i think that peter's comments on a "usable semiotics," though suggestive, misses at least one of semiotics' main contributions to this ongoing discussion of meaning, namely that meaning is NOT a function of discrete elements (like the symbol dove, or even the word dove, or even the word peace) which maintain a stable signifying valence across discourses . . . i think it was jane tompkins who put this so nicely in suggsting that the railroad concept "the 7:19 to dubuque" can refer on two successive dayus to two trains which have NO discrete parts in common . . . that is, the actual equipment being used is different, the crew is different, the passengers are different, and if--as is not uncommon--one is a bit late, they don't even operate at exactly the same time . . . yet both are iterations of the same signifier: "the 7:19 to dubuque" . . . . . . in any case semiotics was NEVER conveived as a "how to" thing -- like the rules of grammar or gravity, it merely formulates the principles guiding procedures which we are already very very familiar and which we do very nicely, thank you, without thinking at all about how we do them mike frank ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]