In excess

In response to Joseph's post on integral semiotics here I replied:

In your post from another thread you ask: “Have you seen my posting on the Integral Semiotics thread and my diagrams illustrating the dynamics of the psyche in a semiotic enactment?” Yes, but I have some questions. In how does what you’re saying take account of the critique of the metaphysics of presence in pp. 41-4 of Complexity and Postmodernism? It seems like your definitions have very clear boundaries. In the referenced pages one criticism is that boundaries while necessary are not so clear cut, and often dynamically change at least somewhat due to the excess in each semiotic element (signified, signifier, referent). We discussed this withdrawn excess elsewhere, which you attribute to the Final Cause in the center, which has a “real purpose or telos.”  And the Formal Cause also has a “pure essence or being.” While both the linked text and OOO in general do not accept pure essences, real purposes, both examples par excellence of the metaphysics of presence. We might say that Bryant accepts clear boundaries in that a suobject has a unique and individual autonomy, but it nonetheless its boundary is open to continual change from its excess.

Which in my wyrd way elicited this association. Talk about in excess: