In a message dated 9/23/08 6:15:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I know Cheerskep likes to say I'm muddled, fuzzy, confused, etc., because I
> am unwilling to accept his very narrow, literalist and
> mechanical view of cognition as though it were purely a linguistic issue.
>
Alas, William, if what you garnered from my reams about "cognition" is that I
think it's purely a "linguistic issue", then I have to conclude that you are
muddled, fuzzy, confused, etc. Language stumbles are rampant on this forum,
but they are merely defective nets and hooks as our listers fish for the more
fundamental issue -- an ontological one. The issue concerns what "exists"
and what doesn't -- e.g. paintings exist in the non-notional world, "art" does
not. (FYI: the image of language as a fisherman's net is a metaphor in a sense
far more useful than your never-defined usage that would seem to make every
single statement of any kind a "metaphor".)
**************
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)
