No, I think the problem will always be relevant. If meaning is not in words, where is it? In "notions"? Notions are in consciousness but they include feelings and feelings result from bodily sensations. That means feelings are physical. If words affect feelings then we assign meaning to them; that is, they "occasion" a top-down structuring of experience.
Cheerskep says people communicating need to occasion similar, serviceable, notions in each other's mind. So who has to do the most work to get the mutually serviceable notions? Based on Cheerskep's habit to claim all others are muddled and confused, etc., in expressing their notions if he doesn't get it, I suppose he is the judge. If he says I'm wrong or muddle-headed in saying this, then does that mean he's more muddled than I am? WC --- On Wed, 10/22/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Synonyms" > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 3:25 PM > If any letter on the alphabet has it ,why not words? > mando > On Oct 22, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > > > Do any of the participants on this thread believe that > any new > > ground has been > > broken on this, the umpteenth discussion of > Cheerskep's insistence > > that words > > have no intrinsic meaning ? > > > > Any new insights ? > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > Lower rates for Veterans. Click for VA loan > information. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/ > > Ioyw6ijmOiljLSMlPVwdo6BufFLbf1 > > alQK1VUhX4foddpbw32m6dFq/?count=1234567890
