Up to this point, the analysis has been directed outward.
And throughout, one assumption has remained largely intact:
that there is a subject in whom all this takes place.
A human who:
- believes
- interprets
- participates
- commits
A point of unity beneath the fractured systems.
This assumption now has to go.
1. The last refuge of unity
- in consciousness
- in intention
- in belief (now quietly reintroduced)
- in the subject as integrating centre
But this is the same move, displaced.
The illicit unity has not been removed.
It has been internalised.
2. The subject as explanatory shortcut
The human subject is typically invoked as that which:
- holds meanings
- adopts values
- aligns belief and practice
It is the presumed site where:
construal and coordination finally come together.
But notice what this does.
And the question disappears.
3. Re-cutting the human
If we take the prior analysis seriously, this position is untenable.
There is no reason to assume that:
- semiotic construal
- value coordination
So we cut again.
The human is not a unified subject.It is an intersection of heterogeneous systems.
An intersection.
4. Meaning does not reside “inside”
From the perspective of meaning:
- the human does not contain meanings
- it participates in semiotic processes of construal
What appears as “having a belief” is:
- the activation of certain construals
- within a broader semiotic potential
- under specific conditions
There is no internal repository of meanings.
Only participation in their actualisation.
5. Value does not originate “inside”
From the perspective of value:
- the human does not generate norms or commitments
- it is positioned within systems of coordination
What appears as “choosing to act” is:
- alignment with patterns of expectation
- shaped by repetition, sanction, and role
There is no internal source of obligation.
Only participation in coordinated structures.
6. No point of convergence
Crucially, these do not meet.
There is no privileged site where meaning and value are unified.
What we call “a person” is simply where:
- semiotic processes
- and value coordinations
intersect in practice.
7. The production of interiority
So why does unity feel so immediate?
Why does it seem obvious that:
- I believe this
- I choose that
- I act because I think
Because the intersection is retrospectively reconstrued as an interior.
- coordination is redescribed as intention
- construal is redescribed as representation
- their coupling is redescribed as belief
The subject is the narrative we tell about the intersection.
Not its ground.
8. Cracks in the subject
Once seen, familiar phenomena take on a different shape:
- saying one thing, doing another
- acting without understanding
- holding incompatible “beliefs”
- shifting identities across contexts
These are not failures of a unified subject.
They are normal effects of intersecting systems that do not converge.
9. Responsibility without unity?
At this point, an objection presses in:
If the subject dissolves, what happens to:
- responsibility
- agency
- accountability
The answer is not to restore unity.
But to recognise that these, too, belong to value systems.
They are:
- modes of coordination
- ways of stabilising expectation
- mechanisms for regulating behaviour
Not properties of an underlying subject.
10. The analytic consequence
The human is no longer the starting point.
It becomes an effect of relation.
We do not begin with:
- individuals who believe and act
We begin with:
- systems of meaning
- systems of value
11. The final displacement
With this, the last refuge of unity collapses.
- not in religion
- not in belief
- not in myth or ritual
- not even in the human
What remains is more austere:
a field of heterogeneous systems,intersecting without ground,coupled without unity,stabilised through repetition and misrecognition.
And religion?
It was never the centre of this analysis.
Only the most visible case.
No comments:
Post a Comment