The most serious danger of meaning is not overload.
It is displacement.
At a certain point, symbolic systems do not merely outrun existing capacities — they begin to replace them. Meaning steps in where readiness once operated. Explanation substitutes for attunement. Rules stand in for judgment.
What is lost is not intelligence, but competence.
From readiness to justification
Competent action is organised around situation-specific sensitivity: timing, posture, affect, local constraint. It works because it is embedded.
Meaning works differently. It demands articulation. It asks for reasons, principles, and justifications that can travel beyond the moment.
When meaning becomes dominant, action is increasingly routed through justification rather than readiness. One must first know what one means before knowing what to do.
This inversion slows response, flattens nuance, and produces hesitation where fluency once lived.
The erosion of trust in action
As symbolic systems expand, trust shifts.
Instead of trusting trained perception, organisms learn to trust representations: rules, categories, procedures, checklists. What cannot be named feels suspect. What cannot be defended feels irresponsible.
This erodes confidence in embodied competence. People begin to experience action as dangerous unless pre-authorised by meaning.
Ironically, the more one explains oneself, the less one feels able to act.
Pathologies of over-meaning
The symptoms of this displacement are familiar:
paralysis framed as careful thought
anxiety framed as ethical seriousness
rigidity framed as consistency
disengagement framed as reflection
These are not individual failures. They are structural consequences of routing action through symbolic validation.
Meaning does not merely accompany action here; it polices it.
Institutions that forget how to act
The same pattern appears at scale.
Organisations designed to coordinate action become increasingly devoted to documentation, compliance, and justification. Success is measured by alignment with stated meanings rather than by adaptive performance.
When conditions change, these systems struggle to respond. They know what they stand for, but not what to do.
Competence has been overwritten by principle.
Why this feels like responsibility
The displacement of competence by meaning is often experienced as maturity or moral seriousness. Acting without explicit justification comes to feel reckless, even when it is appropriate.
This is how symbolic systems quietly redefine responsibility: not as responsiveness to situation, but as fidelity to declared meanings.
The cost is responsiveness itself.
The deeper risk
Once competence is overwritten, recovery is difficult. Readiness atrophies when unused. Trust in action erodes. Systems become dependent on ever more meaning to compensate for declining capacity.
This is a classic technological trap: the tool that once extended ability now undermines it.
The question is no longer whether meaning can fail.
It is whether we can still recognise competence when it does.
That recognition is not automatic.
It must be relearned.
No comments:
Post a Comment