1021 So, in this language game concerning theories of meaning, I end up with the appearance that “end-directive activities” reside “out there” (as the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i) expresses an agent’s goal_2c in action) as well as “in here” (as the goal_2c itself (SO_e)).

1022 Dare I continue?

The author calls the SO_e “objective” and the SV_i “objective in parentheses”.

In this terminology, the goal_2c (SO_e) is “objective” and its expression_2c (SV_i) is “objective in parenthesis” because… well… any intervention can go wrong (so, it is better to put the objective in parenthesis).

1023 A rewarding feature of this modern nomenclature is that it allows a clean break between semiotic agency (the Innerwelt aspect) and the interventional sign-relation (the Umwelt and Lebenswelt aspect).

Here is a picture.

For the contiguities, [p] is [presence], [mn] is [meaning] and [mg] is [message].

1024 A clean break makes intellectual labors simpler when [message] is [inter] and more complicated when [message] is [infold].

When I speak to myself, I labor as semiotic agency produces a speech-act that serves as an intervention which activates my… um… semiotic agency.

Is the [message] [inter] or [infold]?

Does it have to be one or the other?

1025 The medieval scholastics come up with terms that are discussed in Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Agency” (appearing in Razie Mah’s blog for October, 2023).  The terms pertain to the levels of the scholastic interscope for how humans think.  The term, “subjective”, labels the content level, where SV_s resides.  The term, “objective”, labels the situation level, where SO_s is located.  The term, “intersubjective” labels the situation level, where SV_e is located.  The term, “suprasubjective”, labels the perspective level, where SO_e is located.

1026 Here is a picture.

1027 This implies that SO_e [meaning] SV_i is, for scholastics, “suprasubjective’ (that is, “subjective from a divine perspective”) and, for modern academics, the locus of both “objective” and “objective in parenthesis”.

In short, the biosemiotic structure of suprasubjectivity contains both objective goal_2c (SO_e) and its (objective) expression in the moment (SV_i).

1027 As if to demonstrate the delicacy of this modern distinction, the author offers the example of spoken language as the arbitrary relation between two systems of differences, parole (speech in act) and langue (speech decoded). 

1028 Can the reader guess how these two systems of differences fit into the above diagram?

Here is what I figure.

1029 The information_2b of semiotic agency is within the agent, even though it_2b concerns what_2a  apparently is located without.

For this reason, I may playfully modify information_2b into -formation_2b (SO_s) [presence] in-_2b (SV_e)

If the goal_2c is to say ‘something’, then SV_i is parole, a speech act.  The parole (SV_i) stands for an intention_2a (SO_i) in regards to what is happening_3a operating on the potential of ‘something’ happening_1a (SI_i).  Of course, this intention_2a(SO_i) is not the same as the originating goal (SO_e) and that becomes evident when spoken words are instantly decoded by a langue operator_2a (SV_s) as an event akin to sensation_2a.

1030 That brings me (the examiner) back to [meaning] as the contiguity between an objective goal_2c (SO_e) and an (objective) parole (SV_i).