> Michael Brady quotes me: > > > So I do ask William to read again my last message because it says > > exactly the opposite of what he seems to think it does. > And he responds: > > Your messages *says* something? Your remark conjures (congers?) up in > my mind the notion that there is meaning in the words. Or is my notion > not the same as your notion? > "Hits a prublum!" Staying comprehensible and readable while also staying philosophically rigorous sometimes seems like a bloody self-contradiction to me. If you look at my last few emails, you'll also see I use -- without scare-quotes -- terms like 'art', 'works of art', and 'artists', and I use 'notion' without appending my long, tedious qualifying disquisition about how all notion is indeterminate, indefinite, multiplex and transitory etc etc etc . I probably would never do this in my rigorous mode, but the topics lately were such that I figured rigor would literally stand in the way of making my point to an optimal number of listers. Believe it -- as I wrote them I could picture someone posting back, "YOU?!, You use the word 'art'!? Aha!" Or I imagined someone in the future searching the archives to fetch out inconsistent usage by Cheerskep -- and succeeding in their search.
I salute your alertness, Michael -- indeed words don't "say" anything, indeed there are no such things as words, etc etc etc -- but I plead kitchen-table immunity, on the grounds that a man's kitchen-table is his castle -- metap horically speaking, by which I mean etc etc etc ************** It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
