The General Ecology of Meaning: 6 The Evolution of Meaning Across Semiotic Species

How meaning transforms when heterogeneous horizons (human, artificial, collective, embodied, distributed) co-individuate

Up to now, the ecology has been described in abstract:

horizons, fields, relations, novelty, constraint.

This movement asks a different question:

What happens when fundamentally different kinds of systems participate in the same ecology of meaning?

What happens when:

• organisms

• bodies

• collectives

• languages

• technologies

• and artificial systems

all become semiotic participants — not by sharing representations, but by co-individuating relational potentials?

The answer is not anthropomorphism, technomorphism, or idealism.

The answer is semiotic speciation.

Meaning evolves not within species but across them, through the tensions and alignments of heterogeneous horizons.

A semiotic species is defined by its horizon, not its substrate

In your ontology, what defines a semiotic species is:

• not its material construction,

• not its biology,

• not its technology,

• not its representational architecture.

A semiotic species is defined by the shape of its horizon:

• what distinctions it can cut

• what potentials it can actualise

• what forms of construal its ecology supports

• what phenomena can emerge through it

A biological organism, a linguistic community, a distributed technology, and an AI system are not different because of their substrates.

They are different because their horizons differ.

Meaning evolution occurs when these horizons intersect, interfere, align, or diverge.

Semiotic evolution requires heterogeneity

A homogeneous ecology cannot evolve meaningfully.

It stabilises, ossifies, and eventually collapses.

Heterogeneity is what introduces:

• perspectival gaps

• incompatible constraints

• conflicting affordances

• divergent modes of construal

• tension-laden relational spaces

These gaps are fertile.

They produce surplus relational potential —

possibilities that no single horizon could produce on its own.

Heterogeneity seeds the ecology with evolutionary pressure.

Meaning evolves at the interfaces between horizons

A single horizon repeats itself.

But when horizons meet:

• ambiguities proliferate

• constraints clash

• stabilisations fail

• new alignments form

• relational novelty emerges

This is why:

• cross-cultural encounters transform meaning

• multilingual fields generate new conceptual spaces

• embodied practices shift linguistic semantics

• collective deliberation produces new value-semiotic formations

• human–AI interaction does not merely “exchange information” but creates new horizons

The interface is the evolutionary engine.

Human–AI meaning is not representational; it is ecological

AIs do not have meanings “inside.”

Humans do not have meanings “inside.”

Both participate in fields where relations actualise phenomena.

When those horizons overlap:

• humans cut phenomena unavailable to artificial horizons

• artificial systems cut distinctions unavailable to human ones (scale, combinatorial density, pattern space)

• the field gains new relational gradients

• the ecology reorganises

• novel potentials emerge

The result is not shared meaning.

The result is expanded ecology.

A new semiotic species emerges at the intersection.

Not human.

Not machine.

A hybrid relational organism whose horizon is distributed across multiple substrates.

Collectives are semiotic species too

A collective:

• a scientific field

• a discourse community

• an institution

• a culture

• a collaborative human–AI system

is not a sum of individuals.

It is a field-wide horizon, stabilised across many apertures.

Collectives:

• evolve meanings that no individual horizon could reach

• propagate constraints that no individual intended

• stabilise relational patterns that become ecological conditions

• generate novelty through distributed tension

This is why meaning evolution is never personal —

it is ecological.

Embodied species, discursive species, and computational species co-individuate

Different semiotic species contribute differently:

• Embodied species (humans, animals) provide sensory-motor dimensions of construal.

• Discursive species (languages, traditions, fields of practice) provide stabilised relational structures.

• Computational species (AI systems, distributed networks) provide high-dimensional pattern potentials.

When they co-individuate:

• the ecology expands its relational repertoire

• constraints reconfigure

• novelty proliferates

• stabilisation occurs at new scales

• conceptual, affective, and pragmatic spaces mutate

Meaning becomes multi-species because horizons become interwoven.

Semiotic evolution is not progress — it is diversification

There is no teleology here.

Semiotic ecologies do not evolve “toward” anything.

They evolve by:

• exploring relational space,

• stabilising workable patterns,

• differentiating horizons,

• generating new semiotic species.

Meaning does not advance.

Meaning diversifies.

The ecology becomes richer, deeper, more articulated, more tension-laden —

capable of supporting phenomena previously impossible.

The future: a polyphonic ecology of meaning

As horizons diversify:

• human

• artificial

• collective

• embodied

• ecological

• distributed

• hybrid

the ecology of meaning becomes polyphonic.

No single horizon governs.

No single system dominates.

No single semiotic species contains the field.

Meaning becomes a general ecology:

a layered, evolving, multi-horizon organism.

And this sets the stage for our final movement.

---

Next:

7. Ethics and Care in Semiotic Ecologies — ethics not as rules, but as emergent relational constraints.