Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's original works,
rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and on
cherry-quotes of his works. You wrote:
"Written words are representamens and spoken (073114-7)
(and understood) words are signs."
No. Peircean semiosis is a process; the 'representamen' is not a thing in
itself but an action of mediation within a triadic process. The sign is the
full triadic process and not a thing or interpretation. In both cases if
you interact with the word, in both its written and spoken form, the 'word'
is an object in the Peircean sense. The difference between the two has
nothing to do with semiosis or the physics of energy dissipation. In a
semiotic sense, there is no difference between the two because both are
objects; there is only a material difference in their composition - similar
to frozen and liquid water.
One can go further and consider the word, in both its written and spoken
form 'in itself' as a semiotic sign (as the full triad) because each one
spatially and temporally exists. In its unread form on the paper, the word
remains a sign (in the triadic form) because it exists as a material entity
on another material entity; when read, it functions as a dynamic object. The
spoken word functions as a dynamic object.
Edwina
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
