I appreciate your effort to do otherwise - when I teach seminars - my co teacher is a dictionary - though I live in the vernacular - I try to formulate my hypothesis in the technical - this often comes back to bite me in the ass- to use a figure of speech
Sent from my iPhone 646 528 8537 On Jun 1, 2010, at 4:55 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > In a message dated 6/1/10 3:32:21 PM, [email protected] writes: > > >> Is wrong a reified abstraction ? Or merely a category? >> > Good catch, Saul. To all intents and purposes, yes, it is. More > strictly, > the entailed reified abstractions are the QUALITY "wrongness", and > the > CATEGORY or SET of "wrong things - i.e. statements, procedures." I > continue > carelessly to mix kitchen and strick English. I am wrong to do it (!) >> >> On 6/1/10 2:23 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This is a premature and incomplete heads up about Harris's >> position. Like >> every academic I know of in linguistics and philosophy of language, >> he >> appears >> to be reifying abstractions like "categories", "art", "religions". >> I know >> -- >> everybody does it. But everybody is wrong. > > Received: from spam.cia.edu (10.4.1.6) by CIAART-EX01.ciaart.local > (10.4.1.12) > with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.436.0; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:55:10 > -0400 > Received: from mh.databack.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.cia.edu > (Spam & > Virus Firewall) with ESMTP id 4DDEF349F3D for > <[email protected]>; Tue, 1 > Jun 2010 16:54:52 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from mh.databack.com (mh.databack.com [66.180.170.41]) by > spam.cia.edu with ESMTP id 8n5gYAvTyZgMyqf1 for > <[email protected]>; Tue, > 01 Jun 2010 16:54:52 -0400 (EDT) > Received: by mh.databack.com (Postfix) id 5654F130FDE; Tue, 1 > Jun 2010 > 15:54:58 -0500 (CDT) > Received: by mh.databack.com (Postfix, from userid 1018) id > 539CB130FD9; Tue, > 1 Jun 2010 15:54:58 -0500 (CDT) > Received: by mh.databack.com (Postfix) id 19C7D131005; Tue, 1 Jun > 2010 > 15:54:57 -0500 (CDT) > Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (imr-ma01.mx.aol.com > [64.12.206.39]) by > mh.databack.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FA0130FFA for > <[email protected]>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:54:57 -0500 (CDT) > Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com > [64.12.78.139]) by > imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o51Ksjhl012848 for > <[email protected]>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:54:45 -0400 > Received: from [email protected] by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com > (mail_out_v42.9.) id > 3.e4a.11cfdde (56027) for <[email protected]>; Tue, 1 > Jun 2010 > 16:54:44 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from magic-d25.mail.aol.com (magic-d25.mail.aol.com > [172.19.146.159]) by cia-md08.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id > MAILCIAMD081-dadb4c0573946b; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:54:44 -0400 > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message > Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:54:43 -0400 > Subject: Re: book > Thread-Topic: book > Thread-Index: AcsBzLmUwr4dAb0QR0eDHMj2X157ow== > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > List-Help: <http://www.artphilosophytalk.com/> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <aesthetics- > [email protected]> > Accept-Language: en-US > Content-Language: en-US > X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous > X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: CIAART-EX01.ciaart.local > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > x-asg-debug-id: 1275425692-371700230000-CUKLf1 > x-barracuda-url: http://spam.cia.edu:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi > x-asg-orig-subj: Re: book > x-barracuda-connect: mh.databack.com[66.180.170.41] > x-barracuda-start-time: 1275425693 > x-barracuda-virus-scanned: by Barracuda Spam & Virus Firewall at cia.edu > delivered-to: [email protected] > x-original-to: [email protected] > x-aol-ip: 172.19.146.159 > x-barracuda-envelope-from: [email protected] > x-mailing-list: [email protected] > x-converted-to-plain-text: Alternative section used was text/plain > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > In a message dated 6/1/10 3:32:21 PM, [email protected] writes: > > >> Is wrong a reified abstraction ? Or merely a category? >> > Good catch, Saul. To all intents and purposes, yes, it is. More > strictly, > the entailed reified abstractions are the QUALITY "wrongness", and > the > CATEGORY or SET of "wrong things - i.e. statements, procedures." I > continue > carelessly to mix kitchen and strick English. I am wrong to do it (!) >> >> On 6/1/10 2:23 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This is a premature and incomplete heads up about Harris's >> position. Like >> every academic I know of in linguistics and philosophy of language, >> he >> appears >> to be reifying abstractions like "categories", "art", "religions". >> I know >> -- >> everybody does it. But everybody is wrong.
