Let us revisit the Springer image below–I have an admission to make, and ideas to share.

At first I had mistaken the graph as representing Sign, Sign User, and Addressee as stemming from Object. That would have been the fallacy of privileging the “objective” object as the entity determining the rest of the terms. Apologies to Springer/their author.

Taking another careful look, I discovered the currently anonymous crossing point, to which all four terms are linked, and it occurred to me that it would thus qualify as a representation of the Ecosonance relationship. All terms link to a single point, thereby becoming linked among them. Another plus for the Springer graph is that it also leans toward a communicative view of the sign, as I do.

The compromise with straight lines still grates, but–synchronistically,–ES philosophy has found a possible visual illustration in semiosis. I certainly recognize the validity of having communicating persons as terms of the sign, in lieu of the respective meanings they generate, which I label “Meaning Intended” (by the utterer/sign user) and “Meaning Interpreted” (by the interpreter/addressee). On the whole, the graph above seems to match Charles Morris’s reinterpretation of Perceian semiotics, to which Dewey strongly objects–specifically, to representing Morris’s interpretation as based on Peirce’s, which it is not. Not to forget, the fact that the only meaning term of the Peircean sign is the Interpretant (i.e., the meaning in the mind of the interpreter) has backing in Peirce’s logico-philosophical semiotics. More on that coming up.