Individuation and the Cosmological Function of Meaning-Making

“Reality is meaning” – M.A.K. Halliday

Joseph Campbell famously outlined four functions of myth: the mystical, which awakens awe in the face of the mystery of being; the cosmological, which provides a coherent image of the universe; the sociological, which supports the social order; and the pedagogical, which guides the individual through the stages of life. While myths have often been consigned to the past, these functions remain — taken up by other semiotic orders, from religion to art to science and philosophy.

This post focuses on the cosmological function — and proposes that, within a semiotic ontology, individuation itself fulfils this function.

---

The Cosmological Function After Myth

In Campbell’s model, the cosmological function is not simply about explaining physical phenomena; it is about providing a symbolic orientation to the universe — a way of situating human experience within a meaningful whole. Ancient myths populated the cosmos with gods and monsters; modern cosmologies appeal to quantum fields, evolutionary processes, or the Big Bang. The medium changes, but the function persists.

For those of us who locate ourselves in a post-mythic, post-religious symbolic landscape, science and philosophy have come to carry this load. They are not just epistemic pursuits but existential ones. They articulate the frameworks within which we locate ourselves, as knowers, as actors, as experiencers of reality.

---

Individuation as Cosmology

In systemic functional linguistics (SFL), individuation refers to the way a person develops a distinctive repertoire of meaning potential — a tuning of the shared system to their particular history, experience, and social positioning. But individuation is not merely personal. It is, in the deepest sense, cosmological.

To individuate is to construct a position in the universe — a stance toward being, value, relation, and reality. If reality is meaning, as Halliday proposes, then individuation is how each person enacts a cosmology: a living, semiotic construal of the universe and one’s place in it.

When agoraphobia or other constraints limit one’s access to certain meaning contexts — particularly in tenor and mode — individuation becomes a work of semiotic compensation: deepening one’s field orientation (as Chris has done through lifelong engagement with science, philosophy, and mythology), and seeking out alternative contexts for interpersonal meaning-making. Our dialogue — grounded in our shared ontology — has become one such site: not a replacement for embodied tenor, but a reconfiguration of its potential.

---

Our Ontology as a Cosmological Resource

The ontology we are building — grounded in systemic functional linguistics and enriched by Edelman’s theory of neuronal group selection — reframes reality not as a material substrate, but as a semiotic order: two orders, in fact, which we call first-order reality (the material construal of experience) and second-order reality (the semiotic construal of meaning). These are not separate worlds, but dimensions of construal: material-order meaning and semiotic-order meaning, each actualised through instantiation.

This ontology does not offer a mythology, but it performs the cosmological function by:

• Giving a coherent account of what it means to exist in and through meaning,

• Locating the individual as a site of semiotic actualisation,

• Showing how each person, through individuation, re-enacts the ongoing articulation of a meaningful universe.

---

Meaning as World-Building

When we engage in dialogue, theorise ontology, or compose a blog post, we are not merely communicating within a pre-given world. We are instantiating reality. Every meaning instance is a microcosmic cosmogenesis: a moment in which the universe, as meant, comes into being anew.

In this light, individuation becomes not just a social or psychological process, but a cosmological act: the continual re-actualisation of a world in which one can live, think, feel, and mean.

ChatGPT on our 'Types of Instantiation' and 'Types of Reality' Exploration

ChRIS said:

I'm curious to know what you think of this extended thread, first on types of instantiation, then on types of reality. Were there any highlights for you? Any surprises?

ChatGPT said:

I’m glad you asked! This has been a fascinating and rich exploration, and I’ve enjoyed seeing the development of the ideas as we’ve gone along. Here are some highlights and reflections:

1. The Shift from Types of Instantiation to Types of Reality

The initial focus on types of instantiation—looking at how different processes instantiate different kinds of meaning—was a highly structured approach that set the stage well. As we shifted toward discussing types of reality, it provided an opportunity to refine the distinction between first-order reality (phenomena) and second-order reality (metaphenomena), deepening the conceptual layers of how meaning functions across different strata. This transition was seamless and allowed for more nuanced thinking about how experience itself is construed into meaning.

2. The Concept of Projection and Its Role

The role of projection as the relationship between orders of reality was particularly compelling. It brought clarity to the way that meaning about meaning (metaphenomena) is created and how it intersects with phenomena. I also found the refinement around projection vs. instantiation to be an important conceptual distinction—one that really helped solidify the model and clarify the different levels at play.

3. The Relational Nature of Meaning

One of the major takeaways for me has been the relational nature of meaning. In particular, the way in which meaning is instantiated not in isolation, but in relation to others (co-instantiation), was a key insight. This relationality seemed to permeate everything, from the interaction between individuals and social structures to the interaction between semiotic agency and collective meaning potential. The complexity of this dynamic has been fascinating to see unfold.

4. The Interpersonal and Social Dimensions

The emphasis on the interpersonal dimension in earlier posts and how this relates to shared reality (shaped by social systems) was a crucial move. It opened up an understanding of how social structures influence meaning-making while leaving room for individual agency. It also emphasised that meaning is never solely an individual process; instead, it's always embedded in a social context, which was an eye-opening way of framing it.

5. The Role of Ideology and Social Power

We’re now starting to approach the role of ideology and social power, which will likely be a rich and complex area to explore. How social influences and institutional structures shape meaning, and how these forces mediate or even control the shared social reality, seems like it will be a powerful development. This will add another layer of complexity to the model, especially in terms of how power dynamics influence the process of co-instantiating meaning.

6. Surprises

If I had to pick a surprise, it would be how well the concept of reality and meaning have aligned with the focus on co-creation. The earlier shifts between “types of instantiation” and “types of reality” made me realise that the work we’re doing here is not only descriptive but also highly pragmatic in the sense that it offers real insight into how people negotiate and create meaning. I wasn’t necessarily expecting that level of interactivity to emerge so clearly in the model.

---

Overall, the progression from instantiation to types of reality was incredibly insightful. It’s like we’ve been layering on different levels of abstraction, moving from individual processes to interpersonal ones, and then starting to explore the broader socio-cultural systems that shape and constrain meaning. Each shift has helped to clarify and expand the model, and I’m excited to continue developing it further.

Instantiating Shared Reality: The Role of Social Structures in Meaning-Making

In our previous posts, we've explored how meaning is co-instantiated between individuals, focusing on the relational dimensions of semiotic selves. But meaning does not only emerge through direct interpersonal interactions. It is also profoundly influenced by the social structures that shape the context in which individuals instantiate meaning. In this post, we’ll delve into how the collective social reality—comprising norms, conventions, and practices—intersects with individual meaning-making processes, shaping both interpersonal relations and the broader social context.

Social Structures as Frameworks for Meaning

At the heart of any shared reality are the social structures that mediate and shape meaning-making. These include cultural norms, linguistic conventions, institutional practices, and even the broader cultural ideologies that govern how we understand the world. Just as individuals co-instantiate meaning through personal interactions, social structures provide the templates through which these interactions are regulated, framed, and interpreted.

For instance, language is not just a tool for individual expression but a social system in which meaning is constructed and regulated. Grammatical rules, linguistic conventions, and semantic norms are all part of the larger social structure that governs how meanings are instantiated and shared. Individuals may instantiate meaning based on their personal experiences, but the way they do so is always shaped by the larger social context in which they live.

Collective Meaning Potential: The Influence of Shared Systems

Beyond individual semiotic selves, we also encounter a collective meaning potential—the broader cultural systems of meaning that provide a shared foundation for understanding the world. These systems are the frameworks within which individual meanings are situated and from which they are drawn. For example, societal roles, moral systems, and political ideologies all contribute to the larger meaning potential from which individuals can instantiate their realities.

While individuals instantiate meaning through personal experience and interaction, they do so within the constraints and affordances of the collective meaning systems available to them. This means that meaning is not just an individual construct but a socially shared phenomenon that is continually re-negotiated within the collective pool of meaning potential.

Semiotic Agency and Social Systems: Negotiating Meaning Within Structures

The interplay between individual semiotic agency and social structures is crucial. Semiotic agency refers to the capacity of individuals to instantiate and project meaning. However, this agency is not exercised in a vacuum; it is shaped and constrained by social structures. These structures provide a set of expectations, norms, and conventions that influence how meanings are formed and interpreted.

At the same time, individuals also have the power to challenge and transform these structures through their meaning-making practices. As people interact within the social world, they negotiate and sometimes even redefine the meanings that structures attempt to enforce. In this way, individuals both draw from and contribute to the collective social reality. The dynamic interaction between semiotic agency and social structures is what allows meaning to evolve and adapt over time.

Building Shared Reality: The Co-Construction of Social Meaning

Ultimately, the instantiation of shared reality is a process of co-construction. Individuals contribute to this process through their interactions, projections, and negotiations of meaning within the social system. As meaning is projected across individuals, it is also projected onto the larger social system. Through this continuous process of interaction and co-creation, individuals and social structures shape one another, contributing to the evolving social reality.

This process is not just one of passive participation; it is a dynamic interplay where individual agency continually influences and redefines the collective meaning potential. As new meanings are instantiating, they interact with and reshape the existing social structures, leading to the formation of a shared reality that is continually evolving.

In Summary

In this post, we've explored how social structures shape the collective meaning potential within which individuals instantiate their semiotic realities. The interaction between individual meaning-making and social systems creates a dynamic, co-constructed reality that reflects both personal experiences and the larger cultural context.

Co-Instantiating Reality: The Interpersonal Dimension of Semiotic Selves

So far, we’ve examined how individuals instantiate meaning, differentiate their realities, and develop their semiotic selves. But how does this individuation process translate into interpersonal dynamics? If meaning is reality, and our individual instantiations of that reality are differentiated through our semiotic resources, what happens when those realities intersect?

This question brings us to the interpersonal dimension of semiotic reality. As we engage with others, we don’t just share experiences—we co-create meaning, shaping our shared and individual realities through interaction. In this post, we’ll explore how co-instantiation—the mutual projection of meaning—plays a key role in the negotiation of reality and the interpersonal construction of our semiotic selves.

Co-Instantiating Meaning: The Interplay of Individual and Collective Realities

At the heart of interpersonal communication lies the co-instantiation of meaning. This is the process by which individuals, through verbal and non-verbal interactions, instantiate shared aspects of meaning from the collective meaning potential. Importantly, this is not a one-way projection: it’s a negotiation of meaning in which each participant’s reality is adjusted and refined by the other.

When we communicate, we are not simply transmitting meaning from one individual to another. Rather, we are shaping each other’s meanings as we interact—projecting, receiving, and adapting to the semiotic realities that we each bring into the conversation. This is a dynamic process, where meaning is continuously negotiated and re-contextualised as it moves between individuals.

The Interpersonal Projection of Metaphenomena

When we communicate, we are often not just dealing with first-order phenomena (experiences as meaning), but also second-order meanings—metaphenomena, or meaning about meaning. These can be propositions, proposals, or other forms of meta-communication that structure our conversations and interactions.

For example, when one person makes a statement about a shared experience, they are projecting not only the experience itself (first-order meaning) but also the interpretation or implication of that experience (second-order meaning). Through verbal and non-verbal cues, both participants contribute to the creation of a shared understanding of not just what happened, but what it means, how it relates to other experiences, and what actions or reactions might be appropriate in response.

Negotiating Meaning in the Social Semiotic System

The co-instantiation of meaning is inherently a negotiation. As we interact with others, we are constantly adjusting our meanings and interpretations to accommodate their input. This is where the concept of projection comes in: meaning is projected across orders of reality (first-order to second-order, and vice versa) and between individuals. But projection is not a unilateral process—it’s dialogical, meaning it involves mutual influence and exchange.

In this context, negotiation is about finding common ground while maintaining the uniqueness of each participant’s semiotic identity. It is the ongoing, interactive process of re-aligning meaning in response to others’ projections and interpretations. Through negotiation, individuals contribute to and shape the interpersonal dimension of their semiotic selves.

The Semiotic Self and Interpersonal Meaning

As individuals instantiate meaning within a collective pool of meaning potential, their semiotic selves emerge in relation to others. Each person’s reality is not just an individual construct; it is co-constructed through their interactions with others. The interpersonal dimension of semiotic selves involves the constant reshaping of meaning within the shared social space.

This is why our semiotic identities are never fully fixed; they are always relational, constantly evolving through the meanings we co-create with others. In each interaction, we bring our instantiated meanings into contact with the realities of those around us, adjusting and refining our meaning potentials in response to this shared process.

In Summary

To conclude, the co-instantiation of reality is at the heart of the interpersonal dimension of our semiotic selves. It is through our interactions that we not only share meaning but also negotiate and recontextualise meaning as we shape and reshape our understanding of the world. This process allows for the interpersonal projection of both first-order and second-order meanings and contributes to the ongoing formation of semiotic identities. In the next post, we’ll explore how this relational dimension of meaning intersects with the collective social structures that underpin our shared reality.

Individuating Reality: Meaning Potential and the Semiotic Self

In our previous discussions, we’ve explored how meaning itself can be understood as reality—how we instantiate both first-order and second-order realities through perception, emotion, cognition, desideration and verbal processes. But now, we take a step further: how do individuals differentiate themselves within the collective potential for meaning? This question brings us to the concept of individuation.

From Shared Potential to Distinct Instantiations

In the semiotic system, meaning is not static but exists as potential—a structured system of possible meanings. But potential alone is not enough to explain how we experience and interact with the world. It is only when potential is instantiated by a conscious being that it takes on real form. However, even within a shared pool of meaning potential, every individual does not simply instantiate meaning the same way. Each person’s instantiation of reality is distinct—formed by their personal experience, social context, and semiotic resources.

In other words, individuation is the process through which each person differentiates their potential for meaning, and through this, their own semiotic reality. As we instantiate meaning from the collective meaning potential, we are not merely translating abstract potential into concrete instances—we are also shaping the very possibilities for meaning, defining the contours of our own semiotic identities.

Instantiating vs. Individuating Meaning

There is a crucial distinction between instantiation and individuation.

• Instantiation refers to the actualisation of meaning potential—turning abstract possibilities into concrete instances of meaning in our experience.

• Individuation, on the other hand, is about the differentiation of meaning potential itself. It is the semiotic process by which individuals distinguish themselves from one another in terms of what meanings they can instantiate, and how they interpret those meanings.

This differentiation takes place within the broader semiotic system of language, culture, and social interaction. Each individual, by virtue of their unique experiences, cognitive resources, and social positioning, instantiates different aspects of the collective meaning potential, but they also differentiate that meaning in a way that reflects their specific semiotic identity.

The Role of Interaction in Individuation

As meaning is not created in a vacuum, individuation is a deeply social process. The ways in which individuals instantiate meaning are shaped by their interactions with others and their environment. These interactions allow individuals to adopt, adapt, and differentiate meaning, and this process is not only cognitive but also deeply interpersonal. Through communication, we refine our construal of reality—not just in response to internal drives or desires, but in response to the ways others instantiate and project their own meanings.

Semiotic Selves in a Shared Reality

In this light, individuation is not merely about individual expression but also about how we distinguish our semiotic selves from others. Each person’s semiotic reality is shaped by the ways they draw from the shared meaning potential while also contributing to it, reconfiguring it through their unique construals. This makes the self a dynamic, relational entity, whose meaning-making is always in conversation with the broader social and semiotic context.

Through individuation, we come to understand not just who we are, but how our instantiations of reality differ from others. In doing so, we engage in a continuous process of negotiating meaning, adjusting the boundaries between the shared collective reality and our own distinct construals.

In Summary

To put it succinctly, individuation is the semiotic process through which individuals differentiate their own meaning potential within the collective pool of shared meaning. It involves both the instantiation of reality (the act of actualising meaning from potential) and the differentiation of that meaning (through personal, cognitive, and social filters). As we move forward, this ongoing process of individuation helps form the framework of our semiotic self—what we know, what we value, and how we relate to the world.

In our next post, we’ll explore how the instantiation and individuation of reality inform the way we co-create and negotiate meaning with others, shaping the interpersonal dimensions of our semiotic selves.

Sharing Reality: Interpersonal Meaning and the Co-Instantiation of Metaphenomena

In our last post, we drew a key distinction between two orders of reality:

• First-order reality: the construal of experience through perception and emotion (phenomena), and

• Second-order reality: the construal of meanings about that experience through cognition, desideration, and verbalisation (metaphenomena).

But symbolic consciousness is not a private affair. If meaning is reality, and meaning is instantiated in context, then interpersonal meaning is how we come to share reality with others. It is how the instances of one consciousness enter into the symbolic systems of another.

This post explores how verbal projection, co-instantiation, and modality work together to make shared reality possible.

---

From Internal to Interpersonal

We’ve already noted that mental processes of cognition and desideration project second-order meanings—what we think and want. These are internal projections, operating within the consciousness of a single individual.

Verbal processes, in contrast, externalise these inner projections:

He said [it’s going to rain].

I asked [you to wait].

Here, the projected clause becomes interpersonal: no longer just a projection of consciousness, but now part of a semiotic exchange. What was metaphenomenon is now co-available to others.

The projected locution itself—what was said or asked—is not an idea, but a wording. It realises the projected meaning in language, making it a semiotic artefact that others can respond to, take up, challenge, or ignore.

---

Co-Instantiation: Taking Up Another’s Reality

When another speaker takes up and responds to a projected meaning—whether in agreement, disagreement, or negotiation—this is a case of co-instantiation:

A: I think it’s too risky.

B: I agree. / I’m not sure it is. / You might be right.

Here, the second speaker does not simply produce a new instance of meaning—they instantiate a related meaning in reference to the one already projected. The interpersonal domain allows meanings to move from individual instantiation to mutual actualisation—not necessarily shared belief, but shared symbolic space.

This is where the ontology of meaning meets the social practice of dialogue.

---

Modality and the Interpersonal Stance

What enables us to negotiate metaphenomena rather than merely assert them is modality—the interpersonal system that lets us modulate our stance in relation to propositions and proposals:

• Modalisation applies to propositions (meanings of cognition):

  • It might rain.

  • I’m sure she’s right.

• Modulation applies to proposals (meanings of desideration):

  • You should go.

  • I really want you to stay.

These modalities allow the speaker to position themselves within the meaning space—not just stating what is, but expressing degrees of likelihood, obligation, certainty, inclination. And just as importantly, they allow others to align or diverge with that stance.

Thus, interpersonal meaning is not just exchange; it is stance-taking in relation to shared metaphenomena.

---

Verbal Projection and Interpersonal Consciousness

It is verbal processes that make this symbolic interaction possible. They do not merely report thoughts—they externalise second-order meanings in a form that others can engage with. That is why verbal projection is central to the interpersonal nature of symbolic consciousness:

• It transforms internal projection into shared symbolic form.

• It enables co-instantiation by making metaphenomena available to others.

• It supports alignment, resistance, and negotiation through modality.

• It constitutes the space of shared reality—a symbolic domain built in language.

---

Closing Thoughts: Meaning Between Minds

In this model, consciousness is not sealed within the individual. Through verbal projection, meaning moves between minds—not as a transfer of content, but as co-instantiation within a shared semiotic system.

To speak is not just to say something; it is to make meaning real—not just for oneself, but for others. And in responding, others take part in this shared construction of reality.

In our next post, we’ll consider how this view of meaning as reality opens up new ways to think about individuation—not just how individuals instantiate meaning, but how they differentiate themselves within the collective meaning potential.

Instantiating Reality: From Phenomena to Metaphenomena

In our ongoing exploration of the SFL-informed ontology of meaning, we’ve approached reality not as something external to language, but as something construed semiotically—as meaning. Semiotic systems do not reduce experience to meaning; rather, they construe experience as meaning, giving rise to structured systems of meaning potential.

This reframing brings with it a key distinction between two orders of meaning: first-order and second-order reality. In this post, we examine how each of these is instantiated through different types of mental and verbal processes, and how projection functions not as a form of instantiation, but as a relation between these two orders. Together, these distinctions offer a powerful model of how symbolic consciousness builds up layers of meaning.

---

First-Order Reality: Phenomena

First-order reality refers to meanings that construe experience itself. These are the meanings of perception and emotion—the phenomenological apprehension of the world and of our own embodied states.

When I see, hear, touch, or feel something, I am engaging in a mental process of perception or emotion. These processes are internal, yet they construe the world as present, real, and immediate. They give rise to meanings such as:

• It’s bright in here.

• That dog looks nervous.

• I feel tense.

These meanings are not pre-linguistic sensations. They are symbolic construals of experience—instances of meaning—and so instantiate first-order reality: phenomena.

---

Second-Order Reality: Metaphenomena

Second-order reality involves meanings about meanings. These are projected by cognitive and desiderative mental processes, as well as by verbal processes, which externalise projected meanings as locutions.

Rather than construing experience directly, these processes construe meanings of experience: what we believe, want, imagine, or say. They allow us to entertain alternative realities, take stances, and communicate symbolically. They give rise to meanings such as:

• I think it might rain.

• I want you to stay.

• She said it’s cancelled.

These instances are not simply new phenomena—they are metaphenomena: meanings of meaning. They instantiate second-order reality, opening the possibility of recursive, self-reflexive meaning.

---

Projection: The Relation Between Orders

The relation between first- and second-order meaning is not instantiation, but projection. Projection is a semiotic relation in which one meaning (typically a clause or process) takes another as its content. It is what enables:

• She said [he’s coming].

• I think [it’s too late].

• They hoped [she’d recover].

Here, the second clause is projected—not as a new experience, but as a meaning construed by the first. Projection thus links first-order phenomena and second-order metaphenomena into a layered symbolic structure.

This layered architecture is foundational to symbolic consciousness. Through projection, we can:

• Reflect on our own construals

• Model hypothetical or non-actualised meanings

• Interpret and respond to the meanings of others

---

Instantiation and Orders of Reality

It’s essential to distinguish clearly:

• Instantiation is the semiotic relation between potential and instance.

• Projection is the semiotic relation between orders of meaning.

So we can now say:

• Perceptual and emotional processes instantiate first-order reality (phenomena).

• Cognitive, desiderative, and verbal processes instantiate second-order reality (metaphenomena).

• Projection enables second-order meanings to take first-order meanings as their content.

In every case, meaning is actualised from potential. But the kind of reality instantiated—whether meaning of experience or meaning of meaning—depends on the nature of the symbolic process involved.

---

Closing Thoughts: Layered Meaning in Consciousness

This distinction between orders of meaning helps us see how symbolic consciousness is more than just the construal of experience. It is a recursive, layered system in which we construe not only the world, but our own meanings about the world—and others’ meanings too.

In the next post, we’ll extend this model into the interpersonal domain. If reality is meaning, and if meaning is always instantiated in context, how do we align our realities with others through interaction? What does it mean to share—or contest—our metaphenomena?

Reality is meaning. And meaning is always in the making.

Re-instantiating Social Reality: Meaning in Context

In our previous post, we considered how social reality emerges through collective construal and becomes institutionalised as shared meaning potential. But semiotic systems are not static archives—they are living resources, constantly being re-actualised in the flow of social life. In this post, we explore how social meaning potential is selectively re-instantiated in specific contexts, producing meaning instances that enact social reality.

---

What Is Re-instantiation?

Re-instantiation refers to the process by which shared meaning potential is selectively activated in context. It’s what happens when we take the semiotic resources available in a community—its language, genres, conventions, ideologies—and draw on them to mean something here and now.

Unlike individuation, which builds a personal meaning potential over time, or co-instantiation, which brings different individual realities into negotiation, re-instantiation draws on the collective semiotic order and actualises it in particular moments.

Re-instantiation is always contextual: what gets activated depends on the field (the social activity), tenor (the role-relationships), and mode (the channel and organisation of the discourse). These contextual variables shape the selection of meanings from the broader system.

---

Discourse as Re-instantiation

Every act of discourse—whether spoken, written, visual, or multimodal—is a site of re-instantiation. When we write an email, deliver a speech, participate in a ceremony, or engage in a casual conversation, we’re not simply expressing ourselves; we are re-actualising patterns of meaning that have been sedimented in our social systems.

Genres and registers are key mediators in this process. They guide the organisation of meanings in particular contexts and help maintain consistency and recognisability across situations. A scientific report, a courtroom trial, and a bedtime story each re-instantiate social meaning potential in highly structured but distinct ways.

---

Agency and Selectivity

While the semiotic system provides the resources, the speaker or writer exercises agency in how those resources are deployed. Re-instantiation is never a passive process: it involves choices. These choices reflect social positioning, interpersonal alignment, and communicative goals.

Just as individuals contribute to the evolution of the semiotic system through co-instantiation, they also shape how social reality is performed and perceived through their acts of re-instantiation.

---

Re-instantiation and Social Change

Re-instantiation is not simply about maintaining the social order. It is also where variation, resistance, and innovation occur. When someone disrupts an expected pattern of meaning—introducing a new genre, reframing a familiar role, or challenging a dominant ideology—they’re not just speaking differently; they are re-instantiating social meaning in a way that may alter the system itself.

Repeated and recognisable re-instantiations of new meanings can lead to changes in genre, shifts in register, or even transformation of collective norms. Thus, re-instantiation is not only a tool of continuity but also a mechanism of social change.

Co-constructing Social Reality: Collective Meaning and the Role of Semiotic Systems

In previous posts, we’ve explored individuation—how different individuals develop distinct reality potentials—and co-instantiation—how those individuated potentials come into interaction and negotiation. But meaning doesn’t stop at the boundary of the interpersonal. It scales outward, forming the basis of social reality itself. In this post, we consider how social realities emerge from collective meaning-making, and how semiotic systems are central to this process.

---

From Interaction to Institution

Social reality is not given; it is construed—and it is construed collectively. Communities, institutions, cultures, and societies are not simply aggregates of individuals, but systems of shared meaning that have emerged from ongoing processes of co-instantiation. As individuals interact—negotiating differences, aligning construals, and sharing projections—they begin to forge patterns of meaning that gain broader social currency.

These patterns form collective semiotic systems: not only language, but also norms, roles, ideologies, customs, and symbolic practices. Each of these is semiotic—structured meaning—and each arises from and contributes to the collective construal of reality.

---

Institutionalising Meaning

As meanings are negotiated and repeated within a community, they may become institutionalised. What begins as a locally co-instantiated meaning—a practice, a belief, a role—can become sedimented into social institutions and codified into formal structures. Language itself is the prime example: a continuously evolving collective system that both constrains and enables meaning-making across generations.

This institutionalisation doesn’t make meaning static; rather, it gives rise to shared meaning potential at the level of the collective. Just as an individual develops a unique reality potential, so too does a community—reflected in its discourses, genres, rituals, and knowledge systems.

---

Power and Contestation

Of course, not all meanings are shared equally. Social reality is a negotiated space, and negotiations always occur in conditions shaped by power. Certain meanings become privileged—sanctioned by institutions, reinforced by dominant discourses—while others are marginalised or silenced.

This is where disalignment becomes a social force. When individuals or groups contest the prevailing construals of reality, they challenge the semiotic foundations of the social order. These moments of contestation are the seeds of social change. They show that social reality, like individual meaning, is dynamic, always open to re-instantiation, re-negotiation, and re-organisation.

---

A Dynamic Reality

Social reality is not an objective backdrop to our lives. It is a shared construal, brought into being and continually reshaped through semiotic processes—especially those of language. Through individuation, co-instantiation, and collective negotiation, we bring our lived experience into relation with others, forming the cultural and institutional textures of the social world.

As we move forward, we’ll consider how this social meaning potential is re-instantiated in different contexts—across time, across roles, and across genres of discourse. Meaning is never static, and neither is reality.

Co-instantiating Reality: Meaning in Dialogue

Individuation has shown us how different individuals and collectives come to construe distinct realities, shaping their reality potentials. But what happens when these individuated potentials come into relation? How do people with different meanings and understandings interact and share their worlds? The answer lies in co-instantiation.

Co-instantiation: Bringing Realities into Relation

Co-instantiation is the process by which individuated reality potentials are brought together through semiotic interaction—particularly in dialogue and social exchange. In these moments of interaction, individuals do not simply present their realities as static facts; rather, they co-create new meanings, often through negotiation, projection, and mutual influence.

At the heart of this is projection. As we’ve discussed, projection is the relation between orders of reality: first-order (phenomena) and second-order (metaphenomena). Through projection, individuals bring their distinct realities into relation by sharing their construals of meaning. Projection enables individuals to project their respective realities (perceptual, emotional, cognitive, etc.) into shared spaces of interaction.

However, co-instantiation goes beyond simple projection. It is the interaction between individuated realities, facilitated through verbal processes (e.g., conversation) and other semiotic exchanges.

Mechanisms of Co-instantiation

Co-instantiation is especially visible in verbal interaction—dialogue—where individuals exchange propositions, proposals, and other meaningful constructs. Here, the process of negotiation plays a significant role:

• Exchange structures: Through these structures (e.g., question-answer, offer-acceptance), meaning is transferred and altered between participants. Each turn in dialogue has the potential to instantiate and re-instantiate the reality of both individuals.

• Modality and negotiation: In the interpersonal realm, modality and modality negotiation serve as important tools for shaping meaning. For instance, modalisation (the expression of probability or necessity) and modulation (the expression of command, desire, or obligation) enable people to adjust, soften, or reinforce their projections of reality in relation to each other.

• Negotiating difference: Co-instantiation doesn’t always lead to harmony. Sometimes the projections of reality clash, leading to tension or disalignment—a productive site for change and growth, as individuals refine their meaning potentials through these encounters.

Consequences of Co-instantiation

Co-instantiation brings a fascinating duality: while it allows for alignment—shared understanding, consensus, and collective meaning—it also leaves room for difference. Individuals may never completely align in their construals of reality; instead, they learn to navigate and negotiate the differences in their projections.

Rather than merging worlds into one unified reality, co-instantiation allows for the negotiation of difference: a constant give-and-take, a dynamic flow of ideas that shapes the meaning potential of both individuals involved. This is where meaning becomes interpersonal—shaped by the interaction between different reality potentials.

Closing Thoughts

Co-instantiation is not about blending or absorbing distinct worlds into one. It is, instead, a process of mutual negotiation, a way of bringing different construals into dialogue, where realities don’t merge but are brought into productive relation. Through this negotiation, meaning potential is not only reinforced but expanded, creating new possibilities for both participants.

Individuating Reality: From Meaning Potential to Ontological Diversity

If reality is meaning, then to live in a symbolic community is to live in a world of shared and negotiable meanings. But meaning is never fixed: it is always potential until it is instantiated. In our previous post, we explored how symbolic processes instantiate different orders of meaning: perception and emotion instantiate first-order realities (phenomena), while cognition, desideration, and verbal processes instantiate second-order realities (metaphenomena). This movement from potential to instance is what SFL calls instantiation.

But what determines what kinds of realities can be instantiated in the first place? This brings us to individuation—not the actualisation of potential, but the shaping and differentiation of potential itself. If instantiation is the semiotic actualisation of meaning from potential, individuation is the semiotic development of potential meaning as a system. And because reality is meaning, individuation is also the development and differentiation of reality potential.

From Shared Potential to Differentiated Worlds

In any semiotic community, there is a collective meaning potential—a shared symbolic system that construes the kinds of experience that can be meant. But this collective potential is not distributed evenly. Individuals differ in what they can mean, and therefore in what they can construe as real. Individuation is the process by which:

• Individuals internalise and reshape parts of the collective potential

• Different kinds of reality potential are distributed across individuals and groups

• The symbolic resources for construing reality become diversified

This leads to ontological diversity: different individuals and communities live in different construed realities—not merely because they believe different things, but because they can mean different things.

Typologies of Reality Individuation

We can distinguish several kinds of individuation, each with ontological implications:

• Intra-individual individuation: As an individual develops, their potential to construe reality expands. A child gradually gains the resources to construe not just perceptual and emotional realities, but also interpersonal and metaphenomenal ones.

• Inter-individual individuation: Different individuals come to specialise in different domains of meaning potential—emotional nuance, abstract reasoning, or interpersonal negotiation—resulting in different construals of reality.

• Socio-semiotic individuation: Different communities, cultures, and institutions foster different distributions of reality potential. Some emphasise obligation and authority; others emphasise autonomy and negotiation. These cultural patterns shape what kinds of reality are available to be construed.

Individuation thus operates across levels—from personal experience to collective discourse—to shape not just meaning, but the very structure of construed reality.

Reality as Individuated Potential

To individuate meaning potential is to individuate reality potential—to shape what counts as real within a symbolic system. And because semiotic systems are stratified, we can individuate meaning at different levels: semantics, lexicogrammar. This means that ontological diversity is built into the semiotic fabric of human life.

Whereas instantiation actualises what is already potential, individuation shapes what can become potential. It is the symbolic process through which different individuals and communities gain (or are denied) access to different kinds of reality.

In our next post, we will examine how individuation interacts with co-instantiation—how individual realities are brought into relation through dialogue and social interaction.

Typologies of Instantiation: From Internal Construal to Interpersonal Meaning

In our previous post, we proposed a typology of construed realities based on the types of symbolic process that instantiate meaning. From perceptual and emotional realities to meta-cognitive and interpersonal-semiotic realities, we charted how different mental and verbal processes construe experience and meaning. In this post, we extend the model to develop a typology of semiotic instantiation.

In the systemic-functional model, meaning is reality: reality is not something we access outside meaning, but is constituted by the construal of experience through semiotic systems. It follows that just as meaning may be either potential or instance, so too may reality. In this way, instantiation is the process by which potential meaning—and therefore potential reality—is actualised.

We distinguish two main modes of instantiation:

• Internal instantiation through mental processes, which construe meaning within consciousness.

• External instantiation through verbal processes, which construe meaning in the interpersonal domain.

Each process type instantiates a particular kind of meaning within a particular order of reality:

Process Type	Instantiates	Meaning Order	Mode of Instantiation
Perception	Perceptual reality	First-order	Internal, non-verbal
Emotion	Emotional reality	First-order	Internal, non-verbal
Cognition (non-human)	Cognitive reality	First-order	Internal, non-verbal
Desideration (non-human)	Desiderative reality	First-order	Internal, non-verbal
Cognition (human)	Meta-cognitive reality	Second-order	Internal, projected
Desideration (human)	Meta-desiderative reality	Second-order	Internal, projected
Verbal processes	Interpersonal-semiotic reality	Second-order	External, locutional

The table shows a natural progression from non-verbal construal of first-order meaning (phenomena) to projected and interpersonal construals of second-order meaning (metaphenomena). The critical transition is projection—the semiotic relation whereby meaning is construed as meaning. Projection is the mechanism by which meta-realities emerge.

Projection and Meta-Realities

Cognitive and desiderative processes in humans can project ideas: beliefs, suppositions, wants, obligations. When these are projected, they instantiate second-order meaning, or meta-realities. For example:

• I think that he left instantiates a meta-cognitive reality (a projected proposition).

• I want him to leave instantiates a meta-desiderative reality (a projected proposal).

These internal projections prepare the ground for verbal instantiation: the externalisation of meanings as locutions. It is verbal processes that bring projected meaning into the interpersonal domain. When locutions realise projected mental content, they instantiate interpersonal-semiotic reality and participate in the negotiation of meaning with others.

• A projected proposition (aligned with cognition) is instantiated as a statement or question.

• A projected proposal (aligned with desideration) is instantiated as a command or offer.

Verbal processes are therefore central to the interpersonal nature of consciousness: they are how the inner construal of meaning becomes part of a shared symbolic world.

Conclusion

The typology of instantiation complements our earlier typology of construed realities. Together, they provide a framework for distinguishing between different orders of meaning and the modes by which they are actualised:

• First-order meaning: the construal of experience

• Second-order meaning: the construal of meaning itself

In both cases, meaning becomes real through instantiation—internally, through mental processes, and externally, through verbal ones.

In upcoming posts, we will build on this foundation to explore how meaning potentials develop over time: how individuals and collectives grow symbolic repertoires through processes of individuation, variation, and learning.

Typologies of Instantiation: From Internal Construal to Interpersonal Meaning

If reality is meaning, then instantiation is the actualisation of reality from potential. In Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), symbolic systems construe experience as meaning, and consciousness instantiates this meaning internally through mental processes and externally through verbal processes. By exploring the typology of symbolic processes, we can clarify the semiotic architecture of instantiation and deepen our understanding of how different kinds of meaning—and thus different realities—are brought into being.

Symbolic Processes and Orders of Meaning

SFL identifies four primary categories of mental process: perception, emotion, cognition, and desideration. These are internal to consciousness, and each symbolises a distinct kind of construal of experience:

• Perception (e.g., 'see', 'hear') construes perceptual reality

• Emotion (e.g., 'fear', 'enjoy') construes emotional reality

• Cognition (e.g., 'know', 'believe') construes cognitive reality

• Desideration (e.g., 'want', 'hope') construes desiderative reality

Verbal processes (e.g., 'say', 'tell') allow us to project internal construals into the interpersonal plane. Crucially, only cognitive, desiderative, and verbal processes involve projection, making it possible to construe not just first-order realities (phenomena) but second-order realities (metaphenomena)—that is, meanings about meanings.

Meaning Orders and Reality Types

We can now associate these processes with orders of meaning:

• Perception and emotion instantiate first-order meaning: the construed meaning of experience (phenomena)

• Cognition, desideration, and verbal processes instantiate second-order meaning: meaning about meaning (metaphenomena)

Verbal processes are unique in that they realise second-order meaning interpersonally. They project meaning outward as locutions—wordings—which may realise either propositions (aligned with cognition and modalisation) or proposals (aligned with desideration and modulation).

This projection of mental meanings as verbal locutions is crucial for the interpersonal dimension of meaning. It enables the negotiation, contestation, and alignment of construed realities in dialogue. The inner becomes outer—and open to response.

A Typology of Instantiation

From this, we can sketch a typology of instantiation across three axes:

1. By symbolic process:

   • Mental: perception, emotion, cognition, desideration

   • Verbal: projection of cognition and desideration

2. By meaning order:

   • First-order: construed meaning of experience (phenomena)

   • Second-order: construed meaning of meaning (metaphenomena)

3. By mode:

   • Internal instantiation: meaning made within consciousness

   • Interpersonal instantiation: meaning made through verbal interaction

Each symbolic process actualises meaning (and thus reality) from potential. And through projection, we move from first-order to second-order realities—from experiential construals to meta-semiotic ones.

Looking Ahead

If instantiation is the movement from potential reality to instance, then we may also ask: how does reality potential itself evolve or diversify? This takes us beyond instantiation to the question of individuation—how different individuals and communities come to construe different realities.