When we speak about “forms of meaning,” we often imagine a ladder.
Under this model:
-
Nonsense lacks seriousness.
-
Poetry gestures toward meaning.
-
Philosophy clarifies it.
-
Science secures it.
This is not an ontology.
It is a cultural prejudice.
1. The Problem with Hierarchy
Hierarchy assumes that meaning increases as indeterminacy decreases.
In other words:
The more stable the reference, the higher the form.
But this assumes:
-
Meaning = successful object fixation.
-
Surplus = deficiency.
-
Indeterminacy = failure.
If we reject the equation of meaning with reference, the hierarchy collapses.
What appears as “lower” may simply be managing potential differently.
2. Toward an Ecology of Meaning
Instead of hierarchy, consider ecosystem.
In an ecosystem:
-
Different organisms occupy different niches.
-
No single form is “higher.”
-
Survival depends on diversity of function.
Apply this to meaning-making.
Different genres manage structured potential in different ways:
-
Scientific discourse narrows surplus aggressively.
-
Legal discourse stabilises classification.
-
Narrative realism resolves tension into closure.
-
Nonsense sustains surplus under constraint.
Each performs a function within the ecology of semiosis.
None exhausts it.
3. Management of Surplus
All meaning systems confront the same structural condition:
Potential always exceeds any instance.
The question is not whether surplus exists.
The question is how it is handled.
Scientific discourse:
-
Minimises surplus.
-
Seeks reproducible stabilisation.
-
Treats indeterminacy as a problem to solve.
Nonsense:
-
Preserves surplus.
-
Keeps indeterminacy visible.
-
Treats instability as generative.
These are not superior/inferior positions.
They are different ecological strategies.
4. Why Ecological Framing Matters
If we cling to hierarchy, we misinterpret nonsense as deficiency.
But if we shift to ecology, we can ask:
What niche does nonsense occupy?
The answer may be unsettling:
Nonsense prevents semiotic monoculture.
It interrupts the illusion that closure equals completeness.
It maintains elasticity within the system.
5. Diversity as Structural Necessity
In biological ecosystems, monocultures are fragile.
In semiotic ecosystems, the same is true.
If all discourse moved relentlessly toward stabilisation:
-
Surplus would be suppressed.
-
Ambiguity would be pathologised.
-
Overdetermination would increase.
-
Boojum-like collapses would become more likely.
Nonsense introduces controlled indeterminacy.
It acts as a pressure-release mechanism.
It reminds the system that potential cannot be fully domesticated.
6. A Shift in Valuation
Once we adopt the ecological model:
The question changes.
We no longer ask:
“Is nonsense meaningful?”
We ask:
“What does nonsense make possible that other genres cannot?”
This repositions it from marginal oddity to structural necessity.
7. The Consequence
Meaning is not a ladder ascending toward perfect reference.
It is a dynamic field sustained by differentiated strategies of constraint and surplus management.
Nonsense occupies a specific and indispensable niche within that field.
It keeps potential alive.
In the next post, we sharpen the focus:
If nonsense preserves surplus,
what exactly is surplus?
And why is it so structurally important?
No comments:
Post a Comment