William; you have a million more words at your 
command than I. Perhaps read hundreds more
books than I.  But this is how I understand it.



Our cognition of every thing we experience from birth, seems
to always remains as individual experiences, perhaps because
we are unable to express any thing, identically, even if we try. 
Since Words are not of a universal nature, they appear to remain 
more abstract because they are man made and learned from a
different source. They start out simple and seem to acquire multiple
meanings the more you use them. Where universal things usually have 
an identity,words remain relatively abstract,with less identity.
So it seems to me.
mando



________________________________
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:02:39 PM
Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument

How can you constantly make summative statements without ever offering a shred 
of evidence?  I ask the same question of Mando.  If you say such and such is so 
then you need to tells why.  Otherwise we are simply left with your unsupported 
pronouncements.
wc


----- Original Message ----
From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 10:18:21 AM
Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument

To call  words and human activities unnatural is a philosophical mistake.
Boris Shoshensky

---------- Original Message ----------
From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:59:52 -0700 (PDT)

What can be sensed naturally, does not include words.
Words are man made. once learned, they remain more
relatively abstract in meaning than natural objects.
ab


________________________________
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 5:09:21 PM
Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument

Humming is metaphorical because it stands for a bodily state.
wc


----- Original Message ----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 7:03:21 PM
Subject: Re: Invalidity of Cheerskep's Argument

In a message dated 7/15/10 6:32:16 PM, [email protected] writes:


> On 7/15/10 5:33 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> All symbolic communication is metaphorical.
> wc
>

You could hum a few bars...
Kate Sullivan

Reply via email to