Emanation I. There is only the sign. I.1 The sign is absolute oneness. I.

12 The sign is absolute oneness and absolute infinity. [From ()()11] II. The sign is not. II.1 There is some such that is not the sign. II.11 is itself the sign. [From I] II.111 There is some such that is not . [From II] II.1111 is itself the sign. [From I] ()1 There are infinitely many signs. ()11 The sign is this set of infinitely many signs. [From I] ()111 The signs of this set are themselves infinite sets of signs. ()()1 There are absolutely infinite many signs. ()()11 The sign itself is this set of absolutely infinite many signs. (S=V) [From 1] Meaning1 I. There is only the sign. I.1 There is only the meaningless. [From 2.11] II. The sign is not. II.1 (S=) II.11 The sign is meaningless. _____________________
1

The meaning of the sign is the finite set of signs to which the sign consistently stands in a relation of identity.

Description1 I. There is only the sign. I.1 There is only the indescribable. [From 2.11] II. The sign is not. II.1 [(x)~Sx] II.11 The sign is indescribable. _____________________
1

A description of the sign is a finite set of signs that consistently modify the sign.

Distinction1 I. There is only the sign. I.1 There are no distinctions. [From 1.1] 1. There are absolutely infinite many signs. [From Emanation] 1.1 There are no distinctions among signs. [From Meaning and Description] _____________________
1

There is distinction between the signs that differ in meaning and/or in description.

 Irrational Meaning1 I. There is only the sign. I.1 There is only the irrationally meaningful. [From 1.1] 1. (S=V) [From Emanation] 1.1 The meaning of the sign is irrational. _____________________
1

The meaning of the sign is irrational iff the set of signs to which the sign consistently stands in a relation of identity is infinite.

Nave Meaning1 I. There is only the sign. I.1 There is only that which has infinite nave meaning. I.11 There is only that which participates in infinite relative distinctions. 1. (S=V) [From Emanation] 1.1 There are infinitely many nave meanings of the sign. 1.11 There are infinitely many relative distinctions among signs. _____________________
1

The nave meanings of the sign are the finite proper subsets of the set to which the sign consistently stands in a relation of identity. The distinctions among sets qua nave meaning are relative distinctions.

Univocity of Meaning1 I. There is only the sign. I.1 There is only that which has univocal meaning. [From 1.1] 1. (S=V) [From Emanation] I.1 The meaning of the sign is univocal. _____________________
1

The meaning of the sign is univocal iff there is exactly one set to which the sign consistently stands in a relation of identity.

Critique of Nave Meaning and Discussion of Gestalt Shifts It has been stipulated the nave meanings of the sign are the finite proper subsets of the set to which the sign consistently stands in a relation of identity. It has also been shown [ Emanation] that the sign is absolutely infinite. The honorary pedant townsman might conclude: Blurgh! How inconsistent! For you there are no finite sets of signs! All finite sets of signs are alwaysalready infinite! Isnt each member itself an infinite set?! Consider: the nave meaning of the sign (S): {{A}, {B}, {C}}. Here the figure is (S) and the ground is {{A}, {B}, {C}}. It is true (of course) that {A}, {B}, and {C} are themselves signs [Axiom I] and each is therefore an absolutely infinite set of signs [ Emanation]. This truth (however) is excluded from the figure-ground relation here described. The set here described is finite. Gestalt Shifts are therefore (of course) alterations in perception: some other figure is considered and some other ground is thereby necessitated. If the sign is defined with the nave

meaning ink on paper {ink, on, paper} then these signs are tentatively drained of plenitude. To enter-into (so to speak) this plenitude is to perform a Gestalt Shift. Critique of Univocity and Discussion of Unity of Opposites