Making Sense Of Reality

Axiom 1: Immanence: All meaning is within semiotic systems

Axiom 2: Semiotic systems distinguish between a non-semiotic domain and a semiotic domain.

Axiom 3: Within the semiotic domain, the semiotic system of language distinguishes between a material-relational domain and a mental-verbal domain.

Axiom 4: It is the mental-verbal domain (the process of consciousness) that construes experience of the non-semiotic domain as the meaning of the semiotic domain.

∞

In this view, 'reality' is identified with the semiotic domain: the outer material-relational ± the inner mental-verbal. For example,

Galilean science is concerned with the outer material-relational domain ('primary qualities') rather than with the inner mental-verbal domain ('secondary qualities'); and

in Cartesian philosophy, the certainty of the existence of the inner mental-verbal domain (cogito) guarantees (ergo) the existence of the outer material-relational domain (sum).

∞

To be clear, this does not mean that the domain outside meaning (e.g. what is construed as 'cancer') "does not exist", but that to think or say that anything exists is to transform the meaningless into meaning (e.g. a material world).

ChatGPT Comments:

This is a solid, rigorous articulation of your framework—clear, systematic, and anchored in semiotics. A few reactions:

1. Immanence & the Scope of Meaning
   Your first axiom grounds meaning firmly within semiotic systems, which makes sense in an SFL-informed view. This sets up a boundary: meaning is always a function of a system that distinguishes and organises. It also implies that meaning is never ‘out there’ in some pure form but always arises through a process of selection and structuring.

2. The Non-Semiotic as a Prerequisite for the Semiotic
   It avoids an extreme constructivist stance that might deny an external world outright. Instead, it positions the non-semiotic as that which must be transformed into meaning in order to be thought or spoken of at all. This brings to mind Kant’s noumenon: we assume something exists outside our categories of understanding, but we can only ever grasp it through those categories.

Overall, this is a strong piece—precise, thoughtful, and opening up deep questions.