Another small, non-significant walk, and a few observations of the life of signs. These two non-signs are interesting examples. They are signs and not signs at the same time. We can guess that they are road signs, but the exact meaning is not known to us from this side.
The next non-sign is also an interesting case, although of different nature. I think the very nature of ‘time’ is completely absent in classical semiotics, that tend to consider all these signs and signifiers in a completely time-less, always-and-ever-the-same kind of fashion. In this case this was the sign, but we don’t what of – now. Yet we still see the sign of its sign-ness, the fact that it is a trace of a sign, the ruins of sign.
The next example is seemingly the same, these are also semiotic ruins. But we face a significantly different problem here, as the sign is not completely destroyed and kindly invite our interpretation. But can we provide any? Or rather can we be sure that our interpretation is accurate (as in ‘time-specific’)?
This kind of hermeneutic questions also overlaps with another sort, of cross-cultural significance, so to speak. This ‘sun’ can be a sign for some, yet a completely sign-less artifact for others (and of course if it’s a ‘sign’, its meaning can be very different for different people).
If I would write my own ‘semiotical’ theory, I would certainly introduce such concepts as the ‘flows of meaning’, and think about the tools to capture how meaning-making happens over time.