The Evolution of Meaning-Making: An Epistemological Journey
At the core of human meaning-making lies the brain, the material substrate for all cognitive processes. The brain is not just a passive receiver of information but an active participant in constructing meaning. Through neural processes, the brain assembles raw sensory data into coherent representations of the world, employing strategies such as neuronal group selection to refine its models based on feedback and experience. These models are shaped by both innate structures and the social environment, and the brain’s inherent plasticity allows for the continual adaptation of its meaning-making processes.
These models of meaning are deeply embedded in the lived experiences of individuals and communities. The broader social context in which they operate — the reality within which people live — is a rich, dynamic field of influence. The concept of reality is not an absolute or fixed entity; rather, it is constructed through the lens of social-semiotic systems. These systems, rooted in language and culture, provide frameworks for interpreting the world. The experiences that individuals and groups undergo are not merely recorded but actively shaped and interpreted through these models, which are influenced by both ideational and interpersonal values.
Within this context, the notion of truth becomes central. Truth is not an objective fact waiting to be uncovered, but a dynamic construction grounded in the relationship between the individual and the social community. Over time, these truths evolve, becoming increasingly complex and abstract. Truths are negotiated, revisited, and sometimes contested as new experiences and understandings emerge. Importantly, truth is always shaped by interpersonal values—what a community holds to be right, valuable, or meaningful. These values, often encoded in myths, rituals, and social practices, act as mechanisms of social cohesion, helping communities navigate the uncertainties and challenges of existence.
The development of these models of truth is not static. Instead, it follows a path of evolution, where new models emerge in response to shifting social, cultural, and intellectual landscapes. As the evolution of models shows, earlier semiotic systems often splinter or “speciate” into new forms as they adapt to changing needs and circumstances. This phenomenon is especially evident in the transition from traditional cosmologies to scientific models, which increasingly prioritise empirical data and ideational consistency. While ancestral models were often rooted in myth and religion, descendent models have become more varied and specialised, incorporating both scientific rigour and artistic expression.
This evolution is driven not only by changes in intellectual thought but also by evolutionary change in how communities organise and interact with each other. The biological and social imperatives of survival and cohesion shape the way models are selected and passed down through generations. The shift from collective to individualistic cultures, the expansion of global networks, and the rise of technological mediation have all played pivotal roles in shaping the way meaning is construed. As models evolve, they reflect the shifting social and semiotic needs of communities, providing frameworks for understanding the self, the other, and the world.
The history of ancestral models reveals a transition from animistic, polytheistic, or communal belief systems, where non-human entities were imbued with agency, to more depersonalised frameworks that centre on human agency. In these systems, nature and other non-human species are often depersonalised, their agency stripped away in favour of a mechanistic view of the world. This transformation reflects broader shifts in the relationship between humans and the natural world, as well as the growing emphasis on human-centred meaning-making.
Yet, even as descendent models move away from older frameworks, remnants of ancestral models continue to persist. Mythology, for example, remains a potent force in fields like literature and history, where figures and events are mythologised to convey interpersonal truths or ideational meanings that resonate with contemporary audiences. These myths serve to reinforce social cohesion, providing communities with a shared narrative and sense of identity. Literature, in particular, continues the work of ancestral models, expressing values and truths about the human experience, often through the lens of an idealised community where those who embody its core values are ultimately rewarded.
At the same time, descendent models are not simply static replicas of past frameworks; they evolve to incorporate new ideas and methodologies that reflect contemporary concerns. Scientific models, for instance, prioritise ideational consistency, seeking to explain the world in a way that is logically coherent and empirically supported. This contrasts with the Arts, where the focus tends to be on expressing interpersonal and emotional truths, often at the expense of scientific accuracy or objective consistency.
A key characteristic of descendent models is the increasing depersonalisation of Nature and other non-human beings. As we move away from older, animistic systems, we have progressively reduced the status of animals, plants, and even the inanimate world, to mere objects to be studied, controlled, or consumed. This shift towards a more mechanistic worldview reflects both intellectual progress and, in some cases, a loss of the deeper, more interpersonal connections that once tied humanity to the rest of the natural world.
Despite these shifts, the personalisation of human agency remains central to contemporary models of meaning. The notion of humanity as creator or pinnacle of creation continues to resonate in both religious and secular contexts. Whether through the lens of religion, where humans are seen as the image of the divine, or scientifically, where humanity is perceived as the ultimate product of evolutionary processes, human personhood is increasingly idealised, imbued with a sense of divinity or ultimate potential.
Conclusion: The Coherence of Meaning-Making Across Time
By integrating these various themes, we see that the development of meaning-making systems is a complex interplay of biological, social, and intellectual factors. The brain and its neural processes provide the foundation for meaning, which is shaped and refined through engagement with reality and the truths that are constructed within social contexts. Over time, these models of truth evolve, moving through phases of speciation, adaptation, and transformation, reflecting both ideational and interpersonal values.
The distinction between ancestral models and descendent models highlights how human societies continue to draw on and reinterpret the wisdom of past generations, even as they adapt to new intellectual and social conditions. These models are not static but are continually reshaped by evolutionary change, resulting in a dynamic and ever-changing landscape of meaning-making. By understanding the evolution of these models, we gain insight into the ways in which humans construct their worlds, negotiate their truths, and express their values across generations.
This epistemological framework serves not only as a tool for understanding the history of human thought but also as a guide for exploring how contemporary models of meaning continue to evolve in response to changing intellectual, cultural, and social forces. The interaction between ancestral and descendent models offers a rich perspective on the ways in which meaning is constructed, interpreted, and reinterpreted through time.
Addenda
The Evolution of Semiotics and Knowledge Systems
1. Semiotic Evolution as a Model of Knowledge Growth
The evolution of semiotic systems can be conceptualised as a process of adaptation, similar to biological evolution. Just as species evolve in response to environmental pressures, so too do the systems we use to make sense of the world—our models of knowledge. These semiotic systems, whether they are scientific, artistic, or religious, evolve over time, undergoing speciation that mirrors the diversification of life on Earth.
Scientific models, for instance, are primarily selected for their ideational consistency—how well they align with observed facts and how reliably they explain the phenomena they aim to describe. In contrast, artistic models are more concerned with interpersonal consistency, aiming to express and communicate community values and emotions. These distinctions highlight a fundamental tension between knowledge systems: science prioritises empirical accuracy and self-consistency, while the Arts elevate emotional resonance and social cohesion.
Just as evolutionary biology selects for traits that increase survival chances, semiotic systems are selected based on their ability to fit the needs of their cultural and cognitive environments. Over time, knowledge systems adapt to the socio-cultural context, sometimes merging, diverging, or speciating to better address the changing demands of human society. Scientific paradigms, for example, evolve in response to new evidence, while art evolves in response to shifts in cultural values and the social contract.
2. Personification and the Formation of Social Structures
One of the most enduring features of human semiotic systems is personification—the process by which abstract concepts, natural forces, or social structures are embodied as human-like figures or deities. These personifications serve as focal points for social and moral systems, creating a shared framework for understanding both the natural world and human behaviour. Whether it’s the gods of ancient pantheons or the personified forces of nature in modern environmentalism, these figures provide social stability and a sense of meaning to the communities that adopt them.
Historically, personifications have been integral to maintaining social cohesion. For example, in religious traditions, deities represent both the cosmic order and the moral values of a society. By elevating these personifications, societies anchor their moral codes in a divine or transcendent order, providing justification for laws, rituals, and social hierarchies. The shift away from such personifications in modernity, particularly with the rise of secularism, marks a significant change in the way we relate to the world. As these personifications have been marginalised, new forms of social cohesion—often grounded in humanist ideals—have emerged.
However, the diminishing role of personifications is not without consequence. As the divine and supernatural are depersonalised, the role of human agency in shaping meaning becomes more pronounced. The evolution of this shift can be seen as a move from collective to individual meaning-making, where human values are no longer a reflection of divine personifications but are instead constructed through dialogue and consensus within communities.
3. The Evolution of Models and Truth
In both the Sciences and the Arts, models of truth evolve over time, often shaped by the cultural contexts in which they emerge. Scientific knowledge, in particular, evolves in response to empirical data and the need for consistency across different domains of inquiry. Scientific models are selected not only for their consistency with observable phenomena but also for their ability to integrate with existing knowledge frameworks. This process of model-building can be likened to a form of "truth construction," where the consistency and coherence of models are central to their acceptance within the scientific community.
In contrast, the Arts focus more on the communication of interpersonal truths—those that reflect societal values, emotional states, and ethical considerations. Artistic works are often evaluated based on how well they resonate with the emotions and values of their intended audience. While scientific truth is typically objective and universal, artistic truth is subjective and personal, shaped by the socio-cultural context in which it is created.
The ongoing evolution of these models—whether scientific or artistic—speaks to the shifting values within societies. In the case of science, the pursuit of truth is driven by the need to reduce uncertainty and explain the world with greater precision. In the Arts, the focus is more on expressing and exploring the range of human experience, providing comfort, inspiration, and insight into the human condition.
4. Truth and Certainty: The Permanence of Written Knowledge
One of the most significant shifts in human knowledge systems came with the advent of written language. Writing transformed the transient, ephemeral nature of spoken words into something more permanent and visible. The act of inscribing meaning onto a physical medium granted it a sense of stability and immutability that was previously unattainable. Written texts became the authoritative repositories of truth, cementing the role of language in constructing both individual and collective knowledge.
In societies that transitioned from oral to written traditions, this shift had profound epistemological implications. Written records became not only vehicles for transmitting knowledge but also markers of certainty. Once something was written down, it gained a sense of permanence that made it harder to challenge. This permanence reinforced the idea of an unchanging, objective truth, particularly in religious and legal contexts.
However, the development of writing also set the stage for the rise of uncertainty in modern epistemology. As scientific methods advanced, the emphasis shifted from certainty to inquiry, from absolute truth to hypotheses and theories subject to falsification. The same written records that once reinforced certainty now serve as the basis for critical inquiry and reinterpretation. The shift from certainty to uncertainty in modern science reflects broader changes in how truth is understood: from fixed and permanent to contingent and evolving.
5. The Role of Personification in Secularisation
As we move away from traditional personifications of the divine, we encounter a more secularised view of the world in which human agency plays a central role in shaping meaning. This shift is evident in the development of humanist philosophies, where individuals and communities are seen as the primary sources of value, meaning, and truth. The human figure itself becomes the site of ultimate meaning, reflecting a transition from divine personifications to human personhood as the central organising principle.
This process of depersonification has had far-reaching consequences for how we conceive of our relationship to the world. The decline of the divine in favour of human-centred meanings has also led to a reassessment of the relationship between humans and nature. Where once all things were imbued with meaning through personifications, today only humans are seen as socially and semiotically significant. This shift raises important questions about how we construct meaning in the absence of divine or supernatural personifications and what it means for human beings to assume the role of the ultimate creators of meaning.
Conclusion: Weaving Together the Evolution of Semiotics, Knowledge, and Truth
The interplay between semiotics, the evolution of knowledge, and the construction of truth reveals a complex relationship between human cognition, culture, and society. As semiotic systems evolve, they respond to changing cognitive and social needs, giving rise to new forms of knowledge and truth. The shift from divine personifications to human-centred meaning-making marks a key moment in this evolution, one that reflects broader changes in how we understand the world around us. The development of written language, the rise of scientific inquiry, and the increasing importance of interpersonal meaning in the Arts all point to the dynamic nature of human knowledge and the ways in which it is shaped by both individual and collective processes.
This exploration also highlights the tensions between certainty and uncertainty, the objective and the subjective, and the divine and the human. The evolution of semiotic systems is not merely an intellectual exercise; it is a deeply human endeavour that shapes our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world. As these systems continue to evolve, they will continue to provide us with new ways of making sense of the world and our relationship to it.
Title: The Evolution of Semiotic Systems: From Personified Nature to Scientific Modelling
This essay explores how human systems of meaning-making evolve in ways analogous to biological evolution, shaped by environmental pressures, selection processes, and the dynamics of adaptation. Drawing on a set of conceptual notes that chart the evolution of epistemological systems from ancestral to descendent forms, we identify key threads that illuminate the semiotic processes underlying cultural, scientific, and artistic knowledge.
1. The Intersection of Semiotics and Evolution
Human knowledge does not evolve in a vacuum. Like biological systems, semiotic systems develop, adapt, differentiate, and at times become extinct. Ancestral meaning systems such as mythology or animism once constituted a shared model for interpreting reality, combining interpersonal values and ideational construals. Over time, these systems gave rise to more specialised, stratified models—science, literature, philosophy—each inheriting and adapting features of their predecessors.
We can think of this as a semiotic fitness landscape. New models are not selected simply for their ‘truth’ in an absolute sense, but for their usefulness, coherence with other trusted models, and alignment with prevailing values. Scientific models tend to be selected for their consistency of ideational construals—self-consistency, predictive utility, alignment with empirical data. By contrast, artistic models tend to be selected for their consistency with interpersonal truths—values, emotions, æsthetic or ethical resonances.
In both domains, survival depends on relevance: the model’s ability to respond to the meaning-making needs of its community.
2. Personification and the Construction of Social Meaning
Early human cultures personified nature to make sense of its regularities and unpredictabilities. Rivers, skies, winds and animals were construed as social participants—powerful beings with whom one could negotiate, appease, or seek favour. These personifications served not only explanatory but also interpersonal functions: they mediated relations within the group, enforced norms, and encoded group identity.
Over time, many of these personifications were marginalised, relocated (to inaccessible realms), or eliminated altogether. The movement from polytheism to monotheism, and from animism to materialism, marks a steady contraction of social-semiotic agency to the human. What was once construed as a world full of participants became a world of objects.
This depersonification extended beyond gods to other species and even to elements of the human experience. Animals, once kin, became resources. Nature, once a realm of communicative entities, became raw material. The semiotic boundary of ‘us’ shrank. Yet the underlying logic of personification remains alive in new domains—celebrity culture, AI personae, national identities—testifying to its deep roots in the social fabric of meaning.
3. Scientific and Artistic Modelling as Divergent Lineages
One of the major points of speciation in the evolution of meaning-making was the divergence between scientific and artistic models. While both have roots in ancient semiotic systems, their selection pressures have led them to emphasise different types of truth.
Science seeks ideational consistency. It aims to reduce uncertainty by developing models that are internally coherent, empirically testable, and minimally contradictory with trusted models. Scientific knowledge, while provisional, is held to rigorous standards of falsifiability and parsimony (e.g., Occam’s razor).
The Arts, by contrast, are primarily concerned with interpersonal meaning. Artistic works are selected not for their empirical accuracy but for the affective, æsthetic, and ethical values they express. They model emotional and cultural truths—how a community feels, what it cherishes, what it fears or mourns.
Yet these lineages remain in dialogue. The Arts often critique or elaborate the human dimensions of scientific models. Science, in turn, depends on artistic and mythological predecessors for its metaphors, intuitions, and public imagination. The split is not absolute—it is a dynamic branching in a single tree of meaning.
4. Writing, Truth, and the Performance of Certainty
A key moment in the evolution of epistemology was the transition from oral to written meaning systems. Writing enabled meanings to outlive their speakers, to be codified and reinterpreted across time and place. It transformed the interpersonal act of speaking into the ideational permanence of inscription.
This gave ancient traditions an apparent durability and authority. The mere fact of writing something down lent it a kind of reality: an idea, now visible, entered the world of things. This transformation elevated certain texts to sacred status—immune to challenge, open to exegetical interpretation but not contradiction. The written word became a symbol of certainty.
The Enlightenment brought a different kind of certainty: not permanence, but verifiability. Scientific knowledge was to be tested, not preserved. Yet even science retained elements of its mythic ancestors: canonical figures, revered texts, and fierce gatekeeping.
In both systems, certainty is performative. It is an effect of the semiotic mode and the social rituals of validation. The difference lies in the selection pressure: is certainty to be derived from emotional resonance and tradition, or from systematic doubt and refinement?
5. The Legacy of Ancestral Models
Despite speciation, ancestral models continue to exert influence. They are not simply replaced by newer systems but recontextualised. History, for instance, often mythologises its subjects—Gallipoli, Napoleon, Mandela—turning ideational reconstructions into interpersonal myths. Literature retains the sacred overtones of its religious antecedents, with students rewarded for interpreting its texts as bearers of enduring truth.
These continuities reveal how modelling systems overlap, hybridise, and recombine. Just as new species carry genetic traces of their ancestors, new meaning systems carry semiotic residues. These residues serve social functions—comfort in grief, hope in adversity, unity in dislocation. They continue to construct realities that matter, even if they no longer dominate ideational truth claims.
Conclusion: Towards a Unified Epistemology of Meaning-Making
The evolution of semiotic systems reflects the deep entanglement of human cognition, culture, and environment. Meaning is not static but dynamic—shaped by selection pressures that favour different kinds of coherence depending on historical and social context. Ideational and interpersonal truths evolve in parallel, sometimes in conflict, sometimes in harmony.
By tracing the descent and divergence of meaning-making practices, we gain a more nuanced understanding of how humans model the world—not only to know it, but to belong to it. The task ahead is not to return to ancestral models, nor to discard them, but to understand their transformation, their inheritance, and their continuing role in shaping the semiotic ecology of the present.