On this paragraph I don't see how one could justify the claim that phonemes are physical, or letters. Phonemes and letters are types that are represented by tokens in the medium of sound or visual marks respectively. The representations could be considered to be physical, but are categories physical? The original mark (such as a representation of an icon or a mixture of letters or phonemes) is something physical. The tokens, which are marks that have been interpreted by the type, are also physical. But the meaning (type) grows over time. > On April 10, 2018 at 3:46 PM John F Sowa wrote: > > > On 4/10/2018 12:33 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > > > I... view 'the Sign' not as an intellectual construct but as > > an actual morphological unit, as an existential spatiotemporal > > unit of matter, formed by Mind, existent within constant relations > > with other Signs/morphological units. So, for me, this Sign is > > itself existential as a crystal, a rock, a spider, a plant, a > > word..and even, a society. > > > > > For the basic triad of mark (or tone)/token/type, the mark or tone > is always physical. As an interpreted mark, the token is also physical, > and the type is some abstract mediation (law, habit...). > > From CP 2.302: > > > > Symbols grow. They come into being by development out of other > signs, > > particularly from icons, or from mixed signs partaking of the nature > > of icons and symbols. We think only in signs. These mental signs are > > of mixed nature; the symbol-parts of them are called concepts. If a > > man makes a new symbol, it is by thoughts involving concepts. So it > > is only out of symbols that a new symbol can grow. Omne symbolum de > > symbolo. A symbol, once in being, spreads among the peoples. In use > > and in experience, its meaning grows. Such words as force, law, > > wealth, > > marriage, bear for us very different meanings from those they bore > > to our barbarous ancestors. > > > > > The original mark (such as a representation of an icon or a > > mixture > of letters or phonemes) is something physical. The tokens, which > are marks that have been interpreted by the type, are also physical. > But the meaning (type) grows over time. > > For the examples above, I can accept "a crystal, a rock, a spider, > a plant, a word" as sinsigns that I could recognize and name. But > I doubt that I have ever seen a "society". > > I believe that societies exist, but I would treat them as roles > that are defined by some kind of Thirdness. For example, you > can recognize a cat just by looking at it. But you can't tell > whether it's a pet or a stray without determining how it's > related to some people. > > John > > --------------------------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui > mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui .edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > PEIRCE-L but to firstname.lastname@example.org mailto:email@example.com .edu with the line > "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .