It's one thing to say you don't agree with the other guy after trying to follow his argument but it's another thing to sprinkle ad-hominems all over the screen in an effort to intimidate and ridicule him. Your obsequious, pontifical declarations, usually on truly elementary issues -- excuse me, one issue, just ramble along. You like to regard yourself as the language cop here, the one who can spot a jaywalking IS a mile off, especially when it's been out drinking with Art. You don't respect your fellow listers, Cheerskep. All we all so muddled, fuzzy, confused, descriptions of idiots or those in dementia? I think not. It strikes me as quizzical that you persist in pretending others can't distinguish art from artwork, or, as you put it, painting.
I do think all communication is metaphorical because any form of communication stands for something else. Here's a line or two from Montaigne (essay 16). "There is the name and the thing. The name is a sound which designates and signifies the thing; the name is not part of the thing or of the substance, it is an extraneous piece attached to the thing and outside of it." Whatever stands for something else can be a metaphor of it because it evokes the thing without being it by other means. I suppose you'll say Montaigne was muddled and confused. WC --- On Wed, 9/24/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Examining the theory > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 2:59 PM > 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)
