List: On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:41 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> it is necessary that it should have been really embodied in a Subject > independently of the communication; and it is necessary that there should be > another subject in which the same form is embodied only in consequence of the > communication. Are there two mysteries associated with EP2:477? What is the philosophical meaning of embodiment in this context? How is a sign embodied in two different objects? What is the meaningful distinction between "communication" in > should have been really embodied in a Subject independently of the > communication and "communication" in > same form is embodied only in consequence of the communication. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
