> On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk> wrote: > > Interaction seems to me to be a far wider concept than communication. Any > possible empirical event involves energy exchange, that is, interaction. To > me, it dilutes the concept of communication almost to insignificance to > identify it with interaction tout court.
I suspect we’re talking semantics. I don’t care which words we use so long as we’re all clear on what we mean by them in this context. To me communication is broad, but perhaps that’s just from having worked on too much computer networking. My own linguistic use (which I’m not committed to it as I noted) is that interaction is secondness and communication is thirdness. To me communication involves communicating something through some medium. However since my background is physics I tend to see properties or states as being what’s communicated. This especially makes sense once you start talking about the physics of a black hole. Anyway while obviously secondness and thirdness are closely related, it seems fair to keep them separated. To me communication is mediated while interaction is the raw encountered without consideration of the mediation. Thanks for clarifying. As in so many of these things, getting clear our definitions makes things much easier to understand.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
