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 phanerisms. 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. ---Frances 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 instantiations. 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
