[JOE] I don't understand yet how these terms are being
used in a way that satisfies me that I understand what those distinctions
really are. I was shocked, for example, to find Peirce saying that "no sign
is a real thing", though he does go ahead to explain this in such a way that
it does not seem to involve a retraction of his realism about signs after
all. But I don't really understand that yet.
[gary F] I wonder if Peirce might have cleared this up a little -- without
losing the shock value of "no sign is a real thing" -- by saying also that
"no thing is a real sign". (Since a thing can be at best a *replica* or
token of a sign.)
gary
}The Realized One comes from nowhere and goes nowhere; that is why he is
called the Realized One. [Diamond-Cutter Sutra]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
