Edwina, List: Yes, I refuse on ethical grounds to deviate from Peirce's own usage of these terms. Again, either a Sign is a Representamen with a mental Interpretant (CP 2.274, EP 2:273 and CP 2.242, EP 2:291; both 1903), or "Sign" and "Representamen" are synonymous (SS 193; 1905). He never--*not once*--used "Sign" for a triad, since a triad is always a *relation*, while a Sign is always a *correlate*.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 6:29 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS - The Commens entry refers to definitions of the Representamen. I am > talking about the full TRIAD - not the mediative part, aka, the > Representamen, of the Triad. You repeatedly refuse to differentiate between > the two and even to acknowledge the vital role of the full semiosic triad. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
