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