Vinicius, I also don't see how all signs must be hypostatic abstractions, for
doesn't that assume, as you point out, the existence of almost, a final or
even, a dynamic interpretant? Doesn't the internal immediate interpretant,
which is a part of the sign, eg, that alien message, or that
Ulysses asked:
Could you elaborate on the connection you see(5623-1)
between context and arbitrariness?
All I was trying to say was that the meaning of a sign is not just the
function of the sign itself(with all its elaborate structures described by
Peirce) but also of the
