Let us have in a brief statement some definitions from members of
what the term "sign" seems to mean. In the possible absence of
any positive replies, it can likely be assumed that no confusion
exists about this issue. In regard to the pragmatist jargon about
signs, it is admittedly baroque and complex and difficult. The
very real task for me in probable perpetuity is to weave this
snarl of twine into a common lingual thread, and then tailor it
for specific kinds of audiences. It may be that there is indeed a
failure here. 
-FCK 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sign Defined

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)

Reply via email to