Frances to Joseph and listers... The decagon table does not seem to deal with signs as representamens explicitly. The decagon of course does deal with immediate objects and dynamic objects and one immediate interpretant. If it did deal with representamens, it is reasonable to me that such representamens would be only immediate. It is my assumption furthermore that representamens in being primary and monadic are intrinsically only immediate, especially when compared or contrasted trichotomically with dyadic objects and triadic or tridential interpretants. My access to the Peircean writings is limited at present, so it is not known by me whether he used the actual term "immediate representamens" and even "immediate signs" or not. You obviously searched, but did not find the terms. If however representamens are presumptively held to always be immediate firsts within semiosis, then there agreeably would likely be no need for such a term as "immediate representamens" as long as no confusion arises due to the presumption. Nonetheless, this to me is the first time that a curiosity has arisen as to whether Peirce used such terms as "immediate representamens" or "immediate signs" and further even had a use for them. There may of course be uses of these terms by others in sources on Peirce and a quick search will be done at my end for them.
Joseph mused... Where does Peirce talk about an "immediate representamen" (or an "immediate sign")? I can't think of any use he would have for such a term. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
