Maybe it's pathological. WC
> > This inclines me to suspect Michael may indeed believe an > object can "have a > meaning" -- but I concede I could be wrong, and his > position is effectively > identical with mine: The elements that make up the > observable surface of an > object -- like the inky marks we call words -- are simply > occasions for the > associating mind to conjure notion. And all those from the > same community who > have > been exposed to the same regular juxtapositions of words > and objects are > likely > to find their associating apparatus summoning roughly > similar notion. When
