Once the semiotic is no longer defined by signs, a second assumption moves into place.
That a semiotic system consists of:
- elements,
- units,
- or items,
organised into:
- structures,
- inventories,
- or networks.
This assumption is no less problematic than the first.
1. The temptation of elements
It is natural to suppose that:
- the system contains units,
- these units are combined or contrasted,
- and meaning arises from their organisation.
This gives us:
- lexicons,
- repertoires,
- sets of forms.
But this reverses the order of explanation.
Because it assumes:
that the elements exist prior to the system that organises them.
2. Why elements cannot be primitive
An “element” in a semiotic system is:
- identifiable,
- repeatable,
- and contrastive.
But each of these properties depends on:
relations within a system.
- Identifiability requires contrast
- Repeatability requires role
- Contrast requires alternatives
Without these:
there are no elements—only occurrences.
3. The dependency of identity
An element has identity only insofar as:
it is distinguished from other possible elements.
This means:
- its identity is not intrinsic,
- not given by its form,
- not determined by its physical properties.
It is:
relationally constituted.
4. No inventory without system
An inventory presupposes:
- stable units,
- countable items,
- definable boundaries.
But these are not given.
They are:
products of systemic organisation.
To begin with an inventory is to:
- assume what must be derived,
- and treat outcomes as primitives.
5. The failure of combinatorics alone
It might be proposed that:
- elements combine according to rules,
- and that meaning emerges from these combinations.
But combination presupposes:
- identifiable units,
- stable identities,
- and structured relations.
Without these:
combination is undefined.
Combinatorics cannot generate:
the system it requires.
6. From elements to relations
We must therefore reverse the direction.
Not:
- elements → relations → system,
but:
relations → system → elements.
That is:
- relations are primary,
- system is the organisation of those relations,
- and elements are stabilised positions within that organisation.
7. The nature of these relations
The relations at issue are not:
- physical connections,
- causal links,
- or associative ties.
They are:
relations of contrast and choice.
That is:
- what could be selected instead,
- how alternatives are differentiated,
- and how possibilities are organised.
8. System as potential
From this, system can be specified more precisely.
It is not:
- a collection of things,
but:
a structured potential of alternatives.
This potential:
- defines what can be construed,
- organises how distinctions are made,
- and constrains what counts as meaningful variation.
9. Elements as realised options
Within this system:
- what we call “elements” are:
- selections,
- stabilisations,
- recurrent positions within the network of alternatives.
They are:
realised options.
Not:
- prior units,
- not independent components.
10. The displacement of substance
This removes any appeal to:
- substance,
- form as given,
- or intrinsic properties.
What matters is not:
- what something is made of,
but:
what it contrasts with and what it can substitute for.
11. Why this cannot be grounded in value
At this point, a familiar move suggests itself.
To ground the system in:
- functional needs,
- biological purposes,
- or social coordination.
But this would reintroduce:
value as explanatory basis.
Which has already been excluded.
The organisation of alternatives must therefore be:
internally determined.
12. The problem sharpened
We are now left with a more precise question.
If a semiotic system is:
- a structured potential of alternatives,
- organised through relations of contrast and choice,
then:
what organises those relations?
Not:
- external function,
- not behavioural constraint,
- not biological necessity.
But:
within the semiotic itself.
13. What comes next
The next step is unavoidable.
We must identify:
the principle by which alternatives are structured into a system of meaning.
This will not be:
- a list of elements,
- nor a set of rules,
but:
a mode of organisation specific to the semiotic.
Until that is specified, “system” remains an empty term.
And the semiotic remains underdefined.
No comments:
Post a Comment