0871 The scholastic three-level interscope for how humans think is introduced in Comments on John Deely’s Book (1994) New Beginnings (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

The conceptual apparatus is developed in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

The semiotic tool is productively used in Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal” (appearing in July 2024 in Razie Mah’s blog).

0872 Here is a diagram.

0873 The three-level interscope is a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms.

For each level, a triadic normal context₃ brings a dyadic actuality₂ into relation with a monadic possibility of ‘something’₁.

Among levels, perspective_c brings situation_b into relation with content_a.  Likewise, thirdness brings secondness into relation with firstness.

0874 Here is how each nested form is articulated.

On the content level, the normal context of what is happening_3a brings the actuality of sensation_2a into relation with the potential of ‘something happening’_1a.

On the situation level, the normal context of what it means to me_3b brings the actuality of perception_2b into relation with the possibility of ‘situating content’_1b.

On the perspective level, the normal context of whether this makes sense_3c brings the actuality of a judgment_2c into relation with the possibility of ‘contextualizing the situation’_1c.

0874 Notice that the actualities are not portrayed as dyads.  When they are, the scholastic interscope becomes more… well… beautiful.  And, biosemioticians must be careful when a transcendental manifests, like a beautiful painting at the end of a hallway. There is no telling where that hallway leads.

0875 What about biosemiotics?

Elements of Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay fit nicely into various slots in the scholastic interscope.

0876 Can I discern a specifying sign-relation?

Here, the initiating (semiotic)_2a is a real event_2a.

Information_2b virtually situates the initiating semiotic_2a, in the same way that a specifying sign-object (SO_s) virtually situates its sign-vehicle (SV_s).

Notice that both SO_s and SV_s belong to the realm of actuality.

0877 A specifying sign-interpretant (SI_s) enables the SV_s to stand for its SO_s.

What is that SI_s?

SI_s consists of the situation-level normal context_3b operating on its possibility_1b.

In this instance, SI_s is the normal context of self-governance_3b operating on potential ‘courses of action’_1b.

0878 I can go further.

I can imagine the exemplar sign-relation.

0879 A perspective-level goal_2c virtually contextualizes situation-level information_2b, in the same way that an exemplar sign-object (SO_e) virtually contextualizes its sign-vehicle (SV_e).

Both SO_e and SV_e belong to the realm of actuality.

0880 An exemplar sign-interpretant (SI_e) enables the SV_e to stand for its SO_e.

What is that SI_e?

This is where the scholastic interscope for how humans think comes in handy.

For semiotic agency, the SI_e is vague.  The normal context of salience_3c operates on a potential underlying salience_1c.  I suppose the potential_1c is ‘the possibility_1c of contextualizing information_2b‘, if that helps.

For the scholastic interscope, the normal context asking, “Does this make sense?”_3c operates on the possibility of ‘contextualizing the situation’_1c.

0881 To me, this implies that the term, “salience_3c((1c))“, supports an actuality_2c that weighs perception_2b against sensation_2a, while asking what goal_2c might be attempted.

What does that imply?

0882 The scholastic interscope contains the specifying and exemplar sign relations, which figure so prominently in semiotic agency.