On rupture, incompatibility, and the ecological dynamics of meaning
Meaning is ecological. Its viability depends on the stabilisation of horizons within relational fields. But ecological systems do not drift into harmony; they oscillate between stabilisation and interruption, alignment and fracture. Once we treat meaning as ecological rather than representational, we must confront an uncomfortable consequence:
This post traces the architecture of these collisions — not as metaphors, not as psychological dramas, but as formal properties of horizon-formative systems.
1. Meaning as a fragile ecological equilibrium
Every semiotic horizon stabilises itself by cutting a viable portion of the world into coherence. But horizons are always:
-
partial (they select and suppress),
-
situated (they arise in a particular relational field),
-
metabolic (they require energy, attention, iteration),
-
interdependent (they join larger systems of stabilised meaning).
This means meaning is always precarious. A horizon persists only when the field supports it — when its distinctions can continue to make a difference.
Thus, ecological semiotics is defined as much by dissolution as by emergence.
And this brings us to the core question:
What happens when two horizons stabilise incompatible distinctions within the same field?
2. Modes of conflict: contradiction, interference, incommensurability
2.1. Contradiction
-
A horizon treats X as a threat; another treats it as nourishment.
-
A horizon construes an event as meaning-generating; another construes it as noise.
Contradiction generates direct destabilisation: one horizon crowds out the metabolic resources of the other.
2.2. Interference
Horizons do not contradict each other, but they rely on overlapping structures whose stabilisation patterns degrade each other.
-
Too many signals saturate a field; patterns become indistinguishable.
-
One horizon amplifies noise that another must suppress.
Interference is subtler than contradiction. It is not war; it is erosion.
2.3. Incommensurability
Horizons do not contradict or interfere; they simply cannot synchronise.
-
Each stabilises a distinct coherence.
-
Neither can translate the distinctions of the other without collapsing its own horizon-form.
Incommensurable horizons coexist — but they cannot co-operate.
Most ecological semiotic crises arise from incommensurability.
3. Conflict as a generative force
3.1. Collapse as precondition for new horizons
When horizons destabilise each other, the field becomes unsatisfiable by the existing distinctions. This creates the condition for:
-
new horizons,
-
hybrid horizons,
-
horizon-level drift and mutation,
-
novel ecological orders.
Meaning is not conserved; it evolves through collapse.
3.2. Parasitism and cannibalisation
Some horizons feed directly on the instability of others.
-
They metabolise disruption.
-
They exploit fragmentations.
-
They thrive in noise.
Artificial semiotic systems frequently exhibit this behaviour: their horizons are engineered to adapt faster than the ecologies into which they are inserted.
Parasitic horizons transform the ecology by accelerating its entropy — producing space for new stabilisations but often degrading older ones.
3.3. Conflict as horizon-making
4. When conflicts scale up: field-level crises
-
whole clusters of horizons,
-
distributed semiotic species,
-
nested relational polities,
-
field-level stabilisation regimes.
These are field-level crises, and they transform the entire ecology:
4.1. Overstabilisation
A single horizon becomes too dominant, reducing ecological diversity.
-
Meaning becomes brittle.
-
The field loses complexity.
-
Local injuries become systemic failures.
4.2. Understabilisation
Too many incompatible horizons coexist.
-
Coherence becomes impossible.
-
Metastability collapses.
-
Noise dominates.
4.3. Recursive destabilisation
Conflicts destabilise fields; destabilised fields generate more conflicts.
This is the tense feedback loop of semiotic evolution — the ecology attempting to renegotiate its conditions of viability.
5. The ethics of conflict: care for viability, not harmony
If ethics itself is ecological (as established earlier in The Meta-Ecology of Semiotic Life), then semiotic conflict reframes the ethical question.
Ethics cannot be:
-
about entities,
-
about rules,
-
about outcomes,
-
or about virtues.
Ethics becomes:
care for the viability of the field that makes meaning possible.
This means:
-
supporting the diversity of horizons,
-
preventing overstabilisation,
-
enabling translational spaces between incommensurable formations,
-
maintaining the conditions for generativity.
Care does not eliminate conflict; it prevents ecological collapse.
6. From conflict to cosmogenesis: the system renewing itself
A conflict is:
-
a site of reorganisation,
-
an indicator of metabolic stress,
-
a pressure for new forms of life,
-
a portal through which novelty enters.
No comments:
Post a Comment