Frances, you write: "If persons join to discuss a topic, they should share a clear notion of what each other has in mind with the key terms used. Humans as signers must first use assumptions [in] the initial stage in communication, because they can never know with certainty or exactness the full meaning and truth of a sign."
You say, this, Frances, but over the years you have consistently avoided describing your notion behind that key word of yours -- 'sign'. You do this despite direct, unmistakable requests for you to describe what you have in mind when you use the word. (Another term that you have steadfastly avoided defining is 'global'. You repeatedly dismiss other "isms" as having some use as "special" theory, while extolling pragmatism as "global" theory, but when asked what you have in mind with "global", you do not respond.) I agree that we ultimately must make assumptions about the notion in the other's mind, in part because, though he may assiduously try to describe it, he will be using OTHER words and notions that he will not at that moment try to define/describe. For example, if someone asks me, "What do you mean by 'kitchen utensils'?" I will use many not-immediately-defined terms: "I just mean, pots, pans, knives, forks, spoons -- things like that that we use in the kitchen." Still, his notion of 'kitchen utensils' will thereafter more closely replicate my notion. So, when you say: "All any human mind can do is make a good conjectural guess at what may be meant by a sign and held as a vision or notion or nomination in the other mind," I claim you are wrong. Your position suggests that all attempts at eliciting definitions and descriptions are useless. But they are not. I feel zero doubt that I have often come far closer to grasping the other guy's notion after he has made prolonged, sincere, clever attempts to define/describe it. You yourself in your latest concede that communication is "a matter of degree". Every sincere lister on this forum believes that if he puts effort into clarifying and conveying his notion he will convey more of it than if he just asserts something with no attempt to "explain" it: "Your 'notionalism' theory fails because, though it is a special theory of some utility, it is not a global theory, which my theory of signs is." "I'm not sure what you have in mind." "I have spoken." "Wait -- what's your notion of a 'sign' and of 'global'? What did you have in mind when you said 'the full meaning and truth of a sign'?" "I have spoken." ************** It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
