Dear Ken, In your (much appriciated!) work about integral semiotics (http://www.kenwilber.com/writings/read_pdf/117) on page 7 second paragraph, shouldn't it say: "Thus, my dog can see the signifier “dog”, but that word has no meaning for him, no signified for him, and thus he cannot know TO WHICH referent that word actually HINTS." instead of "Thus, my dog can see the signifier “dog,” but that word has no meaning for him, no signified for him, and thus he cannot know what the referent of that word actually is."? Of course the dog knows what a dog is, it knows other dogs, probably better than you and me ;) What he doesn't understand is that the word "dog" references a dog (a referent subgroup which he, in your example, belongs himself to). Or in other words: the dog can actually see the physical worldspace with his physically developped body entailing mammal eyes. So the dog can see the referent (even though the dog has no representation in the part of his brain that holds speech/language) and the signifier but not the signified. But the six-year old cannot see the rational worldspace yet and therefore can see the signifier but not the signified nor the rational worldspace. Or did I misunderstand you somehow?