Up to this point, we have spoken as if the terms of the relation were given:
- the semiotic
- value
- context
Each treated as a distinct organisation, already constituted, then brought into coupling.
This was a necessary staging.
It is now no longer tenable.
Because a contradiction has been quietly accumulating.
We have said:
- the semiotic is internally sufficient
- value is internally sufficient
- coupling constrains their actualisation
But if each is fully what it is independently, then coupling can only:
- relate already constituted entities
- or limit what they do without affecting what they are
In that case, coupling becomes secondary.
It operates after individuation.
And we are back to a familiar structure:
- entities first
- relations second
This is exactly what we have been refusing.
So the position must be pushed further.
Not cautiously. Completely.
There are no pre-individuated relata.
This is where most accounts stop.
They accept:
- non-reductive relation
- mutual constraint
But they retain:
- independently constituted domains
We cannot.
Because if the domains are fully constituted prior to relation, then relation cannot be constitutive of them. It becomes an external linkage—however weak.
So we reverse the order.
Not:
- distinct entities that then relate
But:
distinction as something that emerges in and through relation.
This must be handled carefully, because it risks collapsing back into the very unity we have excluded.
We are not saying:
- everything is one, then differentiates
There is no underlying unity.
So what are we saying?
Only this:
distinct organisations are what they are only in and through the constraints of coupling.
This is co-individuation.
1. Not Mutual Influence
Co-individuation is not:
- interaction
- feedback
- reciprocal causation
So nothing like influence can be invoked.
2. Not Simultaneous Formation in a Shared Field
It is not:
- two things forming together in the same space
- processes unfolding within a common environment
There is no shared field.
No space in which co-individuation takes place.
3. Not Reduction in Disguise
It is not:
- meaning emerging from value
- value emerging from meaning
So what remains?
A claim that is as strict as it is difficult to hold:
the semiotic and value are only what they are in their coupled actualisation—and have no independent completion outside it.
This does not mean they are identical.
Distinction is not weakened—it is intensified.
Because now:
- the semiotic is nothing other than organised construal under constraint
- value is nothing other than organised selectivity under constraint
And the constraint is not external to either.
It is what makes them what they are.
This is the reversal.
We no longer have:
- systems that enter into relation
We have:
- relation that is constitutive of distinct systems
But without:
- collapsing them into one
- or grounding them in a shared basis
This is where the position becomes genuinely unstable for most readers.
Because it violates two assumptions at once:
- that things must exist before they relate
- that relation requires something in common
We deny both.
And yet, we must still account for:
- the persistence of distinction
- the stability of organisations
- the repeatability of patterns
If everything is only in actualisation, and actualisation is always coupled, then why does anything appear stable at all?
Why do:
- meanings seem to persist
- value systems appear structured
- contexts appear recognisable
The answer cannot be:
- underlying structures that endure
- systems that exist independently of instances
Because that would undo everything we have established.
So the stability must be rethought as well.
Not as persistence of entities.
But as:
the reproducibility of constraint under coupling.
This is the final turn before we close.
Because it allows us to say:
- there is no grounding
- no underlying substrate
- no pre-existing system
And yet:
- relation is not ephemeral
- constraint is not arbitrary
- organisation is not illusory
We are now in a position to complete the argument.
Not by resolving the tension—but by showing that it cannot be resolved without collapse.
No comments:
Post a Comment