Metaxic Semiotic…
Intelligibility and Being, Knowing and Meaning
“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God” …
- CS Lewis
Metaxy
/me.tak.sý/
a Greek proposition meaning “between”
In-Between Worlds — Immanence and Transcendence
a “sacramental view” of reality: matter and spirit in one (Christian perspective — a Visible and Invisible Reality)
the permanent in-between structure of existence. Sometimes referred to as the between or in-between, meaning that humans live in a structure of reality that is between the poles of existence [Michael P. Federici, Eric Voegelin] [ LINK ]
Semantics
/sɪˈmantɪk/
the study of meaning
General Semantics
the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs especially: connotative meaning
Ontology
/ɒnˈtɒlədʒi/
noun
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being
a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them
Epistemology
/ɪˌpɪstəˈmɒlədʒi/
noun
the branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge
In the recent post – Divine and Natural Revelation — Man’s Metaxic Semiotic Participation in Reality – foundational questions were re-emerging about the relationship between Man and the Natural World and Man’s relationship with God.
Questions beyond the endemic Theology of Marxism – Idealism and Materialism – and Nietzschean Perspectivism anchored in the Primacy of Man — Primacy of Human Consciousness — Conscious Self — Ego.
Why is the Universe we inhabit intelligible?
Is intelligence by its very nature Metaxic Semiotic**** — part biological and part logical — part metaphysical and part physical — part transcendent and part immanent?
**** Note — Traditionally, semiotics is considered part of philosophy because philosophy deals with the broadest questions, and meaning is one of those questions. However, if we accept that all human knowledge and experience are mediated through signs, semiotics could be seen as the foundational discipline, with philosophy as a subset. It ultimately depends on whether you view meaning as one domain among many, or as the primary structure through which all knowledge is framed.
Does intelligence extend beyond the Mind to reflect our embodiment in the World and can it be enhanced &/or inhibited by Semiotic Sign Machines (e.g. mobile phones) that we embrace?
Is Being**** (the act of existence — actualisation of essence enabled by God — the Univocity of Being ) or Substance the most fundamental Ontological Category of Existence?
[ ****Note — If we take Reality to mean everything that exists — both materially and immaterially — and Being (act of existence) in the philosophical sense of that which has existence or is ontologically fundamental, then one could argue that Reality is necessarily anchored in Being. Without Being, there would be no Substance and no Reality, because Reality consists of things that are. This aligns with classical metaphysical perspectives, where Being is the ground of all things.]
Is Substance (the primary mode of Being) contained in Aristotle’s Ontological Categories (types of Being) the foundational medium for the natural revelation of Meaning (Metaxic relationships of the Whole) in finite Natural Beings?
Is Peirce’s Categories of the Whole (modes of Being) — the process that enables Peirce’s Triadic of Human Consciousness to mediate this meaning from the medium of Substances through Semiotic Signs?
Bridging and mediating Kant’s Epistemological Categories of Thought (modes of Knowing) with Aristotle’s Ontological Categories of Being (types of Being) — reflective of a Category of the Whole (Unity of Being).
Are substances inherently Metaxic Semiotic in nature containing both:
- Transcendent Kantian Epistemological Categories (Types of Knowing — e.g. Essence & Form); and
- Immanent Aristotelian Ontological Categories (Types of Being — e.g. Substance & Matter)
What are the differences in the nature of Being between Man and other finite Natural Beings (e.g. Animals)? For example, Rationality, Religon, Metaxy, Semiotic Sign Languages, Free Will, Self-Reflection (Reflexivity), Morals and Ethics.
Does Reality for finite Natural Beings consist of discrete Substances that exist in themselves (Aristotelian, Duns Scotus and Aquinas perspective) through a classical separation or is Reality understood through Man’s participation in a dynamic Metaxic Semiotic process that reflects an interconnected emergent web of relationships of Being, Knowing and Meaning (an extension of a Peircian relational perspective) of Substances?
“Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system”…
– Rupert Sheldrake
For example, does Entanglement (incl. Quantum Entanglement reframed as Substance Entanglement consisting of Semiotic Entanglement, Epistemological Entanglement, Ontological Entanglement) suggest that Human’s Metaxic Semiotic Participation in Reality is reflected by the concept of a dynamic entanglement of Being, Knowing and Meaning which are relationally structured?
Humans’ perception of an emergent Reality and unfolding natural and divine revelation.
An emphasis on relationality, emergence and the adjacent possible.
Humans experience reality through Metaxic Semiotic Participation — a term that evokes the metaxic (in-between) nature of existence, the semiotic (meaning-making) process, and the participatory aspect of knowing.
In this view:
- Being (Ontological Entanglement) — Reality is not a set of isolated entities but a dynamic interplay of relations;
- Knowing (Epistemic Entanglement) — Human knowledge is not purely objective but emerges through interaction, interpretation, and participation in Reality; and
- Meaning (Semiotic Entanglement) — Meaning is neither imposed nor discovered in isolation but unfolds through relational engagement with Reality.
This interconnected perspective suggests that Reality is not statically “given” but emergent — unfolding through relational structures.
Theologically, this resonates with the idea of continuous natural and divine revelation, where:
- Natural Revelation — The unfolding understanding of Reality itself as intelligible and meaning-laden mediated via semiotic signs; and
- Divine Revelation — An ongoing dialogue where Meaning is progressively revealed through relational participation and human action & thought.
“What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning. Our scientific work in physics consists in asking questions about nature in the language that we possess and trying to get an answer from experiment by the means that are at our disposal”…
- Werner Heisenberg
This relational ontology challenges rigid dualisms (such as Marxist Ideology of idealism-materialism and Cartesian Dualism, subject-object, mind-matter) and instead reframes reality as an ongoing dialogical process, where Being, Knowing, and Meaning co-constitute each other.
.
