Jon, you can make claims like this until the cows come home, but there is no reason to accept them until you provide a consequential definition of "consequential definition".
Semiotics (unlike mathematics) is a positive science dealing with real relations, and no preformulated definition can furnish the collateral observation of them required for meaningful propositions about them. (The same goes for any other term naming a real entity.) Important as your work may be, and generous as you are in making it available to us, you can't reasonably propose it as a prerequisite for understanding what NP (or Peirce) tells us about relations. gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 3-Sep-14 10:16 PM Re: "it may be expressed as the claim that all true triadic relations are signs vs. the claim that signs only comprise a subset of triadic relations." Frederik & All, People may speculate until the proverbial cows come home, but questions like these cannot be addressed, much less answered, without bringing consequential definitions of relations to bear. I have made several efforts at basic expositions along these lines and will send links to them by separate posts. Regards, Jon
----------------------------- 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 .
