These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 15 June 2011 16:52, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote: > Put most briefly, for anybody who is interested: > > Signs potentiate interpretation. That is what signs do. I'm happy with "This is what signs do for us." > That's what semiosis (the activity of signs) is. This is the _semiosic_ > activity of triadic sign relations. Signs have no inherent activity. Perhaps you mean the activity of using signs? > The meaning of a word consists of the interpretation that the word (qua > sign) potentiates. > > That looks more promising. > Weights resist the muscular activity of lifting. This is dynamic physical > action (not tradic semiosic activity). In this capacity, the weight is just > a thing, and not a sign. > Mental activity is a dynamic physical action. Huw __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca