OK, IC, it's not really a function, it's more like mystical bologna ...
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - Nope, I disagree. You are reducing the nature of a Function to a
linear path. My point is that F or S (in your triad) is not a step in a
path nor is it a cumulative action but is instead a transformative
action. The semiosic 'f' is not empty but 'filled' - with generals, with
universals and thus exerts a transformative agency on X...to result in a
Y that is not identical with X (unless it's a pure process).
And most certainly this is not behaviouristic stimulus-response -
because, again, that 'F' is a mediative and transformative
function....something that the O-S-I pattern doesn't clearly show.
Edwina
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
