In a message dated 9/22/08 3:23:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If you insist that any two individuals will have somewhat varying
> interpretations/understandings of either term, I know of no way to deny your
> thesis. The next implication in that perspective would seem to be the end of
> theorizing/conceptualizing or discussing theory or art as no one would be in
> absolute agreement about anything. If we recognize no necessary meaning in
> terminology (no "dictionary of meanings") I wonder what language is left to
> us to communicate.
>
Oh, the majority of our language elements are very serviceable the vast
majority of the time. In my recent response to Michael Brady, I tried to make
the
point that words that can be easily "defined" in terms of "sense data" can be
sufficiently described so there's little confusion. It's when one is using
words where there are no potential justifying sense data one can cite to convey
what one thinks the word "refers to" that we get in trouble. 'Art' is such a
word.
**************
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators.
(http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
