A familiar move now presents itself.
If:
- meaning is selection among alternatives,
then perhaps:
- complex meaning arises by combining selections.
This seems obvious.
It is also insufficient.
1. The temptation of combination
The standard account proceeds as follows:
- select elements from different sets,
- combine them into sequences or structures,
- and derive meaning from their arrangement.
This gives us:
- strings,
- constructions,
- compositional structures.
But this assumes:
that selections can be treated as independent units.
2. Why selections are not units
A selection is not:
- a thing,
- not an element,
- not an object that can be combined.
It is:
a position within a system of alternatives.
As such:
- its identity is relational,
- its value depends on its paradigm,
- and it cannot be detached from that organisation.
To treat it as a unit is to:
collapse system into inventory.
3. The failure of aggregation
If selections are treated as units, then:
- combination becomes aggregation,
- structure becomes arrangement,
- and meaning becomes the sum of parts.
But this fails immediately.
Because:
meaning is not additive.
The relation between selections:
- cannot be reduced to adjacency,
- nor to accumulation.
4. The necessity of relational structure
What is required is not combination, but:
relation across selections.
That is:
- selections must be organised such that:
- they function together,
- they constrain one another,
- and they co-constitute a single construal.
This is not:
- putting things together,
but:
structuring a configuration.
5. Syntagmatic organisation
This introduces a second dimension:
syntagmatic organisation.
Not as:
- sequences of elements,
but as:
relations among selections across paradigms.
In this dimension:
- selections are interdependent,
- their values are modified by their co-occurrence,
- and meaning emerges from their configuration.
6. The interdependence of dimensions
We now have:
- paradigmatic relations (choice within sets),
- syntagmatic relations (structure across selections).
These are not:
- separate components,
- nor independent layers.
They are:
mutually defining dimensions of the same system.
7. Why structure cannot be reduced to order
It is tempting to equate:
- syntagmatic organisation with sequence or order.
But order is only:
- one possible manifestation.
The deeper requirement is:
relational constraint across selections.
This may be realised as:
- sequence,
- hierarchy,
- dependency,
but none of these defines it.
8. Construal as configuration
We can now refine construal further.
Construal is not:
- a single selection,
- nor a set of selections,
but:
a configuration of interrelated selections across paradigms.
This configuration:
- is structured,
- internally constrained,
- and systemically defined.
9. The emergence of structure
Structure, then, is not:
- imposed on elements,
- nor derived from combination.
It is:
the organisation of relations among selections.
This organisation:
- defines what combinations are possible,
- constrains how selections interact,
- and enables complex meaning.
10. Why this cannot be grounded in value
As before, we cannot explain this by:
- functional needs,
- communicative purposes,
- or behavioural coordination.
Because these:
- operate outside the semiotic,
- and presuppose meaning rather than explain it.
Structure must be:
intrinsic to the system of choice.
11. The emerging architecture
We can now state the architecture more fully.
A semiotic system consists of:
- paradigmatic organisation (alternatives as choice),
- syntagmatic organisation (relations across selections),
together forming:
a structured potential for configuring meaning.
12. What this enables
With both dimensions in place:
- meaning can be:
- differentiated (through choice),
- and constructed (through configuration),
This allows:
- complexity,
- variation,
- and generativity.
Without either dimension:
- the system collapses.
13. What remains
But one final problem remains.
We now have:
- choices organised into paradigms,
- selections configured through relations,
yet we have not specified:
what these configurations are configurations of.
What is being:
- distinguished,
- related,
- and construed?
We cannot answer:
- “the world,”
- “experience,”
- or “reality,”
without reintroducing external grounding.
So the question sharpens:
what is the domain of construal, if it cannot be presupposed?
Until this is answered, the semiotic remains formally specified—
but not yet anchored in its own terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment