In the previous post, we examined how concentrations of likelihood in semiotic and social systems can align in events, producing co-actualisations without implying causation.
We now return to a concept that often invites misunderstanding: allocation.
If individuation shapes what tends to occur, allocation concerns how that tendency is unevenly distributed. But to understand this clearly, we must separate allocation from a deeply ingrained assumption — that of ownership.
1. The Usual Interpretation of Allocation
Allocation is often understood in terms such as:
- who has access
- who controls resources
- who possesses influence
This language suggests:
- discrete entities
- transferable quantities
- clear boundaries of possession
In short, it frames allocation as a matter of ownership.
But this way of thinking obscures the structure we have been developing.
2. Allocation as Distribution of Likelihood
If we remain consistent with our earlier formulation, allocation can be reframed more precisely as:
the uneven distribution of likelihood across a system
This applies in both domains:
- Semiotic (meaning):Some patterns are more likely to be selected, combined, or stabilised than others.
- Social (value):Some positions are more likely to concentrate participation, influence, or alignment than others.
Allocation, then, is not about who “has” something, but about where likelihood accumulates.
3. No Ownership of Potential
A crucial consequence follows:
Potential is not owned.
- A repertoire is not “possessed” by a participant
- A social position does not “contain” influence as a substance
Instead:
- semiotic patterns are available within the system’s structured potential
- social influence is an effect of patterned relations within the collective
4. Allocation Without Entities
Once we remove the assumption of ownership, allocation can be described without recourse to fixed entities:
- not: a resource transferred from A to B
- but: a shift in where likelihood is concentrated
For example:
- a change in discourse practices→ alters which semiotic patterns are more likely
- a reorganisation of roles→ alters which positions concentrate influence
5. Relation to Individuation
We can now see how allocation and individuation relate:
- Individuation: shapes the patterning of variation
- Allocation: shapes the distribution of likelihood within that patterning
Together, they determine:
- which patterns tend to stabilise (semiotic)
- which positions tend to concentrate participation (social)
But neither introduces ownership, nor depends on discrete units.
6. Why This Matters
Reframing allocation in this way allows us to:
- avoid conflating participation with possession
- describe systems in terms of distribution rather than transfer
- maintain the distinction between persons and potentials
It also prevents a subtle but persistent error:
- attributing the structure of the system to the properties of its participants
Instead, we see participants as located within distributions, not as owners of them.
Takeaway
Allocation is not about who owns what.It is about how likelihood is distributed across a system.
In the next post, we will draw these threads together by examining perspective, asking how the same system can appear as individuals, patterns, or distributions depending on how it is viewed.
No comments:
Post a Comment