sday, September 02, 2014 11:44 PM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:6595] Re: Natural Propositions
Edwina, you are bordering on talking nonsense (and in fact transform the
irreducible triadicity of any one sign relation into a triad of dyadic
relations. That is neither Peirce nor Po
ptember 02, 2014 18:48
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:6595] Re: Natural Propositions
John, thanks for your comment but the term 'interaction' as you write it has in
my view, no meaning.
Isn't the interaction carried out wi
rman
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 6:56 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:6595] Re: Natural Propositions
Edwina, interaction as such (agere et pati) is not relation; relation is what
arises from and continues after such interaction has ceased. One irreducibly
John wrote: One irreducibly triadic relation uniting three distinct terms
constitutes a "sign" formally, what is called "sign" in common speech being
but the foreground element - a "sign" only materially, better termed a
representamen or 'sign-vehicle' -- representing another than itself to or
for
Edwina, interaction as such (agere et pati) is not relation; relation is what
arises from and continues after such interaction has ceased. One irreducibly
triadic relation uniting three distinct terms constitutes a "sign" formally,
what is called "sign" in common speech being but the foreground
