Monday, 16 February 2026

Semiosis, Reflexivity, and Cross-Stratal Volatility: 2 Individuation in Meaning Systems

In semiotic systems, instances are more than just actualisations; they are evaluated against internal norms. This introduces a new dimension of individuation: error becomes possible, not as biological failure, but as divergence from the system’s internal constraints.

Meaning systems are thus reflexively individuated: they produce instances, construe their own potential, and differentiate between valid and invalid actualisations.


Error as a Structural Phenomenon

In biological systems, maladaptation is simply non-viability. No internal “norm of correctness” exists; survival is the only metric.

Semiotic systems, by contrast, embed normativity within structured potential:

  • A statement, argument, or symbolic act can fail relative to internal constraints, not merely external outcomes.

  • Error is not arbitrary; it is defined by the system’s own relational logic.

  • This allows the system to recognise, correct, or adapt based on its own evaluation.

In other words, error is a property of the system, not of the world outside it.


Internal Differentiation and Reflexive Individuation

Semiotic individuation operates at two intertwined levels:

  1. Instance-level individuation: Each actualisation is a cut through potential, realised in context.

  2. System-level individuation: The system construes and evaluates its own potential, establishing internal norms and constraints.

The system is now capable of self-referential organisation: it can “see” potential trajectories, discriminate among them, and influence the course of future actualisations.


Illustrative Examples

  • Law: A legal argument may succeed or fail according to codified norms, independent of external consequences.

  • Science: A hypothesis may be internally inconsistent even if it predicts observable outcomes; peer review enforces internal coherence.

  • Literature: A narrative may violate aesthetic or structural expectations, creating interpretive tension or “error” within the literary system.

Each case shows that semiotic systems are inherently normative: instances can conform, diverge, or fail relative to internal constraints.


Implications for Evolutionary Dynamics

The reflexive individuation of meaning systems introduces new modes of historical transformation:

  1. Internal correction: Systems can modify potential based on failure relative to norms.

  2. Deliberate reformulation: Semiotic systems can anticipate future instances and restructure potential proactively.

  3. Cross-stratal influence: Symbolic action reshapes social, ecological, and even biological conditions, creating feedback loops.

Error is no longer merely a signal of non-viability; it becomes a driver of innovation, adaptation, and historically mediated change.


Transition to Post 3

In the next post, we will explore cross-stratal feedback and reflexive evolution, showing how semiotic systems can reorganise environments, influence biological individuation, and generate historically volatile dynamics.


Takeaway Statement:

In meaning systems, individuation is reflexive: instances are actualised and evaluated relative to internal norms. Error emerges as a structural feature, enabling systems to guide, correct, and transform their own potential. Semiotic individuation opens the door to historically mediated, cross-stratal evolution.

No comments:

Post a Comment