Emergence is neither abstract nor abstracted: it occurs in practice, in the interplay of constraints, horizons, and actualised possibilities. Having established that semiotic systems are independent of function, we can now ask a subtler, more precise question:
What changes when a distinction becomes thinkable?
This is the micro-phenomenology of semiotic emergence: the exact instant when a horizon of possibility gives rise to a new, intelligible cut.
Distinctions Before and After
Before a distinction emerges:
-
The relational field of possibility is open but unstable.
-
Potential construals exist only implicitly; no cut consistently actualises them.
-
Multiple competing interpretations may prevent intelligibility.
After a distinction emerges:
-
It is recognisable and repeatable.
-
It can participate in higher-order semiotic relations (e.g., grammar, pattern, motif).
-
It is integrated into a horizon of possibility, shaping what can now be thought, said, or symbolised.
The transition from “possible but unformed” to “intelligible and repeatable” is the defining event of emergence.
Horizon Stabilisation
A horizon is not simply a container of possibilities; it is a dynamic field of constraints:
-
Some possibilities are precluded by relational incompatibility.
-
Others are weakly supported and can only manifest transiently.
-
Emergence occurs when constraints align to support a new distinction.
This alignment is not deterministic. It is relational, contingent, and sensitive to prior instantiations, adjacent constraints, and structural affordances within the horizon.
In other words, a distinction becomes thinkable only when the field of constraints allows it to persist and relate coherently.
Repeatability and Recognition
Emergence requires two complementary features:
-
Repeatability:The distinction must be instantiated multiple times under comparable conditions without collapsing or being overridden.
-
Recognition:The distinction must be interpretable by participants in the semiotic system, even if interpretation varies.
Without both, the distinction remains ephemeral. Semiotic emergence demands not singular events, but stable relational patterns.
Examples Across Domains
-
Language:A new syntactic construction emerges when speakers repeatedly use it in coherent contexts. Initially ad hoc, the construction becomes thinkable once patterns stabilise across interactions.
-
Cultural motifs:An archetype is recognisable when variations converge into a repeatable narrative pattern. Prior instances may exist in isolation, but only the stabilised motif constitutes semiotic emergence.
-
Technological symbols:A meme, emoji, or interface convention only becomes meaningful when participants consistently recognise and reproduce it. A single use is a potential cut; widespread stabilisation actualises the distinction.
Emergence as a Relational Event
We can now articulate a precise relational principle:
Emergence is the event in which a distinction becomes intelligible and repeatable because constraints in the horizon of possibility allow it to stabilise.
This is neither a property of the object nor of the participant alone. It is co-individuated in the relational field:
-
Horizons provide potentiality.
-
Constraints select and stabilise.
-
The distinction manifests as actualised semiotic potential.
Micro-Phenomenology of Actualisation
At this level, we see emergence as an observable process, not a metaphor:
-
Tensions between possible cuts resolve in relational alignment.
-
Competing interpretations give way to recognisable patterns.
-
Horizons are not static; each emergent distinction reshapes the space in which future distinctions can arise.
In short: the moment a distinction becomes thinkable is also the moment it transforms the horizon itself.
Implications
-
Emergence is traceable: it has a microstructure that can be described relationally.
-
Emergence is contingent: not every potential distinction actualises; the horizon determines possibilities.
-
Emergence is recursive: each new distinction reconfigures the field, enabling further emergent possibilities.
This micro-phenomenological clarity prepares us to examine the illusion of inevitability in semiotic systems, which is the subject of the next post: “Why New Meaning Systems Feel Inevitable After the Fact”.
No comments:
Post a Comment