I will continue to puzzle about whether or not there are "reals" and "unreals", not in hope or pretense of changing the terms that have currency in philosophical discussion, but because, given the slipperiness or words and their (assumed) clear subsequence to signs (images? appearances?) I would contend there is a good argument for claiming that reality is all known and unknown and all that we see as appearance is also reality. Hamlet is a case in point, being the very meaning of the tragedy of the binary. (Too late he understands that.) The actions that emerge from Hamlet are the product of his encounter with appearances. No one will say that the ghost is, as Peirce sometimes says of unreality, a figment or fiction. It is the ghost who insists on reality and whose reality Hamlet both embraces and rejects. This issue is crucial to me because it also has massive relevance to the theological references that have stimulated by Peirce's comments on the subject in NA and elsewhere. If we accept that reality is everything we can begin to apply a spectrum understanding to it and move to a consideration of matters that eventuate in conduct (another term Peirce uses without specifying its relationship to the pragmatic maxim). There is much more to be said about Hamlet. Especially when we consider that Hamlet slayed the one on whom Shakespeare, with delicious irony, showered "memorial maxims". And that Ophelia, for all that has been written of her, is hardly opaque in describing rape. Crazy? No way.