At this point, the semiotic system has been specified without remainder.
There is:
- no appeal to signs,
- no grounding in the world,
- no derivation from value,
- no external domain of reference.
Which leaves a conclusion that is difficult to avoid:
meaning does not exist outside the semiotic system.
1. The last illusion
It is still tempting to suppose that:
- meanings exist independently,
- the system expresses or encodes them,
- and analysis recovers what is already there.
This assumption is rarely examined.
Because it appears:
self-evident.
2. Why independent meaning is impossible
If meaning existed independently, it would require:
- determinate identity,
- stable distinction,
- definable relations.
But these are precisely:
what the semiotic system provides.
Without:
- paradigmatic contrast,
- syntagmatic configuration,
- systemic constraint,
there is:
no basis for meaning to exist at all.
3. The dependence of meaning
Meaning depends on:
- the organisation of alternatives,
- the relations among selections,
- the constraints that define distinctions.
That is:
meaning is a function of the system.
Not:
- contained within it,
- not carried by it,
but:
constituted by it.
4. No content behind form
The idea that:
- forms carry meaning,
- expressions encode content,
- signs point to meanings,
depends on:
a separation between form and content.
But no such separation has been established.
What exists is:
configuration within a system of choices.
There is no:
- hidden content,
- underlying meaning,
- or prior substance.
5. The disappearance of reference
Reference, in its usual sense:
- pointing to objects,
- denoting entities,
- representing states of affairs,
cannot be fundamental.
Because it assumes:
- that objects are already given as meaningful.
Instead:
reference is an effect of systemic relations.
It is:
- how construal appears when stabilised,
- not what grounds it.
6. Meaning as relation
We can now state the result.
Meaning is:
the relational organisation of distinctions within a semiotic system.
It is:
- not a thing,
- not a content,
- not an entity.
It is:
a mode of organisation.
7. Why meaning cannot be located
Because meaning is relational:
- it cannot be located in:
- words,
- forms,
- or elements,
- nor in:
- minds,
- intentions,
- or experiences.
It exists:
only in the relations that constitute it.
8. The illusion of recovery
Interpretation is often treated as:
- recovering meaning,
- uncovering what is hidden,
- or accessing underlying content.
But there is nothing to recover.
There is only:
the enactment of construal within a system.
9. The consequence for analysis
Analysis cannot:
- extract meaning from expressions,
- identify content behind form,
- or map language onto reality.
It can only:
trace the organisation of distinctions and relations.
That is:
- how alternatives are structured,
- how selections are configured,
- how constraints operate.
10. The collapse of representation
With this, representation collapses.
There is no:
- mapping from language to world,
- encoding of pre-existing meaning,
- correspondence between sign and referent.
There is only:
the constitution of meaning within the system.
11. The position secured
We can now state the conclusion without qualification:
meaning has no existence outside the semiotic system that constitutes it.
Everything else:
- presupposes this,
- depends on this,
- and cannot explain it.
12. What this excludes
This excludes:
- representational theories of meaning
- grounding accounts of the semiotic
- derivations from value or function
- appeals to pre-existing content
None of these can be maintained.
13. The final consequence
We end, then, with the position forced upon us:
meaning is not something the system has.meaning is what the system is.
And once that is accepted:
nothing outside the semiotic can be allowed to explain it.
Which leaves us with a final, uncomfortable recognition:
there is no way out of the semiotic.
Only:
further into its organisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment