In a message dated 7/15/10 1:27:45 PM, [email protected] writes:
> This is metaphorical at best. I see no reason why I would accept gerunds > like 'having associations' and reject others like 'having meaning.' I see > no > reason why 'triggering associations' is better than 'referring to things.' > we either leave out all the catachreses and metaphors, and do some > metaphysics, or we accept them as constitutive and then do pragmatics. But > you cannot have it both ways. > I agree with this-changing one word to another as Saul has doesn't add any information to the problem and doesn't help define it any either. I am aware of the trinary view,that was not the original problem Cheerskep posed. KAte Sullivan
