Sign and Signified

Is the issue of the theory of signs perhaps simply the question of where one places the distinction of signifier/signified? In Christian creationist perspective, everything created is signifier of God. This is its most fundamental essence and purpose, to show forth the glory of creator. Thus, the line separating signifier and signified does not run (fundamentally) within creation. Within creation every signifier is a signifier of another signifier. Derrida is right that creation itself has the structure of writing. In a normal sense, signifier/signified is a distinction within creation, so that my word is a sign that ?stand for?Ethe ?thing?Eof which I am speaking (though doesn?t this make every word a noun?). Yet, the thing of which I am speaking is itself a signifier, which stands for, points to, something else. So the distinction of signifier and signified corresponds exactly with the distinction of creator and creature. Only because Derrida doesn?t believe there is a Creator, does he put the sign under absolute suspicion. Christians need not put the sign under any suspicion, because we confess the transcendent Logos that Derrida denied.

Augustine wants to run the line between signum and res within creation. Elsewhere, he does see that this is not the case, but in his theory of signs, this is where the line is placed: some things are signs, some things are not signs of anything else. But this supposes a kind of autonomy, independence that Augustine firmly does not believe in. It supposes that a thing can have its meaning ?in itself.?E