The distinction has been drawn.
The temptation, now, is to treat construal as a refined form of selection:
- a more complex discrimination,
- a more flexible categorisation,
- a more integrated coordination of value.
This temptation must be refused.
Because it rests on a fundamental misidentification.
1. The residual continuity
Even after the cut, a residual assumption persists.
It takes the form:
if a system can sufficiently differentiate, stabilise, and coordinate its own states, then it can begin to treat one state as standing for another.
In other words:
- construal is taken to be selection plus something.
But what is that “something”?
If it is:
- more distinctions,
- more coordination,
- more regulation,
then nothing has changed.
We remain within value.
2. What selection actually does
Let us restate the structure precisely.
A system organised by value:
- differentiates among its possible states,
- biases its transitions in relation to those differences,
- stabilises patterns that sustain its continuation.
Even at its most complex:
- categories group states by consequence,
- regulation coordinates their operation,
- activation deploys them flexibly,
- trajectories extend them across time.
At no point does selection:
- introduce a relation of one thing as another,
- nor establish any structure that could support such a relation.
Selection operates on:
what leads to continuation.
It does not operate on:
what counts as what.
3. The missing relation
We can now sharpen the gap.
For construal to exist, there must be a relation in which:
- one element functions in place of, or as, another.
This is not:
- causal influence,
- correlation,
- or coordination.
It is:
substitutional in form.
Something must be able to:
- stand for,
- be taken as,
- or function as something else.
Nothing in the organisation of selection produces this.
4. Why substitution cannot be derived
It might be suggested that, at sufficient complexity:
- stable correlations among states could come to function as substitution.
This fails for a simple reason.
Correlation remains:
- a relation between states.
Substitution requires:
- a relation in which one state is operated on as another.
No amount of:
- repeated co-occurrence,
- reliable association,
- or coordinated activation
transforms one into the other.
Because:
correlation does not alter the functional role of the elements involved.
Substitution does.
5. The failure of “as if”
At this point, an “as if” explanation often appears.
One might say:
- the system behaves as if one state stands for another,
- it responds as if it were representing.
But “as if” is not an explanation.
It is:
a projection from the observer.
The system:
- responds to patterns,
- modulates its activity,
- sustains trajectories.
It does not:
- construe.
6. The necessity of functional reorganisation
We can now state the requirement more sharply.
For construal to exist:
- the system must be organised such thatthe role of an element is not exhausted by its immediate contribution to continuation.
Instead:
- elements must be able to function in roles that are defined in relation to other elements.
This is a reorganisation of function.
Not:
- what the system does,
- but how its operations are structured.
7. From consequence to relation
Value is organised around:
consequences for continuation.
Construal requires organisation around:
relations among elements, independent of immediate consequence.
The system must now:
- operate not only on what sustains it,
- but on structured relations that can be enacted independently of immediate outcomes.
8. The first positive condition
We can now state the first necessary condition for meaning:
the system must support operations in which elements can be treated as standing in relations that are not reducible to their direct effects on continuation.
This is minimal, but decisive.
Without it:
- no substitution,
- no standing-for,
- no construal.
9. Why this is a cut
This condition cannot be obtained by:
- refining selection,
- extending categorisation,
- or increasing regulatory complexity.
Because all of these remain tied to:
the organisation of consequence.
What is required is:
the organisation of relational function.
This is the cut.
10. The difficulty introduced
With this condition, a new problem appears.
If elements can:
- function in relation to one another,
- independently of immediate consequence,
then:
how are these relations stabilised?
Because:
- without stabilisation, they collapse back into transient correlations,
- and construal disappears.
11. The task ahead
The next step, then, is to determine:
how relations of standing-for can be maintained, reproduced, and integrated within a system.
This will require:
- a new form of organisation,
- one that binds elements into structured relations,
- and sustains those relations across activity.
12. The position advanced
We can now move beyond the initial refusal.
Not only does meaning not emerge from value—
it requires a form of organisation in which selection is no longer sufficient to determine function.
Something else must organise the system.
And that “something else” is what we now have to make explicit.
No comments:
Post a Comment