In a message dated 7/2/09 2:08:41 PM, [email protected] writes:
> It would however be my > interpretation that an absence implies no confusion, > This we knew, Frances. But, whether by 'implies' you have in mind a weak "suggests" or a firm "necessarily entails", the whole point of my response was to convey that your interpretation was in error. I'm incredulous enough to want to repeat my question: Do you believe that because no one mentioned their confusion when reading the following lines from you, you should confidently infer their silence "implies" the lines c aused no confusion whatever? " these subsigns would correctly be immediate syntactic actisigns, and not immediate semantic qualisigns like their referential tones and marks. The issue then is what dynamic or energetic intermediate object is signified by the preparatory subsign to a mark, and what proper sign is subsequently realized by this subordinate act of productive signification. Such an interpretation of marks wrongly and merely as immediate syntactic representations, and not correctly as immediate semantic referentions, subsequently turns the quasi marks as actisigns justly into nothing more than vital indexic signs like signals and symptoms caused by some organism." ************** It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
