[Inquiry] Re: Questions Involving Pure Symbols -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

QUIPS.  Discussion Note 27

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

JW = Jim Willgoose

Re: QUIPS-DIS 25.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-May/002691.html
In: QUIPS-DIS.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-May/thread.html#2602

JW: I don't think the type/token distinction accounts for
    why he wrote it (4.447) either.  He wrote it to show
    the incorporation of indices and icons in symbols.
    But I do think that 2nd order talk is at least the
    beginning of an attempt at explaining what ANYONE
    might mean if they said that pure symbols are
    neither indicative nor iconic.  Thanks for
    the links.

Jim,

I thought at first that I was getting your mesaages way later
than you sent them, but now it seems that you are replying to
my messages before I send them.  Either that or your computer
clock is operating under an x-treme daylight savings regime!?

I would probably need more clarification as to what you mean
by 2nd order talk, as terms like these tend to get used with
a wide variety of meanings.

Jon Awbrey

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