, Ben. See mine below.
- Original Message -
*From:* Benjamin Udell
*To:* Edwina Taborsky
*Sent:* Friday, December 19, 2014 1:09 PM
*Subject:*Re: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, list,
1) You wrote,
What I'm talking about is a biochemical process, where
X can talk about a biochemical process only by some metalangue. Therefore X
represents his ideas about bioproc. or for example Peirces ideas by signs.
Re-presentation includes human understanding, it is not a mechanical process.
Am I wrong?
kindly markku sormunen
Lähetetty laitteesta
: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Markku- I'm not, in my semiosic analysis, referring to what HUMANS are talking
about with their metalanguage. I'm talking about the semiosic processes that go
on in the biological realm, within the, for example, cell - which has nothing
to do
Edwina, lists,
You wrote,
What I'm talking about is a biochemical process, where, let's say, a
cell (which is a cognitive system) ingests some external data
(water, nutrients) (Object) and, semiosically transforms that input
data, via its mediative habits-of-organization (the
Thanks for your response, Ben. See mine below.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell
To: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, list,
1) You wrote,
What I'm
Thanks for your comments, Ben. See mine below, but I think the post is getting
messy and incomprehensible with the various post/responses all mixed up. You
are probably the only one who will read it and I hope you can figure it out.
I'll try colour-coding my current responses.
1) EDWINA:
