lgs raises the ante of the discussion of cinematic pietas in important but disquieting ways when he says that "When we make a theory of meaning however we retrospectively give all those games (or practices) homogeneity and say that we have been doing the same thing all along. We try to give, *ex post facto,* a set of rules to what we were doing whereas those rules never crossed our minds when we were interpreting films, reading books, etc. When we are engaged in a language game we think of rules as little as we think of the grammar of our "native" language when we speak it." for if semiotics does NOT in fact describe what we already do when we make meaning, but is simply a set of conventions that, like grammar in one of its declensions, can be used to instruct the uninitiated in the proceudres of the game, then why the hell do we need it . . . when i teach comp i try to get my students to understand that while syntax is an epistemic art, grammar is not . . . and if i have devoted lots of serious thought to semiotics over the past decade or so, and very little to grammar, it's only because i imagine the former as much more integral to making meaning than the latter . . . but then again lgs admits as much in his [literally] abysmal concluding observation "The scandal of this is that it means that all semiotics is historical." . . . but i don't think i'm ready to give up the whole game yet . . . is there, then, no way of describing or modeling in principle what WE ACTUALLY DO when we make meaning?? well, is there???? mike frank Press RETURN for more... MAIL> #90 27-FEB-1996 14:21:01.25 NEWMAIL For more on these points see Ludwig Wittgenstein's *Philosophical Investigations.* lgs ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]