Frances - thanks for your comments. I'll try to respond below
 On Wed 11/04/18 10:13 PM , sent:
        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. 

        EDWINA: The Representamen, in my view, is only one part of the
semiosic triad and could never stand on its own. You might be
suggesting that Mind [which is functioning in the Representamen,
might finally fill the whole universe. I don't see this, as I don't
think Mind can exist except as instantiated within Matter.
        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. 

        EDWINA: Not sure what you mean by this. I think you are saying that
some 'things' are ideas and some things are material objects'. I
don't agree with this Platonic scenario.
        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. 

        EDWINA: I see your point.
        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. 

        EDWINA: Are you saying a universe with mediation, i.e., without the
triadic format of O-R-I?? You are describing Peirce's origin of the
Universe...which he outlines, as you write....See 1.412 - and his
outline of the emergence of particulars and of habits.
        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. 

        EDWINA: Yes, I agree - the emergence of Mind is indeed a mystery. I
can only conclude that Matter without Mind couldn't exist; matter
would be chaotic and would reduce to pure low energy. 
        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. 

        EDWINA: Agree.
         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. 

        EDWINA: THis is interesting - but I'm not sure what you mean.

        You partly wrote in effect--- 

        1. Semiosis defines the basic process of mind as matter in the
 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