By this point in the series, several temptations have been refused:
-
meaning is not value,
-
phenomena are not objects,
-
systems are not inventories,
-
instantiation is not process,
-
ontology is not completion.
What remains is a question that can no longer be postponed:
What, then, are symbolic systems?
Language, mathematics, logic, theory, notation — if they are not mirrors of reality, and not engines of value, what ontological role do they play?
The answer is precise, and surprisingly modest.
Symbolic systems are systems of second-order meaning.
First-Order vs Second-Order Meaning
First-order meaning belongs to phenomena.
A phenomenon is meaningful because it is a difference under a cut — an articulated distinction within a system of possibilities.
Second-order meaning arises when meanings themselves become the relata.
They:
-
stabilise distinctions,
-
transport them across contexts,
-
recombine them,
-
and allow them to be re-instantiated elsewhere.
Symbols Do Not Create Meaning
This point cannot be stressed enough.
Meaning does not originate in language, mathematics, or representation.
It originates in phenomenal articulation.
Symbols come after meaning — not temporally, but ontologically.
They presuppose:
-
distinctions already drawn,
-
phenomena already articulated,
-
systems already capable of sustaining difference.
This is why attempts to ground meaning in syntax, information, or formal structure always fail.
They reverse the dependency.
What Symbolic Systems Actually Do
Symbolic systems perform three indispensable functions:
-
StabilisationThey hold distinctions steady across time, agents, and situations.
-
TransportThey allow meanings to be carried beyond the circumstances of their instantiation.
-
ReconfigurationThey enable new relational patterns among existing meanings.
None of these require symbols to correspond to reality.
They require only that symbols be internally coherent and relationally disciplined.
Why Mathematics Works So Well
Mathematics is often treated as the paradigmatic access point to reality.
In this ontology, its power comes from something else.
Mathematics is extraordinarily effective because it is:
-
maximally explicit,
-
maximally constrained,
-
and minimally dependent on context.
It is a symbolic system optimised for relational stability, not for ontological revelation.
Confusing this with metaphysical access produces Platonism by accident.
Language Is Not a Weaker Mathematics
Nor is language a defective formal system.
Language is a symbolic system tuned for:
-
contextual elasticity,
-
perspectival variation,
-
and interpersonal coordination of meaning.
Its apparent imprecision is a feature, not a flaw.
It trades formal closure for relational adaptability.
Trying to force language into mathematical ideals — or mathematics into linguistic ones — misunderstands both.
Second-Order Meaning Is Not Interpretation
It is tempting to describe symbolic systems as “interpretive”.
But interpretation suggests:
-
an underlying fixed meaning,
-
distorted or filtered by symbols.
That picture is wrong.
Second-order meaning does not interpret first-order meaning.
It re-articulates it under new constraints.
Why Ontology Must Stop Here
This is where ontology properly ends.
Not because nothing more can be said, but because the temptation to overreach becomes irresistible beyond this point.
Ontology can:
-
describe systems of possibility,
-
explain instantiation as cut,
-
ground meaning in phenomenon,
-
locate symbols as second-order meaning.
It cannot:
-
legislate value,
-
complete reality,
-
or guarantee final descriptions.
What We Have Gained
Across this series, a coherent architecture has emerged:
-
No totality without perspective
-
No system without incompleteness
-
No meaning without distinction
-
No value without coordination
-
No symbols without prior meaning
What remains open is not a gap, but a discipline.
Ontology, properly understood, is not a theory of everything.
It is a theory of how meaning can continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment