I just now added the transcription of the 1909 definition of a sign in the Logic Notebook -- pages MS 339.663f -- to the copies of the MS pages
http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/rsources/mspages/ms339d-663f.pdf It reads better than the version I posted to the list a couple of days ago because the pdf format can exactly duplicate Word format in a way that HTML format cannot, and that enabled me to show the cross-outs as actually crossed out though still legible. Also, this on-line version is more complete, as I transcribed material that I had omitted in the version posted for the reason I gave in that post, namely, because the additional material primarily concerns the question of whether one can know that one knows something (which is something that arises in the context of fallibilism), rather than the topic I was primarily concerned with when I posted it, namely, the conception of a sign as a substitute or surrogate for the object. Joe Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 7/21/2006 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
