The 19th annual Biosemiotics Gathering that took place on 1–5 July 2019, was hosted by the Philosophy Faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University. That it was hosted by a philosophy faculty rather than a science faculty, and that it was hosted in Russia, are both significant. Biosemiotics is a challenge to mainstream biology, still struggling to gain acceptance despite the work of a great many researchers and a great many publications, along with nineteen annual biosemiotics gatherings. But it is much more than this, and this accounts for why gaining acceptance is so difficult. In Thomas Kuhn’s terminology, it is revolutionary science, not normal science. It has not yet achieved a consensus on philosophical issues, basic concepts and methods that allows its practitioners to get on with the business of puzzle solving and forget about philosophy. More importantly, it is a challenge not only to mainstream assumptions in biology but also a challenge to deeper assumptions about what counts as science, what is science, and what is the relationship between science and other cultural fields. It is also a challenge to the broader culture of modernity with its tacit acceptance of Cartesian dualism, manifest in the division between the sciences and the humanities. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for this biosemiotics gathering to be hosted by a philosophy faculty. Russia has been home to a long tradition of radical scientific and cultural thought, much of it attempting to advance beyond Cartesian dualism, even before the Bolshevik revolution. In the 1920s there was an explosion of radical ideas in the sciences and humanities going beyond reductionist materialism, vitalism and Idealism. Despite adverse conditions from 1930 onwards, research programmes originating at this time not only survived but advanced and had a major influence outside the Soviet Union. Until the field was suppressed in the Sign Systems Studies 47(3/4), 2019, 627–640

中文翻译：

---

莫斯科第十九届生物符号学年度聚会报告

莫斯科国立罗蒙诺索夫大学哲学系于2019年7月1日至5日举行了第19届年度生物符号学聚会。它是由哲学系而非科学系主持的，并且是在俄罗斯托管的，这都是很重要的。生物符号学是对主流生物学的挑战，尽管有许多研究人员和大量出版物以及每年的19次生物符号学聚会，但仍难以为人们所接受。但这还不止于此，这也解释了为何难以获得认可。用托马斯·库恩（Thomas Kuhn）的术语来说，它是革命科学，而不是普通科学。它尚未在哲学问题，基本概念和方法上达成共识，这使得它的从业者可以继续从事难题解决的业务，而不必理会哲学。更重要的是，这不仅对生物学的主流假设构成了挑战，而且对关于什么算作科学，什么是科学以及科学与其他文化领域之间的关系如何的更深层次的假设提出了挑战。它以默认的笛卡尔二元论接受了对更广泛的现代文化的挑战，这体现在科学与人文科学之间的鸿沟中。因此，由哲学系主持这次生物符号学聚会是完全合适的。俄罗斯一直是激进的科学和文化思想的悠久传统的发源地，甚至在布尔什维克革命之前，俄罗斯就试图超越笛卡尔二元主义。在1920年代，科学和人文领域激进的激进思想激增，超越了还原主义唯物主义，活力主义和唯心主义。尽管从1930年开始出现不利条件，但此时发起的研究计划不仅得以幸存，而且得到了发展，并在苏联之外产生了重大影响。直到该领域在Sign Systems Studies 47（3/4），2019，627–640中被抑制