Actually the notion of encountering a "foopgoon" really gives me a powerful full bloom a.e. when I think of it.
mando On Jul 26, 2008, at 7:26 AM, William Conger wrote: > And what about the "notion behind the word"? How can there be a > notion (I assume that's an image shaped by word association) > without words? > WC > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/25/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: "An 'aesthetic experience' MAKES the work 'art'" >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] >> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 8:54 PM >> In a message dated 7/25/08 11:31:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> writes: >> >> >>> The following description you provide of your notion >> behind the word >>> 'ontology' is basically defective because it >> assumes as "given" many of the >>> very >>> elements that someone like me would reject: >>> >>> "An ontology is-the formal representations >> within a domain and the >>> relationships within the domain. I would suggest that >> cheerskep is >>> insisting >>> on >>> defining the individuals of the domain >>> before the domain itself has been tentatively >> defined." >>> >>> Feh! Feh, I tell you! >>> >> >> Which elements are they-and in this case, define element >> please. >> KAte Sullivan >> >> >> ************** >> Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign >> up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. >> >> (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
