I am a longtime admirer of George Spencer-Brown’s “Laws of Form.” In this article, I explore how his notion of reentry helps illuminate the paradoxes and blind spots in modern ideologies, especially the rise of xenophobia and extreme nationalism. These rigid ideologies depend on distinctions between us vs. them, or lawful vs. unlawful, that appear neat but collapse under their own logic when viewed recursively. We pretend we’re only exiting, drawing sharp lines, while ignoring the inevitability and necessity of reentry in our sensemaking.

Drawing distinctions

Spencer-Brown opened his mathematical-philosophical treatise with a simple instruction: Draw a distinction. This simple act of marking a boundary between “this” and “that” forms the foundation of how we structure knowledge, meaning, and identity. We create categories and define what is “in” and what is “out.” This is how form arises through distinction.

In “Laws of Form,” he also introduced the notion of reentry: the act of folding a distinction back into itself. Simply put, this is a self-referential act. By doing this, the tidy separations we created begin to blur. This move, abstract as it sounds, has powerful consequences for how we think, live, and treat each other. Especially in a world torn by polarization, nationalism, and fear of the “other,” reentry reveals the paradoxes that rigid ideologies try to hide and points us toward a more humane way of navigating complexity.

The pot and the form

Let’s use a simple example to understand the form better. Consider a pot of boiling water. Here, we can make three identifications:
Pot = the mark, or the distinction
Water inside the pot = what is indicated, the marked space, the inside
Outside the pot = the unmarked space, the outside

Together, all three constitute the form. The pot, as a boundary, plays the role of the mark in Spencer-Brown’s terms. It creates a distinction between what’s inside and what’s outside. The pot itself isn’t part of what’s inside; it’s what makes “inside” possible by drawing a boundary. The mark exists in a meta-position: It defines inside and outside but can’t be reduced to either. It’s the operation of drawing the distinction. The pot allows us to interact with what’s inside, and allows what’s inside to interact with the surroundings.

We can use the same example to introduce reentry. Imagine placing that pot inside another pot, creating a double boiler. The inner pot is held by the outer one. The boundary remains, but now it’s nested and refers to something beyond itself. This is reentry, when a form doesn’t just define something but begins to refer to its own act of defining. This becomes an act of second-order observation. In the double boiler metaphor, the inner pot (the reentered form) exists within the outer pot (the original distinction), creating a “system” that’s both distinct and self-contained.

Reentry challenges the simplicity of binary logic, revealing that systems can be self-referential and dynamic. This concept is pivotal in understanding complex systems where elements influence and are influenced by themselves.

The purpose of reentry: Revealing cognitive blind spots

We love binaries: true/false, us/them, lawful/unlawful. But reentry destabilizes these neat categories. Who defines what’s “lawful?” The law itself. When the law governs the making of laws (as in constitutional law), we enter a recursive loop. What’s legal becomes a matter of interpretation, not clarity. The binary collapses into ambiguity. Reentry shows us that binaries are useful simplifications, not absolute truths. Dogmatic ideas rely on such binaries, and reentry becomes an effective tool for challenging dogma.

Similarly, in language, terms like “normal” are defined by cultural norms, which are themselves shaped by collective perceptions of normality. This circularity demonstrates how meanings aren’t fixed but evolve through self-reference. Reentry isn’t merely a logical twist. It reveals something crucial about how we construct meaning.

When we draw a distinction between “lawful” and “unlawful,” we assume clarity. But as soon as we ask who defines the law and realize it’s the law itself, we see that the boundary is recursive. It defines itself. This isn’t a flaw but a feature of complexity.

The second-order view: Observing observation

This leads us to second-order thinking, the act of observing the act of observing. In logic, when a “system” includes itself in its model it can become unstable. However, it also owns its position. Blind spots can be revealed, opening the door to creativity, paradox, and deeper understanding. Reentry is how we shift from first-order systems (clear categories, fixed forms) to second-order ones (reflexivity, contradiction, emergence). It’s how we move from saying, “We are right,” to asking, “How do we know?”

As the cybernetician Heinz von Foerster observed, “The observer must be included in the observed system.”

This represents the leap from first-order thinking (observing the world) to second-order thinking (observing how we observe). Reentry is the mechanism of that leap. Recognizing and thinking along the lines of reentry is deeply needed today, because some of the most dangerous ideas we face rely on distinctions that collapse under their own logic.

Reentry and the illogic of xenophobia

Xenophobic ideologies often define “us” vs. “them,” asserting superiority or purity. However, when these distinctions undergo reentry, when the criteria for inclusion are applied to the in-group, they often fail to hold consistently. Similar to the sign that demanded the use of the local dialect but was written in English, xenophobic logic contradicts itself when examined through reentry.

What does it mean to be a person from country X? Is it geography? Culture? Language? Legal status? Values? The more we examine these criteria, the fuzzier they become. Yet we use such labels as if they were clean boundaries, pots that perfectly contain identity. Reentry challenges this assumption by turning the form inward.

If being from country X means standing for freedom, justice, and decency, how can one uphold those values while treating outsiders with cruelty? If your culture preaches respect, how can you use that culture to justify disrespect? If your national identity is built on moral ideals, then those ideals must apply to how you treat everyone, not just those inside your imaginary boundaries.

Bigotry collapses under reentry. Its internal logic folds in on itself. The principle violates the practice. The mirror reflects itself and reveals the contradiction. Racism, xenophobia, and nationalism, when examined through the lens of reentry, aren’t just morally wrong. They’re logically incoherent.

The ethical need for redundancy

In complex systems, one of the most powerful safeguards is redundancy. In engineering, redundancy prevents collapse. In ethics, it serves the same function.

Hope is redundancy in action, as are other humanistic notions such as kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. These aren’t luxuries; they’re second-order buffers. They activate when logic stalls. They hold the “system” together when paradox threatens to tear it apart. Reentry exposes the instability of our forms. Redundancy helps us live with that instability.

Ethical redundancy functions like the inner pot in a double boiler. It buffers the heat. It allows care to emerge where rigidity would cause harm. It creates space for ambiguity, reflection, and repair. This is why, in the face of bigotry and rigid ideologies, we must design for ethical reentry. We must build in second chances. We must speak gently even when the logic breaks.

Final words

In a world obsessed with efficiency, clarity, and being right, reentry is a radical act. It turns the system inward. It reveals our blind spots. It shows us where our ideals betray themselves. But reentry does more than expose contradictions; it opens pathways to wisdom. When we embrace reentry, we move from the arrogance of first-order certainty to the humility of second-order inquiry.

The rise of extreme nationalism and xenophobia reflects our collective failure to practice reentry. These ideologies thrive on the illusion of clear boundaries, pure identities, and simple answers. They collapse when subjected to their own logic—but only if we have the courage to apply that logic, and only if we’re willing to let our mirrors reflect.

Reentry teaches us that our most cherished distinctions are provisional, our certainties are constructed, and our boundaries are more porous than we dare admit. This isn’t cause for despair but for hope. It means we can rebuild. We can redesign. We can choose compassion over cruelty, and in that act, we can stay human.

In the end, reentry invites us to remain human and to include kindness as a design principle, building “systems” that can reflect on themselves without breaking. It asks us to hold our beliefs lightly enough that they don’t harden into weapons, yet firmly enough that they can guide us toward justice. This is the form of decency: recursive and reflective.

Always keep learning...

Published May 25, 2025, in Harish’s Notebook.