My view is that signs are not all equations. they are things that the mind takes in subjectively and individually an cannot be expressed or duplicated exactly as taken. they can only be expressed, and expressed subjectively. Or in other words, subjectively as in art mando
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Frances Kelly wrote:
Frances to Cheerskep and listers... The term "sign" should be held to stand for an "objective relative" object that representatively stands for or signs some other object in some signing way as related to a signer for some signed purpose. The signers can be of matter or life, because even matter is held to be quasi effete mind that feels in its attempt to merely exist. For those who wish a good deep definition of sign at its broadest, sources in the philosophy of angloamerican realist pragmatism with its categorics and semiotics is highly recommended. Now, to correct any misunderstanding some readers here may have about signs and especially of signs as lingual symbols that may be used in the brain and its mind, the stuff of the psyche like thoughts are signs, and are not made of some further neural system aside from signs, nor are signs used merely to stand for or symbolize those supposed distant mental constructs, because no deeper system or method of thoughts exist, but rather the thoughts are the signs and if the thoughts are discursive then the signs are furthermore lingual symbols. In other words, signers make thoughts with signs made of cerebral matter, and cannot make them with anything else other than such signs. This is an objective logical approach to signs generally and to include symbolic signs and as the psyches. This approach avoids any general kind of subjective psychologism or rationalism in its account of signs, so that signs are not merely the products of mental visions or notions or nominations. The signs of the world are phenomenal facts that exist external to life and sense and mind, but are only "realized" to exist for all phanerisms of matter and life when the signs are found related to a signer in an act of semiosis or a sign situation. The signer is thus brought into a relation with the objective stuff of the sign, and not with their own subjective feelings or thinkings or knowings of the sign, because it is after all the sign that is felt or thought or known. Cheerskep partly wrote in effect... You have not defined what you have in mind with any of the key terms you use, such as signs, icons, indexes, symbols, and representamen. The result is that your disquisitions seem incomprehensible to me. For example, when you state that a symbol is a sign, but that "signs are not used by the signer to stand for or symbolize those distant constructs" can only result in bafflement.
