In the previous post, we established non-meaning as structured potential — the relational field from which meaning is actualised. Here, we explore how this potential is not inert but inherently perspectival, and how affordances are the connective tissue between potential and construal.
1. Affordance beyond ecology
Gibson’s notion of affordance highlighted the relational possibilities the environment offers an organism. In our expanded relational ontology:
-
Affordances are semiotic relational tensions within the field of potential.
-
They are not properties of the world or the observer alone, but of the interaction between field and perspective.
-
They constitute the horizons along which construal can phase phenomena into being.
Put differently, affordances are the pre-actualised lines of relational tension: the “paths” along which a lantern of meaning can illuminate.
2. The perspectival character of potential
Potential meaning is never uniform; it is always shaped by the perspective of construal:
-
Local perspective: Where attention falls first, which patterns are drawn into meaning.
-
Systemic constraints: The semiotic system provides structured potential, limiting and guiding what can be actualised.
-
Temporal gradient: Past actualisations influence expectation, shading which affordances are more likely to stabilise next.
The field of non-meaning is therefore anisotropic — some directions of potential are more “afforded” than others, depending on history, context, and prior alignment.
3. Instance and system as perspectival coordination
Earlier, we treated system as the canonical space of meaning potential and instance as the act of actualisation. Through the lens of affordance:
-
System = structured field of affordances: The relational topology from which construal can draw.
-
Instance = perspectival engagement with affordances: The lantern lowering into the field, selecting patterns, and phasing phenomena into existence.
Every instance both draws upon and reshapes the system: the act of construal realigns the topology of potential, subtly modifying future affordances.
4. Non-meaning as dynamic horizon
Because the field is relational and perspectival:
-
Non-meaning is not merely latent; it is dynamically generative, shaped by the interplay of past illuminations, current perspective, and systemic structure.
-
Each act of construal is simultaneously phase and modulation, revealing phenomena while deepening the contours of non-meaning.
-
The horizon of possibility is co-constitutive: it exists as potential only because of actualisations, yet it conditions all future actualisations.
Implications
-
Perspective is constitutive: Meaning emerges along affordances defined relationally, not as an external mapping onto the world.
-
Potential is dynamic: The non-meaningful field is shaped by, and shapes, every act of construal.
-
System and instance co-evolve: The field of potential (system) and local actualisation (instance) are in continuous reciprocal adjustment.
-
Experience is participatory: Each engagement with the field is an act of co-phasing the relational cosmos.
No comments:
Post a Comment