In this article I present an Echian argument on why reality cannot be just a discourse for semiotics. I will first introduce what is the problem of the terminus a quo for Eco. I will then distinguish the terminus a quo from the problem of the limits of interpretation and pose the question of why the terminus a quo is a problem for semiotics (and not just a problem that semiotics can study). My proposal is that the place where the problem of the terminus a quo emerges more sharply, together with the reason why we need a cognitive semiotics, is in the Antiporphyry. As I will show, in the conclusions of the Antiporphyry we can find the first position of the problem of the terminus a quo.