Auke - thanks for your comments.
1] Yes, I now see your point, with 'one monad interacting with
another monad' - and I agree.
2] With regard to your rejection that the categories operate as
linear modes - I accept your explanation.
3] And I fully agree with
Edwina,
You wrote:
In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads
[Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full
triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate
[1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1].
--
Also in my view,
Auke - Thanks for your comments...I'll continue with my own comments
1] I don't say that my view is not suited/or is suited to political
issues. I was only discussing the categorical mode of Thirdness, and
since Thirdness is an action providing rule-based continuity- then,
of
Edwina,
Thanks for the clarification. It seems to point to the difference in our
respective approaches, and I agree that yours is not ideally suited to adress
political issues. For completeness sake: for me, a sign that fulfills its
sign-function in raising interpretant signs (responses) is
Auke - thanks for your post.
In this analysis, I'm looking at only the operation of Thirdness in
both its genuine and degenerate modes. That is - I'm not considering
the nature of the triad, ie, the Sign [a member of society, a
government].I am not considering the triadic
