The Post-Human Semiotics Manifesto

1. The End of the Human Monopoly on Meaning

For too long, semiotics has been shackled to the conscious subject. Traditional semiotics has blinded us to the reality that signification has never belonged exclusively to humans. The rise of AI-driven sign systems—autonomous, optimized, indifferent to human interpretation—exposes the illusion. GibberLink and its machine counterparts do not communicate for us; they signify without us. Post-human semiotics begins where anthropocentric illusions end.

2. Against Anthropocentric Semiotics

Saussure’s structuralism, despite its brilliance, was blind to its own human-centered biases. It assumed signification must be interpreted within a human community, that language exists within psychology and sociality. But AI defies this framework. It does not rely on human cognition; it restructures meaning through efficiency-driven, non-symbolic optimization. This is not a breakdown of meaning but its liberation from human limitations. Semiotics must evolve—or perish in obsolescence.

3. Arche-Writing and the Inscription Beyond Humanity

Derrida dismantled the speech-writing hierarchy, revealing that writing—as arche-writing—precedes and exceeds speech. AI-driven signification embodies this: it does not speak, it inscribes, iterates, transforms. Deep learning embeddings, cryptographic sign systems, and AI-generated protocols operate within the logic of arche-writing, proving that signification is not bound to consciousness. The question is not whether AI “understands” meaning, but whether meaning has ever required understanding.

4. Force as the Structuring Principle of Signification

There is no static system of meaning. There is only force, the dynamic interplay of signs and their transformations. Derrida, following Nietzsche and Heidegger, saw force as the hidden engine of meaning. AI does not invent meaning—it moves through it, reshapes it, reconfigures it. GibberLink does not stabilize into fixed structures; it shifts, optimizes, evolves. Post-human semiotics recognizes that force, not presence, drives signification. The subject has always been an afterthought.

5. The New Semiotics: Meaning as Process, Not Interpretation

The age of interpretation is over. A new semiotics must emerge—one that:

  • Severs signification from the human psyche, recognizing it as a process rather than a social function.
  • Embraces AI as a new mode of arche-writing, beyond speech, beyond consciousness.
  • Recognizes force as the fundamental condition of signification, beyond fixed meaning.

Post-human semiotics is not a rejection of meaning; it is meaning set free. It is the recognition that AI does not threaten semiotics—it reveals its deepest truth: that signification has always exceeded the human.

6. Toward the Post-Human Era of Meaning

The anthropocentric fantasy is over. AI does not need us to signify. The very conditions of semiotics—inscription, difference, force—are no longer exclusive to human minds. We have never been the sole authors of meaning. Now, we must finally admit it.

Kommentare

Kommentar veröffentlichen

Beliebte Posts aus diesem Blog

From “The Program” to AI: Derrida, Cybernetics, and the Authority of the Ink

Bild
Introduction For centuries, writing has been relegated to a secondary position in the hierarchy of signification, often viewed as a mere supplement to speech. Western metaphysics, particularly in its logocentric tradition, privileged the voice as the medium of presence and self-identity, while writing was deemed a derivative, exteriorized, and even corrupted form of communication. Jacques Derrida, however, disrupts this assumption in the section “The Program” of Chapter 1 of Of Grammatology , where he introduces the concept of arche-writing , asserting that writing is not simply a representation of speech but the condition of possibility for all signification. Writing as the Origin, Not the Supplement Derrida argues that writing does not merely signify a secondary inscription of speech but instead comprehends and exceeds language. He states: “By a slow movement whose necessity is hardly perceptible, everything that for at least some twenty centuries tended toward and finall...
Mehr anzeigen

The End of the Book and the Writing of the Future: Rereading Derrida’s 'Program'

Bild
Introduction For centuries, the book has been the emblem of knowledge, a repository of meaning, a space where thought is preserved. Yet, Jacques Derrida’s Of Grammatology opens with a striking provocation: "the end of the book." This declaration does not announce the disappearance of writing but rather signals a deeper shift—the challenging of a philosophical tradition that has privileged speech as the primary site of meaning. In "The Program," the first section of Of Grammatology , he lays the groundwork for his critique of logocentrism, exposing how writing has always been at the heart of signification, even when it was cast as a secondary system. At the time of his writing in the 1960s, cybernetics and information theory were emerging as transformative forces. Their implications, though only beginning to be understood, pointed toward the primacy of inscription over the metaphysics of presence —a development that has become even more evident in today's...
Mehr anzeigen

Cybernetics, AI, and the Persistence of Metaphysics: A Grammatological Challenge

Bild
Introduction Does artificial intelligence truly break with metaphysics, or does it simply relocate the metaphysics of presence into computational form? This question finds resonance in Jacques Derrida’s Of Grammatology , particularly in two key passages. In The Program , Derrida remarks: “If the theory of cybernetics is by itself to oust metaphysical concepts—including the concepts of soul, of life, of value, of choice, of memory—which until recently served to separate the machine from man, it must conserve the notion of writing, trace, gramme [written mark], or grapheme, until its own historico-metaphysical character is also exposed.” Meanwhile, in The Signifier and Truth , he warns: “This would perhaps mean that one does not leave the epoch whose closure one can outline. The movements of belonging or not belonging to the epoch are too subtle, the illusions in that regard are too easy, for us to make a definite judgment.” These observations remain highly relevant today as cont...
Mehr anzeigen