If meaning is not exhausted by:
- structure (pattern),
- or behaviour (use),
then a stronger candidate appears:
normativity.
Meaning is no longer located in what happens, but in:
- what ought to happen,
- what counts as correct,
- what is governed by rules.
This seems to introduce exactly what earlier accounts lacked:
standards of correctness.
1. The Appeal of Norms
Normativity appears to solve a key problem:
- behaviour alone is too flat
- structure alone is too inert
Norms introduce:
- distinction between right and wrong use,
- evaluation of performance,
- accountability within practice.
Meaning now seems to require:
being subject to rules.
2. From Use to Correctness
The shift is subtle but significant:
- not just what is done
- but what is correctly done
Meaning becomes:
- rule-governed activity,
- participation under standards,
- inferential or practical commitment.
At this point, it appears that:
normativity completes the picture.
3. The Hidden Assumption
The crucial assumption is:
correctness introduces meaning.
But this conflates two distinct levels:
- evaluation of activity
- and the relation of construal
A system can:
- distinguish correct from incorrect behaviour
- enforce rules
- stabilise norms
without anything being:
taken as anything.
4. Rules Without Semiosis
Rules can:
- regulate actions,
- constrain possibilities,
- and organise behaviour across contexts.
But rules, in themselves, specify:
- conditions of application,not:
interpretation.
They determine:
- what is allowed or required,
not:
what something is as.
5. Correctness Is Not Aboutness
A key distinction emerges:
- correctness concerns compliance
- construal concerns relation as
An action can be:
- perfectly correct relative to a rule,without anything being:
semantically active.
Correctness evaluates:
- fit within a system.
It does not generate:
semantic orientation.
6. The Social Amplification
Normativity gains force because it is:
- social,
- distributed,
- and enforceable.
Rules are:
- shared,
- learned,
- maintained through interaction.
This makes normativity appear to be:
the locus of meaning itself.
But what is actually secured is:
- coordination of evaluation,not:
construal.
7. The Inferential Extension
In inferentialist accounts, this becomes sharper:
- meaning = role in inferential network
- understanding = mastery of inferential transitions
But inference itself is:
- norm-governed transition between commitments
It governs:
- what follows from what,
not:
what anything is as.
8. The Re-description of Meaning
Once again, substitution occurs:
- meaning becomes correctness conditions
- understanding becomes rule mastery
- interpretation becomes normative responsiveness
But at no point is it shown that:
rules produce construal.
Instead:
rules regulate activity that is already presupposed.
9. Why Normativity Fails to Close the Gap
Normativity increases:
- structure of evaluation,
- precision of discrimination,
- stability of coordination.
But it does not introduce:
the “as”-relation.
The gap remains untouched:
- from rule-followingto
- aboutness
There is no bridge.
10. The Critical Misstep
The central misstep is:
treating governance as generation.
Because rules govern:
- behaviour under conditions of correctness
it is assumed they generate:
- meaning itself.
But governance presupposes:
something to govern.
It does not produce:
semantic relation.
Closing Formulation
Norms govern what counts as correct within a practice.
They organise behaviour,stabilise coordination,and enable evaluation.But they do not generate construal.
Correctness is not aboutness.
And no system of rules, however sophisticated,produces the relation in which something is taken as something.
The third substitution is now exposed:
- structure → use → normativity
Next, we move to the most fully developed refuge:
practice itself.
Where everything is gathered together.
No comments:
Post a Comment