Imago, you write: "Perhaps you could explain your claim to me al little more?"
Imago, I'm afraid there comes a point where I find further explanation to you to be unrewarding for either of us. I report (with regret, because I admire your pertinacity) I feel it is not in you to read closely enough discuss philosophy well. Doing good philsophy requires the ability to see real distinctions. For example, you say: > I do not actually see you pointing out a difference. > My guess is your remark may have been prompted by this remark of mine: "When we ponder the two different phrases -- "the meaning of the word for the assistant" and "THE meaning of the word" -- two importantly different no tions arise in our mind." I then went on at some length to describe the two different notions that may arise. Your remark appears to be saying you see no difference in the notions. Similarly, you say: > And frankly, saying that "an utterance stirs associations" is just as > spooky and ill conceived as saying that it denotes etc. If it is inert or > non-causal, then no verb form can be applied to it. Either it is identical to > a subjective set of associations or it is not. I see no way for you to > dodge this problem. Especially not by simply saying otherwise. As a friend > of mine once said, Wishing it were otherwise does not make it so." > > But, Imago, I don't have a problem to dodge because I did not say "an utterance stirs associations". Look closely: "Imago, I realize I have failed to make you "understand" me. I would never say, "meanings are associations". I would say the hearing of an utterance stirs associated notions." I will accept that you do not perceive any difference. The only thing an utterance "causes" is a sound. If the sound goes unheard, there will be no generation of notion, new consciousness, anywhere. All the action is contributed by the auditor's mind. In a parallel way, a printed word is "doing" nothing. It's only the reading of the word that starts the linking action in the mind. The scription is indeed inert. The mind/brain is not. To me, colloquy with you is further unrewarding because I get no feedback on detailed argument against something you have specifically just said. This may be because of willful ignoring on your part, but I concede it may be because you don't grasp the point. In either case it makes response to you wasted motion. An example: you wrote: "I take Wittgensteins builder example to illustrate that the idea of an associative connection between word and thing is neither necessary nor sufficient for comprehending the utterances." I responded: "It seems to me your take is wrong. When the builder says "Slab!" if the assistant's mind does not connect that sound with his image of a slab, how would he know not to bring a pillar or a block?" You didn't respond. There's no need for you to respond to this current posting, Imago.
