Good point, Gary. Still another way of thinking about it might be to
suppose that the emphasis is supposed to fall on "thing" rather than "sign":
"no sign is a real THING" rather than "no sign is a REAL thing"; but that
doesn't sound very plausible to me. I like your solution better.
Joe Ransdell
'.
----- Original Message -----
From: "gnusystems" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?
[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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
