Ecologies of Possible Meaning: Semiosis through a Relational Ontology: 6 Metasemiosis Revisited: Operations in an Ecological Field

If Post 5 mapped the relational ecology of meaning and the perspectival cut of individuation, Post 6 turns to the operations that reorganise the ecology itself — the domain of metasemiosis.

1. Metasemiosis as Ecological Reconfiguration

Where semiosis is the act of cutting ecological potential into phenomena, metasemiosis is the act of reorganising the field of potential itself.

• Semiosis: selects and activates patterns already present in the ecology

• Metasemiosis: transforms, reshapes, or stabilises patterns in the ecology so that future cuts produce new phenomena

Every instance of grammar, logic, or theoretical abstraction is a metasemiotic operation: it reinscribes patterns of possibility into the semiotic field, creating new affordances and constraining others.

In other words:

• ecology = field of relational possibility

• semiosis = cutting the field into phenomena

• system = theory encoding possible cuts

• context = the result of construal

• metasemiosis = reorganising the ecology of meaning itself

---

2. Examples of Metasemiosis in Action

Consider language and theory-making:

1. Grammar

   • Encoding constraints on what can be said

   • Systematising patterns of Token–Value assignment

   • Stabilising ecological potential for new construals

2. Logic and reasoning

   • Produces predictable chains of activation

   • Makes certain patterns more salient, others less likely

3. Higher-order theoretical work

   • Introduces new categories, paradigms, or conceptual distinctions

   • Alters the semiotic landscape for all subsequent semiosis

In each case, ecology itself is modified, not just the instance of meaning being construed.

---

3. Metasemiosis and Relational Ontology

From a relational perspective:

• Metasemiosis is always perspectival

• It requires agents interacting with the field, but the changes are structural, not internalised

• The ecology evolves not because agents “contain” systems, but because their operations reshape relational potentials

This mirrors the relational ontology of individuation:

• Post 5: individuated access to ecological patterns

• Post 6: individuated operation reshaping ecological patterns

Together, they show how semiosis and metasemiosis co-construct the field of meaning.

---

4. Implications for Analysis and Theory

Metasemiosis reframes our understanding of:

1. Grammar and system

   • Not as fixed rules, but as ecological constraints and affordances

   • Each system encodes possible cuts; repeated use reorganises the ecology

2. Context

   • Not a backdrop, but emergent from construal

   • Context is the phenomenal outcome of semiotic and metasemiotic operations

3. Scientific inquiry and theory-making

   • Theories are metasemiotic operations on the ecological field of knowledge

   • They restructure possibilities, enabling new modes of semiosis

---

5. Concluding Synthesis

By the end of this series, we have a coherent relational picture:

Concept	Function
Ecology	Field of relational possibility
Semiosis	Cutting the field into phenomena
System	Theory encoding possible cuts
Context	Result of construal
Metasemiosis	Reorganising the field of meaning itself
Individuation	Perspectival access to ecological potentials

Semiosis is action within the ecology.

Metasemiosis is action on the ecology itself.

Individuation is the point-of-view that makes these operations possible.

This integrated framework provides a relational, non-representational, and non-psychologised account of semiosis and meaning-making, closing the loop of the metasemiotic/ecological exploration.