0883 Here is a diagram showing the way that Sharov and Tonnessen bring a three-level interscope into a dyadic actuality suitable for laying over the noumenon of all biological processes.

Empirio-schematic inquiry into biosemiotics may now fruitfully employ this noumenal overlay as the thing that is objectified by biosemiotic phenomena.

0884 But, there is more. 

The interventional sign-relation is difficult to fathom, because its sign-vehicle cannot be seen.  It must be inferred.  In biosemiotics, that inference represents phenomena.  It is the goal_2c as a sign-vehicle (SV_i).

More on that in short order.

0885 Here is a picture of the interventional sign-relation within the scholastic interscope.

Before discussing the strangeness of the perspective-level sign-vehicle_2c (SV_i), I want to dwell on our (human) familiarity of the content-level.

What is more routine than asking the question, “What happening?”, as if this is a normal context_3a operating on the potential of ‘something’ happening’_1a?

The question asks for content, and the answer comes by way of sensation_2a (SO_i).  For animals, sensations do not come packaged with loads of information.  For humans, they do.  A simple statement, like “Where did you put your token?”, which is really a question, gets rapidly decoded into the content-level {SO_i}_2a.

Yes, the SO_i is a real element.  The SV_s is a real element.  The contiguity between the two is [message].

That token (SV_s) is a ticket to ride (SO_s).

0886 The familiar character of the content-level SO_i and SI_i hides the unfamiliar nature of the perspective-level SV_i.

What is going on with judgment_2c {SV_i}_2c?