One idea Prof. Harrell describes that I found interesting is how semiotic spaces can help reveal values embedded within systems, whether it be systems in which the signs are observed in or created in. After reading about the Youth Against Racism in Europe example, I started thinking about all the signs that I might see/create on a daily basis and their many associated systems that I never really think that much about. Those signs could have one meaning for me, yet the same sign could have an incredibly different meaning for another, perhaps due to being situated in a different system (ie. hand gestures in different cultural contexts) or from being incorporated with other signifiers (ie. letters becoming words, and words put together to become sentences).

Also, I found the semiotic triad to be quite fascinating—one question I had about the notion of “unlimited semiosis” is that I wonder why observers tend gravitate towards one or a few interpretations of a sign when according to Peirce’s semiotic triad, an observer can interpret a particular representament/object relationship in an innumerable number of ways? Gestalt Theory seems to be a possible answer to my last question of why certain interpretations of signs are favored over the unlimited number of possible interpretation. Perhaps in accordance with many of the gestalt psychology laws, in particular the Law of Prägnanz, observers tend to favor the simplest and most stable interpretations. Going back to Pierce’s semiotic triad, gestalt theory seems to make assumptions about the interpretant in the triangle, particularly that the interpretant is human and that generally, human perception of the whole of a sign is different from its parts. I wonder if or when it might be interesting or even appropriate in a design to flip this assumption, ie. perceiving a sign for its parts instead of the whole.