Despite repeated requests, you have never tried describe or define what you have in mind with any of the key terms you use -- signs, icons, indexes, symbols, representamen. The somber result is that your disquisitions are incomprehensible. For example, when you tell us a symbol is a sign, but "Signs are not used by the signer to stand for or symbolize those distant constructs," we can only shake our heads in bafflement.
In a message dated 3/14/10 9:40:23 PM, [email protected] writes: > (The term "sign" in > pragmatist semiotics is deemed the umbrella under which falls > "icons" and "indexes" and "symbols" as the main kinds of signs > that can exist in any sign situation or act of semiosis.) > Psychical acts like thoughts are not made of some mystical entities that are then signified by signs, but rather the thoughts are the signs and the signs are the thoughts. Going inward, spoken sounds are symbols of verbal languages, yet speech and its languages are not symbols of mental things like say ideas and thoughts, but rather they are the ideas and thoughts. Mental constructs of the mind are not made in some mystical inner system other than signs acquired as phenomena. Signs are not used by the signer to stand for or symbolize those distant constructs. The signs rather are the mental constructs. If there are no signs in the brain, then there is no mind nor thought nor psyche.
