Frances in the wings to Edwina and listers--- 

1. Allow me to musingly guess, it perhaps may be the representamen of phenomena 
that fully fills the whole cosmic universe, allowing that there may also be 
some primal phenomena that are not representamen, and that objects as signs 
only fills a part of the cosmic universe. 

2. The representamen of phenomena might thus be found as a dyad of ideal 
continuent things, and real existent objects of which just some objects are 
signs. Such a secondary or subsequent existentia would hold evolving 
synechastic objects that are not signs, and evolving semiosic objects that are 
signs; although all of continua and existentia would nonetheless be 
representamen and phenomena. 

3. The phenomenal universe could of course synechastically evolve to become 
phantasmal or mystical, and physical or material, and psychical or mental, or a 
variable combinatory mix of them all. It is likely however that a universe of 
existent semiosic signs would be the most viable representamen to continue and 
advance, and for signers as matter and life to use in dealing with it all. 

4. A universe of phenomena without representamen would bear or have at least 
feeling throughout its vastness, and then as the pseudo prematter of 
representamen it would emerge or grow by exploratory sporting into selected 
forms of being followed by minding them. All phenomenal matter and life would 
hence feel itself to be effete or weak mind to some representational extent. 

5. Just exactly how representamen would originally emerge from primordial 
phenomena seems a mystery, but perhaps a synechastic theory of automatic 
generative representation by phenomena alone would hold a clue. The fact that 
synechastics as a study of evolution comes before categorics as a study of 
phenomena should not pose a problem here, because it seems likely that 
qualitative firstness could feel by itself solely alone, until it conformed 
with some brute factual secondness, and then came under the control of a lawful 
thirdness or mind that might assure representative normality to say phenomenal 

6. Also note that information is seemingly held to be what a sign comes to bear 
in acts of semiosis, so that the information does not seemingly exist prior to 
or apart from the sign that bears it. Information is therefore likely not a 
part of representamen or objects that are not signs. It is representation 
however that phenomena might bear throughout the universe. 

7. Furthermore, semiosis and semiotics is seemingly not intended to be a 
metaphysical account of being or of the whole wide universe. It is seemingly 
representamen that are not signs along with synechastics and categorics that 
endures such a task. 



You partly wrote in effect--- 

1. Semiosis defines the basic process of mind as matter in the universe. 
2. The sign is a relational dynamic process of interactive existent 
3. The representamen as a sign is an action of mediation. 
4. The relations of signs function within the modal categories or modes of 
being and organizations of mind as matter. 
5. Pure or genuine thirdness is an action of the mind only, and such mind is 
alienated from physical reality and feelings. 


PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to