List:
Gary writes,
> Your original question, “How is a sign embodied in two different objects?”,
> does not make sense in that context.
Sense making?
My original question stands; the additional text does not clarify the meaning
for me.
I understand that you (Gary) can not make sense of
Jerry, you were ostensibly asking a question about Peirce’s text.
Peirce’s text does not say, nor does it imply, that a sign is “embodied in two
different objects.”
Therefore your original question, as it stands, does not pertain to Peirce’s
text, which is the context I referred to.
Gary
List:
In a separate post, it is stated:
> Jerry, the sign is not embodied in two different objects, it is embodied in
> two differentsubjects. Communication always involves at least two subjects;
> even thought, according to Peirce, is dialogic. Any given thought is
> “embodied” when it
List:
On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:41 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca 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
>
Jerry, EP2:477 is from a 1906 letter from Peirce to Lady Welby, and the EP2
editors chose to omit part of it, including the paragraph preceding the one
that I quoted. Restoring this context may help to clear up your confusion about
Peirce’s usage of “embodied,” which is compatible with the
