Clark,
It seems to me that the “sign-vehicle,” if it means anything other than “sign,
or representamen,” has to mean what Peirce called the “material qualities” of
the sign (EP1:40).
You quoted Joe Ransdell:
[[ I have said that the object is essential in all semiosis. By this I mean the
Gary, I should have read your post before composing my reply to Clark (which i
just posted), as it anticipates what I said about the immediate object being
still an object.
I think Scott is right about “subjective universality,” in that subjects of
experience (using the term in the Kantian
Clark,
I don’t think this approach clarifies the matter, because it seems to overlook
a couple of Peirce’s specifications. First, in reference to the sign “It is a
stormy day,” he says that “Its Immediate Object is the notion of the present
weather so far as this is common to her mind and
Jon, Jeff, list,
Jon, to answer your question to me that’s embedded near the end of your post,
yes, you’ve gone a long way here toward a schema of the interpretants that
makes sense to me, and is entirely compatible with SS 111 (1909) (also included
in your post), which to me is Peirce’s
