[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[Ham Priday]

Scott --

I must confess ignorance of Peirce's theory.  But since you admit to the
existence of dyadic relations and say that relations do not have to be
triadic, I fail to see why you single this one out.

I said:
> The fact that there are two people involved does not
> change the fundamental epistemology.

You replied:
> Yes it does change. If you remove any one of the
> variables (the donor, the recipient, or the thing given)
> you do not have an act of giving. Similarly with meaning
> (which in S/O terms is two objects and one subject), remove
> any one of the three and it ceases to be an act of meaning.

I acknowledge a donor, a recipient, and a gift in the relationship of
"giving".  These are the three participants.  Relationships are infinitely
extendable by number.  Thus, if you were to make the book a presentation to,
say, a class of 40 people, there would be 42 participants, including
yourself and the book.  I don't see what that proves insofar as epistemology
is concerned.

> What I am saying is that, though the "aware" relation as
> given is syntactically valid, metaphysically, it isn't complete.
> That, instead, what is "really going on" is
> meaning(interpretant, representamen, referent).

Again, in S/O terms, the "thing" or referent being interpreted is the
observed object, while the interpreter is the subject.  Why do you need two
interpreters?   Must you confirm the interpretation with a second opinion?
If that's the case, why not bring in a dozen or more interpreters for a
"collective consensus" of the meaning?

Also, could you define "representamen"?

Thanks,
Ham