In protolanguage, the
inner dimension involves the contrast between the two core types of sensing:
cognition and desideration.
However, since there
is no ‘senser-sensing’ within the cell, cognition and desideration are
inappropriate here.
But you will remember
from Part 1 that these types of sensing can stand for the two types of
modality: cognition for modalisation (usuality or probability), desideration
for modulation (inclination or obligation).
On this basis the
inner dimension involves the contrast between modalisation and modulation.
But perhaps the distinction of modality types breaks
down at this scale.
Is there any
difference between:
‘a molecule is
inclined to react or must react’
and
‘a molecule usually
reacts or is likely to react?’
If not, we can propose
that the inner dimension of intercellular semiosis is the contrast of high,
median and low values of modality.
What does modality
have to do with interactions between cells?
Well, the probability
of which genes in the genome (inner dimension) will be expressed varies with the concentration of the chemicals that the genome is exposed to. As Dawkins
(2004: 345) puts it:
All the cells in an embryo contain the same genes, so it can’t be their genes that distinguish one cell’s behaviour from another’s. What does distinguish a cell is which of the genes are turned on, which usually is reflected in the gene products — proteins — that it contains. … It follows that cell nuclei in different parts of the embryo will be bathed in different concentrations of key substances … and this will cause different genes to be turned on in different cells…