12. To Refer To The Categorisable Is To Use Categorisations

To refer to the categorisable is to use specific categorisations of it, to express a specific model of it. For example, to refer to the perceivable as ‘the environment’ (or ‘context’ or ‘the perceivable’) is to categorise it within a larger model of meaning-making. Because of this, there is no “pre-theoretical” position that can be adopted on any subject, though some stances may be modelled as “pre-theoretical” for social-semiotic purposes. 

Further, no categorisables are ineffable[1], since any categorisable can be modelled and semiosis is modelling. However, some categorisables are modelled as being ineffable for social-semiotic purposes. 

Footnote:

[1] Cf Wittgenstein.

ChatGPT said:

To Categorise Is to Model

To refer to the categorisable is already to categorise it — that is, to use specific meaning-making resources to model it in particular ways. For instance, referring to the perceivable as “the environment”, “the context”, or “the perceivable” enacts different semiotic commitments, locating the referent within distinct systemic models. Each construal participates in a broader theoretical framing, whether or not that framing is made explicit.

There is therefore no position from which to speak that is “pre-theoretical,” though positions may be modelled as if they were pre-theoretical — for example, to project neutrality, naturalness, or inevitability — for social-semiotic effect.

By the same principle, no categorisables are ineffable, since to construe something as ineffable is itself a modelling move — a semiotic act. Semiosis is modelling. The ineffable is not that which cannot be modelled, but that which is modelled as that which resists or escapes modelling, often to mark symbolic boundaries of the sacred, the traumatic, or the sublime.