We have reached the culmination of this series.
We began by showing that representation is the wrong starting point. Then we established that relation is ontologically prior to reference, that meaning is not fundamentally about anything, that objects are stabilised relational effects, and that the representational reflex persists because it works.
Now we can ask: what does meaning itself look like, once representation is understood as derivative rather than foundational?
1. Meaning as Relational Intelligibility
Meaning is not a mirror of the world. It is not a matter of symbols pointing to objects, or thoughts corresponding to states of affairs. Meaning arises where relational articulations under constraint produce phenomena that are intelligible.
A phenomenon becomes meaningful when it is foregrounded against a background of excluded possibilities, when it coheres with sedimented patterns, and when it resonates with other relational structures in the system. Meaning is the effect of relational success, not the result of correspondence or aboutness.
Representation can participate in this process, but only secondarily. Words, symbols, and diagrams function as tools within a relationally structured field; they do not generate intelligibility from scratch.
2. Objects and Reference as Emergent, Not Foundational
Objects are no longer the precondition of meaning. They are stabilised relational effects, sustained by repetition, constraint, and coordination. Reference is a derived practice: it works because relational patterns have sedimented sufficiently for entities to appear persistent and identifiable.
The apparent “aboutness” of meaning — the way we experience it as directed toward objects — is thus an emergent effect, a phenomenological surface of deep relational structure. It is powerful, coherent, and functionally indispensable, but it does not anchor meaning ontologically.
3. Freedom Within Structure
Understanding meaning relationally restores a dynamic balance between constraint and freedom. Intelligibility requires structure, but structure does not exhaust possibility. Cuts, constraints, and sedimented patterns create the field in which novel articulations can emerge. Meaning unfolds not as a fixed mapping, but as a dynamic interplay between stability and innovation, persistence and variation.
Representation, when understood as derivative, becomes a flexible tool rather than a binding framework. It is available where it aids coordination, but it is no longer mistaken for the source of intelligibility.
4. Implications for Thought and Practice
Meaning after representation changes the lens through which we view cognition, language, art, and perception:
-
Cognition: Thought is relational articulation within structured potential, not manipulation of pre-given representations.
-
Language: Words coordinate intelligibility without pre-existing referents; grammar, register, and context shape relational fields, not mirror reality.
-
Art and music: Patterns, constraints, and repetition create intelligible phenomena that do not need to “stand for” anything external.
-
Perception: Distinctions, objects, and surfaces emerge relationally; the world’s stability is a systemic achievement, not an imposed fact.
Representation remains useful, but it is instrumental, not foundational. This shift dissolves puzzles about misrepresentation, error, or the limits of correspondence. Meaning is intelligible because relational articulation works, not because symbols latch onto pre-existing objects.
5. The Synthesis
Meaning after representation is therefore:
-
Relational: intelligibility arises from articulation within structured potential.
-
Derivative, not foundational: objects and reference emerge from relational patterns, not the other way around.
-
Generative: constraints structure possibility, allowing novelty without collapsing coherence.
-
Surface and depth: what appears as aboutness or representation is the phenomenological expression of deeper relational processes.
Representation is no longer the master. It is a tool, powerful and reliable, but always dependent on relational structure. Freedom, constraint, novelty, and intelligibility coexist without contradiction. Meaning is produced, maintained, and sustained by the system itself.
Conclusion
Once relation is primary, representation is no longer necessary — though it persists as a functional and highly successful practice. Meaning emerges where relational patterns succeed under constraint; objects and reference appear as stabilised effects; freedom and novelty unfold within structured possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment