I figured you'd catch the circularity of that comment but it is the nature of metaphor to say the same thing in another way. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 5:32:12 PM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument Now that we have cleared that up - can some body get us out of this loop On 7/15/10 5:33 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: All symbolic communication is metaphorical. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 1:47:53 PM Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument Saul wrote: > We have associations - words are triggers > > Imago's response was: "This is metaphorical at best." Kate opined: " 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." Saul's metaphorical remark has its aptness if we think of it this way: A trigger does nothing until it is pulled. The "pulling" is the hearing of the utterance (or reading of the scription) and the consequent processing of what's heard. When we hear "Cleopatra" our receiving and processing apparatus immediately retrieves from our memory lots of Cleopatra-associated images and ideas. Each of us might agree to call these retrieved memories "the meaning for me" of 'Cleopatra'. But notice that this usage of "meaning" is not assuming there is a "THE meaning of" the term 'Cleopatra'. (Though philosophers, befuddled by the conviction that that names "mean", have long argued about what "THE meaning of a name" could be. ) --
