Geoff writes (aptly, say I): > My little quibble: if we are able, in social discourse, to employ different > words for the same thing, it can help to demonstrate that two speakers are > sharing the same meaning. If a single word is used, both > speakers may believe (incorrectly, or not) that they share a common > understanding of the term. If a second term is introduced any difference in > interpretation or usage can be identified. > The policy I urge is: When in doubt, spell it out. When you use a key term, try to slip in somewhere a description of your notion behind it. And try to convey what your notion is NOT. In my long still-not-sent draft posting to Luc, I try to convey why I think his notion of "consciousness" is different from mine. In addressing Luc's "consciousness" I summon up a word that for me is effectively synonymous: "awareness". As respectfully as I can, I try to challenge Luc to say he is not "aware of" sensations like a taste, a smell, a pain. And yet his position seems to be that we are not "conscious" of them.
I want to believe that very up-close pressure like this on a speaker's words and notions will help rinse away many misunderstandings. One of my guiding principles is: get it down as close as possible to OBSERVATIONS we can all roughly recognize -- and use EXAMPLES. (It's a policy I've long urged on Frances Kelly -- to no avail.) ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
