Geoff writes: > Cheerskep: Good luck on convincing many of us on the concept that minds can > operate to "associate" but that that does not mean that the product, in > person's minds, of "associating" is not "associations". > Geoff C > > Again-- my failure to be as clear as I could have been (though I did suggest I was aware I was keeping it unsatisfactorally brief.) Granted: we use the word 'associations' in two different ways.
Try this: Distinguish between the act of associating and its "product", the way you would distinguish between an author's act of writing and his resultant "writings". I infer you what you have in with the word 'product' is indeed an entity, albeit a notional one -- the notion subsequent to the act of associating. Unfortunately for me, we are used to using 'association' both ways. Compare "She uses association to summon up her associations." to "She uses association to summon up her poetic imagery." What we have in mind when we talk of the act of associating is not identical to its product. The first is an action, the second an object. The alleged act of "relating" is not identical to either of the allegedly "related" objects. Indeed, I'm going beyond that. I'm saying that the alleged act of relating is chimerical, just as the alleged acts of "referring to", "signifying", "naming" (when imputed to the "name") and "meaning" are chimerical. Not totally clear, but clearer maybe? ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
