Embodiment of the Interpretant in a Sign: Reconsider the Concept of a Sign as a Factor of Social Construction in the Frame of Embodied and Disembodied Mind

Social reality is semiotically constructed through a sign and sign relations as the mechanism of mediation and creation of “being together”. Social reality is in a constant creative process of dynamic change. It is provided by an intellectual interpretation of the mechanism itself, the real world, the being of other, signs and sign relations, through which a person finds the meaning of his/her being and is included in the overall construction of social reality. Therefore, the dynamic movement of thought to knowledge, to sense, to the joy of everyday life is made through an interpretation as a communicative and semiotic process of searching and involving the general community to another being. Historically, the most important models of signs and sign mediation is the sign model by F. de Saussure and Ch.S. Peirce. These models have long been criticized, but remained fundamental in the socio-semiotic mechanism of mediation between subject and object of knowledge and the construction of social reality. Following the publication of Ch. Taylor’s book “Sources of the self”, the concept of F. de Saussure and Ch.S. Peirce clearly gained social significance, in light of which many hidden mechanisms of semiotic construction of social reality become clear. Open-mindedness, which is the core process of semiosis, has a great importance for the construction of social reality. Basically, thinking is directed at the construction of a new body, the interpretant is directed at constructing a new interpreter. Of course, the construction of the body and physicality is not core one, but a peripheral process. However, it is not devoid of social value and also has potential in the construction of social community “being together”. Intelligent processes are rooted in the daily functioning of the body as their carrier, and the interpretant therefore provides an essential concrete interpreter. If the interpretant aimed against the interpreter as its carrier, then the question arises about “mechanism of truth” of the interpretant