Every powerful technology has a characteristic danger.
For meaning, that danger is scale.
Meaning does not merely travel; it multiplies. Once symbolic commitments are detached from immediate situations, they can be copied, extended, generalised, and imposed far beyond the conditions that originally made them viable.
This is not a defect. It is the very feature that makes meaning useful.
It is also where things begin to break.
Scaling faster than regulation
Biological coordination systems scale slowly. They are constrained by bodies, by attention, by affect, by time. They regulate themselves through feedback that is local, costly, and unavoidable.
Meaning is different.
A rule can apply to a million cases as easily as one. A moral claim can universalise instantly. A category can spread across populations without regard for context.
Symbolic systems therefore scale faster than:
bodily readiness
affective calibration
social repair mechanisms
The result is a widening gap between what can be meant and what can be done.
When universality outruns action
Meaning excels at generalisation. This is often celebrated as a virtue: abstraction, impartiality, consistency.
But generalisation strips away situational limits. It produces obligations without regard for capacity, ideals without regard for ecology, commitments without regard for fatigue.
A principle that makes sense locally becomes unbearable when universalised.
What fails here is not sincerity or intelligence. It is scale discipline.
The multiplication of demands
Once meaning becomes ambient rather than instrumental, demands proliferate.
If something can be meant, it can be demanded. If it can be demanded, it can be moralised. If it can be moralised, failure becomes personal.
This is how symbolic systems quietly generate:
moral overload
chronic guilt
paralysis disguised as reflection
None of this requires bad actors or ideological extremism. It emerges naturally from symbolic leverage operating without constraint.
Brittleness as a structural outcome
Systems that rely heavily on meaning become brittle.
They respond poorly to novelty. They resist local adjustment. They punish deviation even when deviation would restore viability.
By contrast, non-symbolic coordination systems degrade gracefully. They wobble, adapt, reconfigure.
Meaning-based systems snap.
Again, this is not because meaning is false. It is because meaning persists when the conditions that sustained it have changed.
Why this is not a moral critique
It is tempting to frame these failures as ethical ones: people care too much, or not enough; they lack commitment, or overcommit.
This misses the point.
The pathology lies in allowing symbolic commitments to scale without regard for the systems that must enact them. The suffering that follows is a predictable systems outcome, not a moral lesson.
Meaning, left unchecked, overwhelms the very capacities it depends on.
The emerging question
If the danger of meaning lies in scale, then the problem is not having meaning.
It is allowing meaning to operate as if scale were free.
The next step is therefore unavoidable:
What happens when meaning does not merely outrun capacity — but actively displaces it?
That is where the damage becomes personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment