If inclination grounds the physical, it also underwrites the semiotic. Meaning is not superimposed upon reality; it is one of the ways readiness construes itself. To mean is to bring the leaning of potential into symbolic coherence — to stabilise the inclination of the field within a shared horizon of construal.
Language, then, is not a tool for representing the world but a system of postures through which reality inclines toward meaning. Each clause, each pattern of wording, is a local orientation in the field of potential: a momentary equilibrium in the world’s readiness to signify.
This is why we can speak of a “meaning potential.” It is not a metaphor; it is the semiotic manifestation of inclination. Just as a physical system leans toward coherence, a linguistic system leans toward construal.
At the collective level, the same principle scales. A culture is not merely a network of values or practices; it is a field of coordinated readiness — a shared inclination toward certain kinds of construal. Social order, seen relationally, is the alignment of inclinations: an emergent choreography of readiness among participants who are themselves instances of the same metaphenomenal field.
When a society changes, what shifts first is not its beliefs but its posture: the subtle reorientation of collective readiness. Revolutions, renaissances, paradigm shifts — these are not ruptures of content but transformations of inclination.
Meaning and society, then, are not higher layers built atop the physical world. They are extensions of the same ontological grammar: reality leaning into coherence at different scales and speeds.
To speak, to act, to gather, to construe — these are not secondary processes. They are how the universe inclines toward itself through us.
No comments:
Post a Comment