In our previous post, we traced the distinction between activation without codification and meaning that is stabilised through mythic continuity. Now we turn to a second, equally critical contrast: how nonsense preserves surplus, while mythology often encodes norms and thresholds.
Where mythology channels meaning toward coherence, collective resonance, and moral or existential stability, nonsense suspends closure, keeping interpretive potential alive. This is not chaos; it is structured multiplicity.
1. Normativity as Cultural Contraction
Mythology is a technology of normativity:
-
It establishes thresholds of behaviour, perception, and interpretation.
-
It encodes archetypes, taboos, and moral patterns.
-
It stabilises communal understanding, giving participants a shared horizon of significance.
These constraints are functional: they make meaning durable, reduce ambiguity, and ensure coherence across generations. Without them, cultural interpretation would fragment; thresholds could not be rehearsed safely.
In ecological terms, mythology contracts the interpretive field. It reduces variance, directing attention toward sanctioned patterns and values.
2. Surplus as Generative Potential
Nonsense, in contrast, treats surplus as structural and generative:
-
Ambiguity is not a defect but a resource.
-
Multiple interpretive pathways are activated simultaneously.
-
Thresholds are rehearsed, but no single pathway is privileged.
Surplus in nonsense is preserved through patterned constraint — rhyme, rhythm, syntactic play — not through codified authority. It demonstrates that multiplicity is not accidental; it is engineered.
Where mythology channels surplus into sedimented meaning, nonsense maintains it in circulation, ready for recombination, activation, and exploration.
3. Suspension vs. Prescription
We can summarise the distinction as follows:
| Aspect | Mythology | Nonsense |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Coherence, continuity, normativity | Activation, multiplicity, inexhaustibility |
| Constraint | Codified, morally or existentially oriented | Patterned, relational, non-judgmental |
| Surplus | Reduced, stabilised | Preserved, generative |
| Time | Transgenerational, enduring | Local, immediate |
| Thresholds | Prescriptive, formalised | Rehearsed, exploratory |
This table captures the functional contrast: mythology contracts and codifies, nonsense activates and preserves.
4. Lessons for the Ecology of Meaning
The interplay of these two systems highlights a principle that has emerged across our series: meaning thrives when contraction and preservation coexist.
-
Contraction technologies (science, philosophy, mythology) stabilise and ensure interpretive coherence.
-
Preservation technologies (nonsense) maintain potential, rehearsal capacity, and flexibility.
Ecologically, they balance the field, each necessary to maintain a resilient semiotic ecosystem.
5. Reflection
Nonsense preserves what mythology encodes: surplus, multiplicity, and the capacity to inhabit thresholds without collapse.
In doing so, it challenges the assumption that meaning must be fixed, coherent, or normative to be real. It demonstrates that activation, not codification, is the first principle of relational meaning.
Where mythology channels the interpretive field, nonsense leaves it open. Where mythology encodes norms, nonsense rehearses potential.
Together, they show us that the ecology of meaning depends on the tension between contraction and preservation, between the codified and the activated.
No comments:
Post a Comment