In the previous post, we reframed individuation in terms of variation and likelihood. Rather than producing fixed entities, individuation shapes gradients of tendency within a system: some patterns become more likely, some positions more influential, some configurations more stable.
We now return to a question introduced earlier in the series:
What happens when these patterns of likelihood — in meaning and in value — coincide in the same event?
1. Two Fields of Likelihood
We begin by recalling the two domains:
- Semiotic systems (meaning):Variation is patterned across the reservoir, giving rise to repertoires — regions where certain meanings are more likely.
- Social systems (value):Participation and influence are unevenly distributed across the collective, giving rise to individuals — positions where action is more likely to concentrate.
Each domain, then, is structured as a field of uneven likelihood.
Crucially, these fields are orthogonal:
- one organises meaning
- the other organises participation
2. Alignment Without Collapse
In any given event, both domains are in play:
- a semiotic pattern is enacted
- a participant occupies a social position
Sometimes, these align in a striking way:
- a highly stabilised repertoire is enacted
- by a participant occupying a highly concentrated social position
This is what we can now describe more precisely as:
an alignment of concentrations of likelihood across domains
That is:
- a region of high semiotic likelihood
- coincides with
- a region of high social likelihood
3. The Temptation of Explanation
Such alignments are often taken to imply explanation:
- that social prominence produces semiotic patterning
- or that distinctive meaning generates social influence
But this is a mistake.
Alignment does not imply causation.
What we are observing is:
- two independently structured fields
- whose patterns of likelihood happen to coincide in an event
4. Co-Actualisation Revisited
We can now refine the earlier notion of co-actualisation:
Co-actualisation is the joint realisation of semiotic and social likelihoods in a single event, without collapse between them.
Seen in this light:
- events are not the source of individuation
- they are sites where independently structured tendencies intersect
This explains why:
- some alignments appear regular
- others appear surprising
Both are outcomes of probabilistic structure, not direct causation.
5. Reading Alignment Carefully
Understanding alignment in this way allows us to read events more precisely:
- A highly visible participant enacting a familiar repertoire→ alignment of high likelihood in both domains
- A marginal participant producing an unexpected pattern→ low social likelihood, low semiotic likelihood
- A prominent participant producing a novel pattern→ high social likelihood, low semiotic likelihood
Each case can be described without collapsing one domain into the other.
6. Why This Matters
By focusing on alignment of likelihoods, we can:
- avoid attributing semiotic differentiation to social position
- avoid attributing social influence to symbolic novelty
- describe events as intersections of structured tendencies
This preserves the key insight of the series:
meaning and value are distinct, even when they appear together
Takeaway
When concentrations align, we are not witnessing a fusion of domains, but a coincidence of structured likelihoods.
In the next post, we turn to allocation, revisiting it in light of likelihood, to clarify how uneven distributions shape what tends to occur — without implying ownership or control.
No comments:
Post a Comment