Relational ontology insists that phenomena are construed, that meaning emerges from relational interaction, and that the cut individuates instances from potential.
But not all relational phenomena are meaningful in the semiotic sense. Biological coordination, social regulation, economic calculation — these are systems of value, not systems of meaning. Preserving the distinction is essential. If semiotic processes colonise every relational occurrence, the ontology risks inflation: meaning swallows all, and non-semiotic structures vanish into metaphorical noise.
This is the third pressure point: the boundary problem. Where and how does relational ontology preserve the distinction between meaning and value without smuggling one into the other?
1. Why the Boundary Matters
The distinction is subtle but critical:
-
Semiotic meaning – processes through which construal produces differences, significance, and interpretive structure.
-
Non-semiotic value – coordination, regulation, survival, optimisation, social stability. These are relational, but not constitutive of symbolic meaning.
Conflating the two is tempting. After all, both involve relational processes and constraints. But to do so collapses explanatory categories. It undermines one of relational ontology’s defining principles: that the semiotic is emergent, not universal.
In short: the boundary is a structural necessity. Its failure is catastrophic for conceptual clarity.
2. Sources of Boundary Pressure
Three sources threaten the distinction:
-
Structural Overlap – Semiotic and value systems operate in the same relational field. Social coordination, for instance, may produce both meaningful acts and functional outcomes simultaneously. Separating them requires careful analysis.
-
Interpretive Drift – Analysts may unconsciously interpret non-semiotic dynamics as semiotic meaning. The very act of construal risks colonising phenomena it observes.
-
Emergent Coupling – Sometimes semiotic and value systems are tightly coupled in practice: norms (value) emerge from discourse (meaning), and discourse adapts to norms. The coupling produces apparent hybrid processes, tempting collapse into a single category.
Boundary pressure arises not from theory alone, but from the relational density of the systems themselves.
3. Guarding the Boundary
Relational ontology prescribes several strategies:
-
Analytic separation – Conceptually distinguish semiotic and non-semiotic systems, even if they co-occur.
-
Functional mapping – Identify the relational function: is this interaction generating symbolic differentiation (meaning), or merely coordinating behaviour (value)?
-
Emergent tracing – Track processes from inception to outcome. Semiotic meaning emerges through construal; value emerges through coordination and constraint. The trajectories are distinct even when overlapping.
This is delicate work. Too coarse an analysis → conflation. Too rigid → artificial separation. The tension is itself a microcosm of relational constraint.
4. Examples of Boundary Tension
-
Social Norms – Consider a ritual in a community. The act may coordinate behaviour (value) while simultaneously producing symbolic significance (meaning). The cut must discern which aspects instantiate semiotic processes and which are merely functional. Misclassification risks semiotic inflation.
-
Language Usage – In speech, some patterns reflect pragmatic constraints (efficiency, coordination) while others generate symbolic differentiation (metaphor, narrative structure). Relational ontology must respect the boundary: not every constraint is meaning.
-
Biological Systems – Heartbeats, hormone cycles, neural regulation — all relational, all patterned — but not semiotic. Treating them as symbolic obscures the distinction and undermines explanatory clarity.
In each case, the boundary is visible only through careful attention to relational mechanisms, not by assuming an intrinsic separation.
5. The Risk of Collapse
Boundary collapse occurs when semiotic meaning is assumed to pervade all relational processes. Consequences:
-
Conceptual inflation – Everything becomes “meaningful,” leaving no way to differentiate symbolic emergence from functional coordination.
-
Epistemic flattening – Value and meaning are treated interchangeably, weakening the model’s analytic power.
-
Structural contradiction – Relational ontology presupposes that construal is constitutive, but if all relational interactions are construed as semiotic, the distinction between system and instance is destabilised.
Collapse is subtle. It doesn’t always produce an immediate contradiction; often, it manifests as interpretive drift — a creeping semioticisation of non-semiotic systems.
6. Pressure-Testing the Boundary
To interrogate the boundary:
-
Track relational function – Does this process generate symbolic differentiation, or merely coordinate behaviour?
-
Observe emergent coupling – Where semiotic and value systems overlap, can we trace the distinct trajectories of each?
-
Examine cuts across strata – Are we presupposing semiotic status, or observing emergence?
By pressing on these points, we stress-test the ontology’s capacity to maintain analytic clarity under relational density.
7. Boundary as a Locus of Trembling
The boundary is invisible yet real. It is a wire running through relational space:
-
Too rigid → artificial segmentation, losing the fluidity of real relational interaction.
-
Too loose → semiotic colonisation, risking conceptual collapse.
The system must hold the boundary dynamically. The lattice of potential, the cuts, the emergent constraints — all must cohere without conflating meaning with value. The trembling is subtle, but structurally decisive.
In a sense, the boundary is the ontology’s ethical spine: it preserves conceptual integrity against interpretive temptation. Its failure would undermine the very logic of relationality.
8. Closing
The cut individuates; constraint shapes; and the boundary preserves distinction. Together, they form the skeleton of relational ontology under pressure.
Yet each is fragile. Each is a site of structural vulnerability. The ontology must endure these points of tension to remain coherent.
Next, we turn to empirical friction, the fourth pressure point: can relational ontology withstand observation, measurement, and practical application? Can it generate scenarios that risk its own collapse, or is it immune, self-sealing, interpretive rather than operative?
This is the moment where theory confronts the world, where potential meets instance under the harsh light of empirical possibility. It is where relational ontology will either tremble or persist.
No comments:
Post a Comment