The dangers of meaning are not evenly distributed across species.
Many organisms use signals. Very few live inside symbolic systems. Humans do.
What makes meaning hazardous for us is not that we possess it, but that it becomes ambient: ever-present, unavoidable, and structurally privileged over other forms of coordination.
An unusual conjunction
Humans combine two features that rarely co‑occur:
highly plastic coordination systems
dense, persistent symbolic environments
Our bodies and social capacities are extraordinarily adaptable. We can learn new practices, inhabit new roles, and reconfigure patterns of coordination with remarkable speed.
At the same time, we surround ourselves with meanings that do not adapt at the same rate. Laws, moral codes, identities, narratives, and institutions persist long after the conditions that produced them have shifted.
This creates a standing tension between readiness and representation.
Living inside symbols
Because symbolic systems are stable and portable, they come to feel more real than the situations they are meant to organise. People learn to orient themselves toward what meanings require, rather than toward what circumstances afford.
Over time, meaning stops functioning as a tool and starts functioning as an environment.
This is distinctive. Most species encounter signals intermittently. Humans inhabit semiotic saturation.
Plasticity as vulnerability
Our adaptability amplifies the problem.
Instead of rejecting symbolic overload, humans attempt to accommodate it. We stretch, rationalise, compartmentalise. We try to live up to meanings that no organism could sustainably enact.
This is why symbolic pressure often produces:
burnout rather than rebellion
guilt rather than refusal
paralysis rather than error
Plasticity allows us to endure conditions that should trigger correction.
Identity as a symbolic trap
One particularly dangerous form of scaling is identity.
When meanings attach not just to actions but to selves, revision becomes costly. To change behaviour is to threaten coherence. To adapt is to appear inconsistent.
This locks symbolic commitments in place even as competence erodes.
Meaning no longer guides action; it defines the actor.
Not a failure of wisdom
It is tempting to explain these patterns as immaturity, narcissism, or moral confusion.
This is a mistake.
Humans are not failing to handle meaning wisely. They are encountering a technology that exceeds the regulatory capacities of the systems it plugs into.
No amount of individual insight can solve a structural mismatch.
The implication
If humans are uniquely at risk, the response cannot be more exhortation, more education, or more refined meaning.
It must involve learning how to bound symbolic systems — how to keep meaning local, revisable, and subordinate to competence.
Before we can do that, however, we need to understand how symbolic overload reshapes our sense of responsibility.
That is where the pressure now turns.
No comments:
Post a Comment