So far in this series, we have traced the dual orientations of the mind — cognition and desire — and seen how they project propositions and proposals, further nuanced through modalisation and modulation. These processes reveal the landscapes of epistemic and practical potential in meaning-making.
But meaning does not emerge in a vacuum. Our desires and fears are never arbitrary; they arise at the interface of language and the value-laden systems in which we live. Understanding this interface is key to seeing how meaning mediates lived pressures without conflating with them.
Desires, Fears, and Value Systems
Biological and social systems generate stakes, constraints, and opportunities. These can be thought of as value systems:
-
Biological value systems orient toward survival, reproduction, health, and sensory satisfaction.
-
Social value systems orient toward coordination, hierarchy, cooperation, and shared norms.
Desires and fears emerge as the semiotically perceivable pressure points of these systems. They are sources of motivation and concern, shaping what an agent might find salient, urgent, or necessary.
-
Example: Hunger (biological) → desire to eat → potential proposal (“I will cook dinner”)
-
Example: Social expectation (social) → fear of disapproval → potential proposal (“I should apologise”)
Crucially, these value systems exist outside the semiotic system. Meaning does not contain them — rather, meaning mediates their translation into communicable, negotiable, and actionable forms.
Semiotic Mediation: How Meaning Engages Value
Desiderative mental processes — wanting, fearing, hoping — act as semiotic interfaces:
-
They perceive pressures from value systems.
-
They construe potential actions or states in response.
-
They project proposals into the semiotic field, qualified by modulation (obligation, ability, readiness).
In this way, meaning becomes the space in which biological and social pressures are made negotiable:
-
Without semiotic mediation, value pressures are opaque or purely reactive.
-
Through meaning, desires and fears are transformed into discussable and interpretable potentialities, opening possibilities for coordination, deliberation, and shared action.
Why This Distinction Matters
This relational distinction — between value systems and meaning — is subtle but critical:
| Domain | Nature | Role in Meaning-Making |
|---|---|---|
| Value Systems | Biological / social pressures | Generate stakes, constraints, orientation |
| Semiotic Systems | Language, discourse, cognition/desire | Mediate pressures, render potentials negotiable |
Notice the asymmetry: values provide the “push,” meaning provides the “negotiable field.” Understanding this prevents the common conflation of value and meaning — a distinction that is central in both Hallidayan SFL and relational ontology.
Connecting Back to Propositions, Proposals, and Modality
-
Propositions remain the domain of cognition, epistemically negotiating reality.
-
Proposals remain the domain of desire, practically negotiating action in response to value pressures.
-
Modulation captures readiness, obligation, and inclination, showing how semiotic systems handle pressures without collapsing into biological or social determinism.
Meaning is not the value itself. It is the medium of coordination, the space in which futures are made thinkable, discussable, and actionable.
In the next post, we will unify these threads under the concept of meaning potential as meaning readiness, showing how cognitive and desiderative processes, projections, modality, and value interfaces collectively structure the landscape of what can be actualised in discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment