The Grain of Instantiation IV (A Faculty Dialogue)

Setting: Faculty common room, late morning. Dr Finch has joined the discussion, notebook in hand. Professor Quillibrace, Mr Blottisham, and Miss Elowen Stray are present.

---

Finch:

If I may — two questions arise. First, Halliday often speaks of potential as probabilistically weighted and updated with each instantiation. How does that sit with the idea that probability survives the act rather than drives it?

Quillibrace:

It sits quite comfortably. Probabilities model the distribution of past acts — second-order patterning. They do not generate or constrain the first-order act itself.

Blottisham:

But surely they must bias or guide subsequent choices?

Stray:

Not really. They condition the space of possibilities, but they do not select the act. Answerability remains first-order.

---

Finch:

Second, Halliday says language construes context as well as realising it. Does that imply context participates directly in meaning?

Stray:

Only as it is experienced. Context-as-phenomenon is always construed in the act. Context-as-organisation conditions, but does not determine. They remain ontologically distinct.

Quillibrace:

Exactly. Language realises potential while simultaneously apprehending situational experience. The two are related, but the act of meaning itself is always first-order and irreducible.

Finch:

So probabilistic potential and context are always one step removed from meaning, shaping the arena but not producing the act?

Quillibrace:

Precisely. Probability explains traces, context explains recognisability, but neither produces meaning. That is always the purview of the act.

Blottisham:

And here I thought I had captured it fully.

Stray:

You captured patterns. But the act itself remains answerable — and that is what this ontology refuses to let collapse.

(The discussion continues in quiet contemplation, the notebook full but the key distinction firmly in place.)