Supplement: When I wrote "the actual (secondness) reaction", I meant: Secondness is the being-called of the reaction (representamen, firstness, coin) by the memory content (secondness). The reaction "I might have a use for this coin" is already thirdness, interpretation.
Dear Sung, Jerry, Lis
Dear Sung, Jerry, List,
is it ok to interpret Sungs statement as follows?
"Formally" means "in its role as an object", and "ontologically" means: What it is (as an entity) in possible other contexts. One example: The agreement, that money is a value-exchange medium. "Money is a value-exchange-me
