[lit-ideas] Re: Does the sign say its own sense? An Austrian example
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:34:56 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
>I wonder, and do wonder if I wonder, if D. McEvoy (he isn't) is offering
the example below as a repartee to my post where I asked for specific
illustrations on the use of 'sense'.
You see that the subject line:
The sign says its own sense.
becomes jargonistic in a charming way.>
"Jargonistic"? What the subject-heading perhaps does is play on the idea of
"sign" generally [as per semantics] and the more specific meaning of "sign" as
in "road sign" "town name sign" etc: this invites whether the principles of the
sense of the latter are different to those of other signs.
Do I _really_ have to suggest again that, for W, it is a true of all "signs"
[insofar as 'what-is-said' is constituted by 'signs'] that their sense is not
_said_ or stated in the sign? (If so, give me a sign. FFS.)
<snip>
>Enter McEvoy's claim:
A sign says its own sense.>
This is not my claim. It is my claim that W _denies_ _this_ claim.
Also I am at a loss to how you think W aims to do away with 'signs' in his
account of sense?
Signing off, sighing
Dnl
Ldn
Who perhaps should watch "Looking For Richard" later
Other related posts:
