Mapping Meaning: 5 Meaning Potential as Meaning Readiness: A Relational Perspective

Across the first four posts in this series, we have traced the architecture of meaning-making:

1. Two orientations of the mind — cognition and desire

2. Two kinds of projection — propositions and proposals

3. Two kinds of indeterminacy — modalisation and modulation

4. Value systems at the interface — biological and social pressures mediated semiotically

Each layer has revealed how meaning is projected, qualified, and mediated, showing that language is a dynamic negotiation across possibilities. Now, we unify these threads under the concept of meaning potential as meaning readiness.

---

From Potential to Readiness

We have so far treated meaning as projected possibilities: propositions project epistemic possibilities, proposals project practical possibilities. But not every possibility is equally available at every moment. Meaning is not just a stockpile; it is a structured field of semiotic options, poised for actualisation depending on context, orientation, and readiness.

We propose the term meaning readiness to capture this dynamic:

Meaning readiness = the perspectival availability of semiotic options for actualisation.

• It is perspectival, because what is ready to be actualised depends on the agent’s stance, knowledge, desires, and perception of the semiotic field.

• It is semiotic, because it arises within a system of language and projection, not from value systems themselves.

• It is dynamic, because readiness shifts with attention, stakes, and interaction.

---

Linking Readiness to Previous Threads

Concept	Relation to Meaning Readiness
Cognition / Desire	Determine orientation of potential: toward reality or action
Propositions / Proposals	Structure the type of semiotic options projected
Modalisation / Modulation	Qualify the readiness of options in terms of likelihood, obligation, or ability
Value Systems	Generate pressures that make some options salient, urgent, or desirable

Meaning readiness thus becomes the lens through which we see the semiotic field as a landscape of actualisable futures.

• Cognitive processes create readiness for evaluating and negotiating epistemic potential.

• Desiderative processes create readiness for coordinating and negotiating practical potential.

The semiotic system mediates these potentials without collapsing them into deterministic outcomes. It is the field in which futures are made thinkable, discussable, and actionable, responsive to both internal orientation and external pressures.

---

Why This Matters

This perspective reframes our understanding of meaning-making:

• Meaning is relational, not static: it exists as potentialities between agents, worlds, and futures.

• Readiness, not just projection, is the operative metric: what can be actualised depends on perspectival availability, not merely on grammatical or logical possibility.

• Language is the medium through which value pressures, cognitive insight, and practical inclinations converge, allowing for negotiation, coordination, and the co-actualisation of possibilities.

In short: meaning-making is the art of managing potential, guided by readiness.

---

Looking Ahead

In the final post of this series, we will explore implications for meaning-making, considering how these processes of orientation, projection, qualification, and mediation collectively shape the semiotic landscape. We will reflect on how this framework illuminates not only the mechanics of language, but the relational dynamics of thought, desire, and action in discourse.