y unwarranted.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
But Peirce doesnt say that it exists, does he? <BR>
<BR>
The only way I can make sense of this sentence is as a tautology, similar in logical structure to the assertion that you cannot point at something that cannot be pointed at. If there were an English word for being impossible to be pointed at ("inpointatizable", maybe) the sentences would even look alike. However, I can imagine a Thomistic objection along the lines that it is impossible to even *refer* to the absolu