; book for replacing triadic and higher relations with dyadics.
&gt; &gt;&gt; Both Peirce and Whitehead were very familiar with it, and they
&gt; &gt;&gt; both rejected it because it is *not* a decomposition into
&gt; &gt;&gt; dyads.  It is merely a relabeling of the arguments 1, 2, 3, 4
&gt; &gt;&gt; with labels "agent", "subject", "recipient", and "time". 
&gt; 
&gt; &gt;MW: Well I disagree. What it is really doing is recognising an object
&gt; &gt;that was hidden by the initial incomplete analysis, i.e. 