[Inquiry] Re: Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

PS.  Discussion Note 12

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

BB = Bill Bailey

Re: PS-DIS 9.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/002478.html
In: PS-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/thread.html#2466

BB: Jon, thank you for the response.  I'm in agreement with all that you said,
    and as I tried to indicate, I fully appreciate the theoretical level of
    analysis.  My puzzlement was with the nature of the examples -- why
    Peirce would use actual "concrete" verbal signs instead of their
    relational values in language.  Wouldn't the meta-language
    notions of "conjunctions" and "prepositions" do as well,
    if not better, for explicating sign relations of
    pure symbols?

Bill,

Well, we may be dredging the bottom of the barrel now,
and coming down to dregs of purely stylistic interest,
but just by way of one for the road I could also say
that it is just in the nature of pure symbols to be
used in such a multiplicity of ways, on the spur
of the moment poetic or puritan, as you will.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o