At this point, a misunderstanding becomes likely.
If meaning is dangerous, if it overwrites competence, if it inflates responsibility and collapses action, then surely the conclusion must be that meaning itself is the problem.
It is not.
This series is not an argument against meaning. It is an argument against treating meaning as foundational, universal, or compulsory.
What meaning makes possible
Meaning enables forms of coordination that would otherwise be impossible:
long‑range planning
complex institutions
science and law
art, history, and collective memory
None of these arise from readiness alone. They require symbolic stabilisation, abstraction, and persistence.
Meaning is indispensable for these purposes.
To deny this would be incoherent — and inconsistent with the ontology developed here.
The error of elevation
The problem arises when meaning is elevated beyond its ecological role.
When meaning is treated as:
the basis of intelligence
the mark of moral seriousness
the default mode of coordination
the arbiter of responsible action
it begins to displace other systems that are better suited to local, embodied, time‑sensitive action.
Meaning is powerful precisely because it is not local. That is also why it must be constrained.
Instrument, not identity
One of the most damaging confusions is the fusion of meaning with selfhood.
When meanings define who we are rather than what we are doing, revision becomes existential. Adaptation feels like betrayal. Letting go feels like loss of integrity.
But meaning is not identity. It is an instrument.
Instruments are used, adjusted, and sometimes put down.
The false dilemma
Critics often frame the choice as stark: either we take meaning seriously, or we descend into relativism, amorality, or chaos.
This is a false dilemma.
Non‑symbolic coordination systems already regulate vast domains of life with remarkable reliability. They are not nihilistic. They are precise.
Meaning does not create care, responsibility, or ethics. It reorganises them.
Sometimes usefully. Sometimes destructively.
The real claim
The claim here is not that meaning should be weakened.
It is that meaning should be placed.
It should be:
local rather than total
revisable rather than sacred
subordinate to competence rather than its replacement
Only under these conditions does meaning remain a tool rather than a tyrant.
Holding the line
If this argument feels unsettling, that is because symbolic cultures rarely tolerate limits on their most powerful technologies.
But limits are not negations.
They are what allow technologies to remain usable.
The final task, then, is not to reject meaning, but to ask a harder question:
What would containment actually look like — and what would it leave untouched?
No comments:
Post a Comment