1. The Threshold of Reflexive Readiness
When the modes of inclination (spatial, temporal, modal, interpersonal) begin to condition one another reflexively, potential crosses a decisive threshold. Readiness ceases to be a purely ontological leaning and becomes self-modulating. Each inclination now inflects the others: the readiness for patterned coexistence (spatial) coordinates with the readiness for correlated succession (temporal); together they delimit what can vary while maintaining coherence. Modal inclination adds the dimension of selective potentiality — distinguishing not merely what may happen but how ready the field is for different possibilities. Interpersonal inclination, finally, aligns these orientations through reciprocal construal: readiness becomes readiness-for-sharing.
At this threshold, potential acquires the minimal organisation necessary for self-description. It can now “say,” in the most primitive ontological sense, what it is inclined toward. This is the first gesture of construal.
2. Construal as Reflexive Co-ordination
In relational ontology, construal is not a representation of something prior but the act through which potential becomes articulate. What the proto-semiotic field introduces is precisely this articulatory function: the coordination of inclinations as a single reflexive act.
Through their reflexive entanglement, potential achieves the capacity to differentiate and maintain distinctions within itself without collapsing into uniformity or incoherence. The proto-semiotic field thus marks the first instance of internal relation as meaning.
3. The Emergence of the Relational Cut
Meaning begins when a relation can distinguish itself from its background while remaining continuous with it — the fundamental relational cut. The proto-semiotic field is the condition for this cut to occur.
Because inclination is already oriented (spatially, temporally, modally, interpersonally), the act of distinguishing does not sever potential but tightens its coherence. Each differentiation becomes a way of specifying readiness. The field does not fragment; it inflects.
This explains why construal is neither imposed from outside nor reducible to individual cognition. It is the field’s own capacity to sustain differentiated readiness: to “hold” a difference as meaning.
4. From Ontological Leaning to Semiotic Pattern
Once the field can sustain internal distinctions, the patterning of these distinctions becomes repeatable. This repeatability constitutes the proto-semiotic field’s second decisive property: systemicity. The modes of inclination no longer operate as isolated leanings but as mutually constraining tendencies that can re-enter each other recursively.
For instance, a temporal inclination may itself acquire spatial contour (a rhythm taking form), while spatial differentiation may take on modal gradient (a configuration becoming more or less probable). Through such recursive inter-inclination, potential begins to stabilise systems of readiness — proto-grammatical organisations that anticipate the later stratified architectures of meaning.
5. Readiness as the Seed of Semiotic Potential
The proto-semiotic field thus establishes the bridge between ontological potential and semiotic system. It shows that readiness, once reflexively coordinated, is already semiotic in embryo. It is not that a non-semiotic world later gains meaning; rather, potential’s own structure of inclination develops into semiosis by increasing its reflexive complexity.
In this way, construal can be understood as the ontological continuation of inclination: readiness that has learned to describe itself.
6. Summary Schema
| Stage | Characteristic | Primary Operation | Onto-semiotic Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undifferentiated Potential | Pure readiness | None | Latent inclination |
| Differentiated Inclination | Modal differentiation (spatial, temporal, etc.) | Correlated leaning | Structured readiness |
| Proto-Semiotic Field | Reflexive coordination of inclinations | Internal relation | Emergent construal |
| Semiotic System | Systemic stabilisation of construal | Recursive patterning | Symbolic meaning |
7. Next: The Actualisation of Construal
With the proto-semiotic field, potential acquires the minimal organisation for meaning to occur. Yet construal itself has degrees: it can intensify, stabilise, and align. In the next post, we examine how construal becomes symbolically anchored — how the readiness of potential evolves into the systematic architectures of language, symbol, and cosmos.
No comments:
Post a Comment