Emergence, as we established in the previous post, is not complexity. It is the actualisation of new distinctions under constraint: the opening of new horizons in which meaning can be made.
The question now becomes: how does this horizon become structured? How does the possibility of meaning crystallise into something recognisable, repeatable, and transmissible? The answer lies in what we will call grammar—not merely linguistic grammar, but any system of patterned distinctions that stabilises emergent meaning.
Horizon, Cut, and Stabilisation
A horizon is a field of potential: a space in which many construals might be realised, each a perspectival cut in a relational landscape of possibility.
Emergence occurs when a previously unstable cut becomes stably reproducible. But stability alone is not enough. A single stable instance does not yet constitute a semiotic order. What is required is repeatability under constraint.
This is where grammar enters the picture.
Grammar, in this broad sense, is a set of constraints and regularities that organise emergent distinctions into a coherent system.
These regularities need not be conscious, intentional, or codified. They can appear as:
-
syntactic patterns in a language,
-
motifs in visual culture,
-
ritualised sequences in social practice,
-
conventions in symbolic technology.
What matters is that the constraints allow a new distinction to persist across multiple instantiations.
From Possibility to Semiotic Order
We can now see the emergence of semiotic systems as a two-step process:
-
Activation of a distinction:A relational cut becomes intelligible and stabilised within a local horizon of possibility.
-
Consolidation into a grammar:This distinction becomes systemically supported, so that further instances can be generated, recognised, and related to other distinctions without dissolving the system.
Without step two, the emergent distinction is ephemeral — a novel occurrence that fails to generate a durable semiotic order. Grammar is what transforms transient possibility into patterned semiotic structure.
Examples in Practice
-
Linguistic grammar: Consider the introduction of a grammatical tense or aspect. Initially, speakers may improvise expressions of temporality. Only when a system of usage stabilises — rules, combinations, regularities — does the tense become a semiotic structure.
-
Cultural motifs: A story pattern or archetype may appear sporadically. When its variations converge into repeatable forms — narrative sequences, character types, or symbolic gestures — it becomes a “grammar” of storytelling.
-
Digital semiotics: Early memes illustrate this process. Many images, texts, and gestures circulate. Only when conventions emerge (typical format, style, or reference system) does a recognisable meme grammar crystallise.
Across these examples, what distinguishes mere recurrence from true semiotic emergence is the systematic support of distinctions under relational constraints.
Constraints Are Not Limits, They Are Possibility
It is tempting to think of grammar as restrictive: a set of rules that confines expression. In fact, constraints enable emergence.
Constraints:
-
specify what counts as valid within a horizon,
-
organise possibility so that new distinctions can be coherently instantiated,
-
and allow multiple instantiations to coexist without collapsing into incoherence.
Without constraints, emergent distinctions remain fragile and isolated, incapable of forming a recognisable semiotic system.
Grammar is, therefore, the structured articulation of possibility itself.
Horizons Generate Grammars, Grammars Shape Horizons
A crucial insight emerges: once a grammar stabilises, it reconfigures the horizon of possibility.
-
New distinctions now become possible because the system supports them.
-
Some previous distinctions may no longer be intelligible.
-
The horizon is no longer raw potential; it has been curated by the emergent semiotic order.
Emergence is thus recursive: horizons generate grammars, and grammars reshape horizons.
This is why semiotic orders appear self-legitimating after the fact: once a grammar exists, it seems inevitable. But the horizon that produced it was contingent, open, and structured only by relational constraints — not determinism.
From Abstraction to Observation
We have now descended one level from the conceptual heights of Category Cuts:
-
Categories, functors, and limits once described how possibility is structured.
-
Now we see how these structures manifest in semiotic systems.
The next post will go further: it will show how these emergent systems of meaning operate without recourse to function or adaptation. They are not “for” communication or survival; they exist because the relational structure of possibility permits them.
Emergence is neither accidental nor functional; it is structurally necessary once a horizon crystallises, yet historically contingent in its actualisation.
Conclusion
From horizon to grammar, we see the first materialisation of semiotic order:
-
Distinctions become stable (cuts actualised),
-
Constraints organise them into repeatable forms (grammar),
-
Grammars reshape horizons, opening further possibilities (recursive emergence).
This is the first concrete stage of semiotic emergence. Complexity alone cannot explain it. What matters is the structured articulation of possibility — the grammar that makes new meanings intelligible and durable.
The next post, “Meaning Without Function”, will interrogate the seductive assumption that these emergent systems exist for something, and show why semiotic emergence cannot be reduced to adaptation or utility.
No comments:
Post a Comment