Poenaru 2015) which
biophotonics assumed explanatory. The research is correlating in an
original and exciting manner many of the theoretical studies and
practical applications already valorized by the authors in different other
contexts, all of them concluding that: having in mind a certain
”holographic resonance”, between human being and the objects around
him / her, determined by the synergy of materials and colors, shapes,
volumes and accessories, the most general and important benefit of
using this synergy is to generate around human beings, a specific
living medium of life, an omnipresent and constant source of
(bio)luminescence, acting at the level of the “soul” (biofield, auric
body, vital force) for adequately sustaining and stimulating the human
52 Traian D. STĂNCIULESCU

“body” harmony. All the above must be understood in the light of what
our ancestors said: ”We should first cure the soul, and then the body”.

References

CHARON, Jean. 1977. L'esprit, cet inconnu. Paris: Edition Albin Michel.
DANESI, Marcel. 1994. The Body in the Sign: Thomas A. Sebeok and
Semiotics. Monograph Series, vol. 1. New York, Otawa, Toronto:
”Legas” Publishing House.
DEELY, John. 1977. Basics of Semiotics, 1990, trad. rom., Bazele
semioticii. Bucureşti: Editura All.
IOAN, Petru. 1995. Educaţie şi creaţie în perspectiva unei logici
”situaţionale”. Bucureşti: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică.
MORIN, Edgar. 1973. La paradigme perdu: la nature humaine. Paris:
Editions du Seuil.
MUSTAȚA, Gheorghe. 2002. Evoluţie şi Evoluţionism. Iași: Editura
Universității ”Al. I. Cuza”.
NICOLESCU, Basarab. 1994. Niveaux de complexité et niveaux de réalité:
vers une nouvelle définition de la nature. In L'homme, la science et
la nature. Regards transdisciplinaires, edited by M. Cazenave, B.
Nicolescu. Paris: Éditions le Mail.
PEIRCE, Charles. 1990. Semnificaţie şi acţiune. Antologie realizată de
Delia Marga şi Andrei Marga. Bucureşti: Editura Humanitas.
STĂNCIULESCU, Traian D. 2003a. Signs of light. A biophotonic
approach to human (meta)physical fundamentals. Iaşi: Editura
Cristal-Concept.
STĂNCIULESCU, Traian D. 2003b. Semiotics of light. An integrative
approach to human archetypal roots. Iaşi: Editura Cristal-Concept.
STĂNCIULESCU, Traian D., MANU, Daniela M. 2002. Fundamentele
biofotonicii. Iaşi: Editura Performantica.
STĂNCIULESCU, Traian D., POENARU, Aritia D. 2015. Language of
living light. Emergent biophotonic applications. Iasi: Performantica.
SAGAN, Carl. 1989. Creierul lui Broca. De la Pământ la stele. București:
Editura Politică.