1 Light as System
We often speak of light as something we see, or something that makes things visible. But what if light is not merely a phenomenon, nor even a medium, but a system—a structured potential for construal itself?
Not the light we see, but the light we see through. Not the glow of a flame or the shimmer of a screen, but the deeper condition by which any perceptual field becomes possible. In this sense, light is not what is revealed—it is the very possibility of revealing.
From Event to System
In a relational ontology, we distinguish between:
Instance: the event of meaning (what is said, done, seen),
System: the structured potential from which such events are selected.
Applied to light:
The illumination of a room, the flicker of a candle, the spectrum of a sunset—these are instantiations.
But behind them lies a system: a potential structured in such a way that events of light can happen, be perceived, and construed as meaningful.
This system is not physical in the narrow sense—it is not the electromagnetic spectrum itself. Rather, it is relational potential: the set of distinctions, affordances, and constraints through which light can enter into construal at all.
Light as Ontological Architecture
To say light is a system is to say it plays the role of ontological scaffolding:
It enables differentiation: of figure from ground, of this from that, of now from then.
It enables orientation: locating a subject in a field of possible percepts.
It enables salience: not everything is equally visible; the system constrains what may be attended to.
Just as the linguistic system constrains what can be said, the system of light constrains what can be seen, foregrounded, made available to language in the first place.
Light, in this sense, is construal-before-construal. It is the limit-condition of perceptual structuring. It is what allows the perceptual field to be differentiated, ordered, and ultimately symbolised.
No Neutral Light
Once we see light as a system, we can no longer treat it as neutral. Just as language brings ideological weight in its categories and frames, so too does light:
What is lit is granted presence.
What is shadowed is withheld.
Who controls the light—literally or metaphorically—exerts control over the field of possible meanings.
This has powerful implications for politics, media, representation, and aesthetics. Control of light is control of legibility. We might even say: to be illuminated is to be inscribed in a field of potential construal.
To manipulate light—where it falls, how it moves, what it reveals—is to manipulate the architecture of what may be seen, known, or acted upon.
From Physics to Meaning
Even physics, in its most abstract modes, begins to echo this:
Light defines the structure of spacetime.
Light defines the limits of simultaneity.
Light defines the frame of measurement.
It does not merely transmit information; it structures the conditions under which information is even imaginable.
And this aligns with a relational model of meaning: not built from objects, but from cuts in a continuous field of potential—a field in which light is not just one phenomenon among others, but the systemic enabler of all appearance.
The Light We Never See
We do not see the system of light. We only see through its instances. Yet without it, nothing appears. Nothing can be construed.
It is the light that is never seen, but from which all seeing flows. The invisible system beneath all illumination. The potential from which perception is cut.
To speak of light as system, then, is to speak not of brightness or vision, but of structured relationality—of the deep condition under which construal becomes possible.
And perhaps this is what we sense in the most profound moments of clarity—not a flash of insight, but a glimpse of the field from which insight emerges. Not what the light shows us, but that the light is.
It is not what appears before the world. It is what makes the world appear.
2 What Difference Makes
Meaning begins in difference. Not in objects or ideas, but in the act of drawing a distinction. To construe is to cut—to slice potential into contrast, relation, orientation. But for difference to matter, it must be perceptible. And that requires light.
Before there can be meaning, there must be salience. Something must stand out from something else. Something must come forward. This is not merely a perceptual process—it is an ontological precondition for semiosis. And it is made possible by a structured field: a field of visibility, regulated by the system of light.
Salience is Not Given
We often treat attention as a matter of choice—what we focus on, what we notice. But attention is already structured. The world doesn’t present itself all at once. It is sorted, foregrounded, backgrounded. Salience is not a property of things; it is a relation in a system.
The flicker of a flame. The glint of a surface. The blur in peripheral vision. All of these are events of light, but more than that, they are semiotic opportunities. They give the perceiver a cut to follow, a possible construal.
Light makes these cuts available. Not by illuminating everything, but by illuminating differently. It enables contrast. And contrast enables distinction.
Difference is the Root of Construal
No construal without contrast. No contrast without difference. No difference without light.
We often think of meaning as an association between a sign and a referent. But before signs can work, a field of differentiated potential must already be in place. Meaning begins not in reference, but in difference that makes a difference.
This was Gregory Bateson's insight. But in a relational ontology, we deepen it: a difference only makes a difference if it is construable—if it can be cut from the field of potential, held in relation, and enacted.
This is what light does. It does not simply reveal—it structures the field of possible contrast. It is not neutral. It selects. It renders some differences salient, and others invisible. And those selections ripple up into semiotic systems.
Contrast, Category, Code
Semiotic systems metabolise perceptual contrasts into symbolic categories. We take the luminous spectrum and divide it into colours. We take tonal shifts and hear music. We take spatial edges and make images. All of this begins in contrast made visible.
These contrasts are then coded: red for danger, blue for calm, yellow for urgency. But before code, there is cut. And before the cut can happen, the field must be lit.
So the first act of semiosis is not naming. It is cleaving.
The child does not first label the world—they first orient to difference. The warm from the cold. The mother’s face from the shadow behind her. The tone of voice that comforts or alarms. Meaning flows from the play of difference within the field of illumination.
The Light That Connects
Where would meaning be,if not for light—threading difference into relation,casting contrast across the field,allowing one to point, and another to see?Light is not what we look at.It is what lets us look with.It is the silent accord betweengesture and gaze,mark and meaning,self and other.No construal without contrast.No contrast without difference.No difference without light.We do not speak in the dark.We speak because of the light.
Toward the Next Cut
If light makes salience possible, and salience makes difference construable, then we are never construing in a vacuum. We are always already within a system—a field of patterned potential that constrains what can be distinguished, and therefore meant.
In the next post, we’ll take one more step back—beyond difference, beyond salience—to ask: what else must be in place before construal can occur? What are the ontological affordances that make meaning possible?
We’ll explore breath, gravity, time, and light as systemic conditions—not phenomena in themselves, but relational grounds for the emergence of meaning.
Before we speak, the world is already lit. But also: it already holds us.
3 The Scene Before the Saying
Meaning does not emerge from silence alone. It emerges from a scene—a patterned field of potential in which something can be construed. But what must already be there, before the construal begins? What grounds must be in place, silently holding the space in which a sign can arise?
In this post, we step further back—before difference, before salience—to trace the ontological affordances that make construal possible at all.
Meaning Needs a Scene
To mean anything, we must already be:
Held in gravity, so that there is an up and a down.
Lit by light, so that there is figure and ground.
Situated in time, so that there is before and after.
Breathing, so that there is rhythm, pause, and pulse.
These are not metaphors. They are enabling conditions—physical, perceptual, and relational fields that constrain the shape of all semiosis.
We often think of language as the beginning of meaning. But meaning already pulses in the infant’s breath, the turn of a head, the weight of the body leaning toward or away. These are not signs of meaning; they are the relational infrastructure from which signs emerge.
Breath
Before speech, breath. It is not just the motor for sound; it is the rhythm of participation. The in and out, the give and take, the moment of readiness before the utterance.
Breath structures time. It is the tacit synchrony between bodies. When breath is held, something matters. When breath is shared, something is held together.
Gravity
We do not float in meaning. We are grounded. Gravity is not just a force—it is a constraint on relation. It gives us verticality: the up/down axis that language maps into high/low, close/distant, strong/weak.
Gesture is only intelligible because arms fall downward, eyes meet at level, bodies balance and lean. Meaning lives in posture, and posture lives in gravity.
Time
Construal is temporal. We do not just mark tense in language; we live in rhythms of duration. Every act of meaning unfolds. To understand is to follow, to anticipate, to pause, to resume.
Time is not a container—it is a relational unfolding. Meaning is never static; it rides the wave of becoming. And even silence is shaped by timing: when it comes, how long it lasts, what it holds.
Light
Already explored in the earlier posts, light is what lets contrast occur. It allows figure and ground, salience and shade. But in this broader inventory, we now see that light is not alone.
It joins breath, gravity, and time as part of the scene before the saying—a system of affordances within which construal becomes possible.
The Silent System
These are not symbols. They are not words. They are not even signs. But they are systemic: they provide the structured potential from which meaning can be selected, enacted, and recognised.
We might call them presemiotic systems—not because they lack meaning, but because they underlie the space where meaning can take form.
They are never foregrounded in the act of saying. But they are always there—holding the scene.
Toward the Shared Field
If meaning arises within these conditions, then we must understand communication not just as symbolic exchange, but as co-presence within a scene.
Two people speaking are not just exchanging words. They are:
sharing breath rhythms,
coordinating within gravity,
synchronising across time,
aligning within light.
And all of that before a single word is spoken.
In the next post, we turn toward this shared field explicitly. We ask: what does light make possible between us? How does it enable not just visibility, but mutual construal?
We move from individual affordance to shared alignment—from the scene before the saying to the medium of mutuality.
4 Medium of Mutuality
Construal does not happen alone. It is always, already, relational—an act not only of perceiving, but of co-presence, of shared orientation, of mutual alignment. And what makes such mutuality possible, at the most basic level, is light.
In this final part of the series, we shift from the scene to the shared field—the space between persons where construal becomes social. Here, light is no longer only a condition for perception. It is a medium of mutuality.
The Shared Field
Before there can be a conversation, there must be a scene of alignment:
You and I are both here.
We are both looking.
We are both oriented within a common field.
That shared field is not a neutral background. It is a dynamic space structured by light, position, gaze, and gesture—all of which are modulated within the perceptual system of illumination.
Light is what enables pointing. Light is what allows eye contact. Light is what lets a gesture be visible to another.
Without light, deixis is impossible. There is no this or that. There is no shared attention. There is no mutual construal.
Light and Intersubjectivity
To look at someone is to enter into a potential field of relation. Light carries that look. It connects bodies across space.
The parent and infant, locked in gaze. The protester raising a sign. The lecturer pointing to a diagram. In every case, light enables a shared semiotic frame.
Even silence can be mutual—when two people look toward the same flicker, or share a moment of stillness in the same fading light. Here, meaning arises not from speaking, but from co-attunement in the field.
Surveillance, Performance, Power
But shared light is not always mutual. It can be asymmetrical. To be seen but not to see in return is to be exposed. This is the politics of the spotlight, the surveillance camera, the theatrical gaze.
Light does not only afford connection. It also affords control:
Who is lit?
Who remains in shadow?
Who controls the direction, the intensity, the frame?
In these dynamics, light becomes a social semiotic resource—modulated to constrain who may appear, who may speak, who may be construed as agent.
The Semiotics of Illumination
Light, then, is never neutral. It is a structured field of construal—both enabling and constraining the conditions under which mutual meaning can arise.
We design lighting for mood, for attention, for power. We photograph, spotlight, silhouette, dim. All of these are semiotic practices built on the shared affordance of light.
And within this field, we find the most delicate work of meaning: the fleeting glance, the shifting shadow, the momentary alignment that lets one person say, and another understand.
Meaning as Co-Illumination
Meaning, in this view, is not just what I construe, but what we construe—together, in light. The medium is not passive; it is mutually activated.
Light lets our perspectives touch. It lets pointing land. It lets faces meet. It is not only the ground of perception, but the enabler of co-presence.
And so, even before we speak, we are already in relation. Already in light. Already in a field of potential meaning.
After the Sign
With this, our four-part arc comes full circle:
Light as system – the unseen structure enabling appearance.
Light as difference – the basis for contrast and construal.
Light within the scene – the presemiotic conditions of meaning.
Light as medium of mutuality – the shared field of social semiosis.
Together, they point to an insight that underlies all meaning-making:
We do not speak from nowhere. We speak from within a world already lit. And in that light, we meet.
Epilogue: The Light We Share
Before the sign, there was light. Not the light of photons or particles, but the light of relation—that which allows a difference to appear, a gesture to land, a word to take hold.
This series has followed light through four strata:
as system: a structured potential for construal,
as difference: the root of salience and selection,
as scene: the ontological conditions of embodied meaning,
as mutuality: the shared field in which signs are understood.
Each layer is not a step, but a cut—a distinction made in a continuous field of relational affordance. Light runs through them all.
Meaning as Illumination
Meaning, we now see, is not a code applied to experience. It is a movement of distinction within the lit field. We do not so much construct meaning as instantiate potential—selecting from a system already structured by gravity, time, breath, and light.
And when we construe together, we are not simply sharing symbols. We are co-activating the field that lets those symbols mean. We are tuning to the same shimmer, orienting to the same pulse.
We do not bring meaning into the world. We enter a world where meaning is already possible. And that possibility begins in the light we share.
Toward Further Cuts
The work of meaning is not complete. We could follow these threads into gesture, into writing, into image. We could trace light’s role in ideology, visibility, erasure, spectacle. We could ask what it means to be in shadow, or to refuse the frame entirely.
But for now, we pause here. Not to end, but to let the field settle—to hold the light long enough to see where it might shimmer next.
The world is already lit. Let us go on 'construaling'.
No comments:
Post a Comment