[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L

David Reinheimer :
Re: TUT: SIGN;
Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:36:11 -0700

>First, the 'something other than itself' need also to be something physical
>(perceivable to our senses, as Fiske names it). If one does not accept this,
>I think we could end up with a deconstructionist idea of the sign in which
>sings get their meaning by referring to other signs, which in their turn
>refer to other signs. At the end we need to arrive at the physical reality,
>if not we end up in a sort of idealism.

I wonder about this, and perhaps it is merely a manifestation of my
ignorance, but:

What then of the word "God"?  Is this not a sign, because God is not
perceivable by our senses?  What of, as well, "love," "hate," and other
emotions?

Have a good day!
Dr. Dave Reinheimer
University of California, Davis
dareinheimer@ucdavis.edu

[Index] [Prev] [Next]

Comments to Semios-L