1041 Epistemic?

Or empirio-schematic?

Where does the epistemic cut go?

Does empirio-schematics care?

1042 We can observe and measure the sign-vehicles and sign-objects in the following figure, once we have the following figure as a diagram of the thing itself.

Then, we can formulate models to account for the sign-interpretants.

1043 On one hand, the inquirer may treat the biosemiotic noumenal overlay as operational, consisting of three sign-relations, which constitute a spiral of semiosis through time.

On the other hand, the inquirer may regard each biosemiotic spiral phenomenologically, that is, as what the noumenon must be.

1044 With this in mind, I may look at one of the real elements that goes with [meaning], SV_i, along with its counterpoint, SV_s.

Parole_2c (SV_i) and langue_2a (SV_s) are worth considering.

Parole_2c (SV_i) is a vocal expression_2c (SV_i) that stands for the expression of an intention_2a (SO_i) in regards to a content-level normal context_3a and potential_1a (SI_i).  Like the actions of an animal, parole (SV_i) is a real event that generates a sign-object (SO_i) that signifies like an icon, a picture that sends a message.

Parole_2c (SV_i) is a real event that belongs to the interventional sign-relation.  It’s counterpart, langue_2a (SV_s) initiates semiotic agency.

1045 Amazingly, over a century ago, Ferdinand de Saussure transforms the discipline of linguistics by proposing that spoken language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences, parole (SV_i) and langue (SV_s).

Here is one way to consider the proposition.

Parole, SV_i, as an actuality_2c on the perspective level, has a counterpart, langue, SV_s, serving as an actuality_2a on the content level.  SV_i belongs to the interventional sign.  SV_s belongs to semiotic agency.

1046 With that consideration in mind, suprasubjective parole_2c, SV_i, can be observed by a disinterested observer, and subjective langue, SV_s, cannot.  But, does that invalidate the claim that SV_s is phenomena?   No, langue_2a, SV_s, initiates the specifying sign-relation.  That is phenomenal.

Here, I add a caveat.  There is more than one way to portray parole and langue using diagrams of triadic structures.  Just saying….

1047 Nonetheless, in a complementary fashion, I may look at the other real element that goes with [meaning], SO_e, along with its counterpart SO_i.  Goal_2c connects to [meaning].  Expression of intention_2a associates to [message].

1048 This suprasubjective-subjective pair seems even more evolutionarily ancient than parole and langue.  The goal_2c, SO_e, terminates semiotic agency.  An expression of intention_2a or the expression intended_2a, SO_i, satisfies the interventional sign-relation and activates a [message].  The goal_2c (SO_e) belongs to the Innerwelt.  The intended expression_2a (SO_i) belongs to the Umwelt (and for humans, the Lebenswelt).

Indeed, may I suggest that SO_i is what a disinterested observer would objectify if he were not on the subjective level?