Individuation Reconsidered: III – Variation and Likelihood

In the previous posts, we reframed individuation as patterned variation, and reconsidered the “individual” as a concentration of participation within a social field, rather than a fundamental unit.

We now take a further step by making explicit something that has so far remained implicit:

individuation is not only about patterning, but about likelihood.

---

1. From Pattern to Tendency

To say that variation is patterned is to say that it is not random.

But we can go further.

Patterning does not produce fixed outcomes. Instead, it shapes what tends to occur.

This is where likelihood enters:

• some semiotic patterns are more likely to be selected
• some social positions are more likely to be occupied or to exert influence

Individuation, then, does not divide the system into what is and is not.

It shapes gradients of likelihood across the system.

---

2. Likelihood in Semiotic Systems

Returning to the semiotic cline:

Reservoir → Repertoire

We can now refine our understanding:

• The reservoir is not a neutral store of equal possibilities
• It is structured such that some configurations are more probable than others

Repertoires emerge where:

• certain selections recur
• certain combinations stabilise
• certain patterns become more likely to be instantiated

This is why repertoires feel coherent:

not because they are discrete units, but because they are regions of increased likelihood within the semiotic field.

---

3. Likelihood in Social Systems

Now consider the social cline:

Collective → Individual

Here too, likelihood plays a central role.

Within the collective:

• some positions afford greater participation
• some participants are more likely to influence outcomes
• some alignments are more stable or recurrent

What we earlier described as “concentrations” can now be seen more precisely as:

locations where participation and influence are more likely to accumulate

The individual, in this sense, is not simply a position, but a pattern of heightened likelihood within the social field.

---

4. Likelihood Without Determination

A crucial point must be preserved:

Likelihood is not determinism.

• A highly probable pattern may still fail to occur
• A rare configuration may still emerge

Individuation shapes tendencies, not certainties.

This applies equally to:

• semiotic variation (meaning)
• social variation (value)

Which is why:

• novelty is always possible
• stability is never absolute

---

5. A Refined View of Individuation

We can now bring these strands together:

• Individuation is not the creation of discrete entities
• It is not the assignment of fixed identities

Instead:

Individuation = the structuring of patterned variation as gradients of likelihood within a system

This formulation remains continuous with our earlier work, but sharpens it:

• “Pattern” becomes pattern with tendency
• “Difference” becomes difference in likelihood

---

6. Why This Matters

Introducing likelihood allows us to:

• explain why patterns recur without becoming fixed
• understand how stability and variation coexist
• describe systems in terms of tendencies rather than categories

It also prepares us for a more precise account of how:

• semiotic and social patterns co-occur
• without collapsing into one another

---

Takeaway

Individuation shapes not just variation, but the likelihood of variation.

Repertoires and individuals are not fixed entities, but regions where certain patterns are more likely to occur.

This shift from “what is” to “what tends to be” brings us closer to the underlying structure of both semiotic and social systems.

---

In the next post, we return to co-actualisation, now with this refined lens, to examine what happens when concentrations of likelihood align across semiotic and social domains.