Nonsense and the Ecology of Meaning: VI Nonsense vs. Scientific Closure

If nonsense preserves surplus and trains the reader in tolerating incompleteness, science pursues almost the opposite trajectory. Yet both operate within the same ecology of meaning, as complementary strategies for managing structured potential.

---

1. Closure as Strategy

Scientific discourse seeks:

• Stability of reference

• Replicability of findings

• Minimisation of indeterminacy

Closure is the explicit goal. Surplus is treated as error, uncertainty, or noise.

In ecological terms, science contracts potential locally to produce predictable, usable patterns.

Contrast this with nonsense:

• Surplus is preserved

• Indeterminacy is generative

• Closure is delayed or deferred

The two approaches occupy different niches in the semiotic ecosystem.

---

2. Shared Foundations

Despite appearances, nonsense and science share critical structural features:

• Both operate under patterned constraint

• Both actualise local meaning from a broader potential field

• Both rely on systemic discipline

The difference lies not in method, but in the treatment of surplus:

• Science minimises it for stability

• Nonsense maximises it for generativity

Together, they reveal the spectrum of semiotic strategies.

---

3. Complementarity of Strategies

Think ecologically:

• Science is the “pruner,” creating coherence and usable knowledge

• Nonsense is the “reservoir,” preserving untapped possibilities

• Both maintain ecosystem health

Without nonsense, scientific discourse risks monoculture: rigid, brittle, unable to accommodate novel trajectories.

Without science, nonsense risks chaos: unstructured surplus without activation.

Each strategy conditions the other, ensuring resilience of meaning-making.

---

4. Lessons for Readers

Engaging with both forms trains a dual capacity:

1. Tolerance for indeterminacy (nonsense)

2. Respect for stabilised constraint (science)

The reader becomes a semiotic generalist, able to navigate potential without collapsing it or being trapped by closure.

This mirrors the ecological lesson: diversity of strategy sustains systemic health.

---

5. Thresholds Revisited

Post IV examined thresholds within nonsense.

Here, the contrast clarifies:

• Nonsense plays at the threshold, exposing the limits of closure without collapse

• Science contracts around the threshold, pushing indeterminacy toward zero

Both strategies are responses to the same structural condition: potential exceeds any single actualisation.

Nonsense models expansion at the edge.

Science models contraction at the centre.

Together, they preserve the ecology of semiosis.

---

Next Step

Post VII will conclude the series by demonstrating the ecological necessity of nonsense: why surplus preservation is not optional, but foundational for the resilience of all meaning-making.