There is an "is-ness" as you call It, an essence to the recognition shared by all humans , and that recognition is by it's "essence' regardless of it's color shape/age/ or gender. Where am I wrong.?
ab On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 8/16/12 5:41:46 PM, [email protected] writes: > > >>> Here's a nice rule to settle certain disputes. "I stipulate if it's in >>> Webster's Third it's a word." >> >> What about "foopgoom"? >> >> I know you're aware that the point of my last was to lampoon those who > think by "stipulating" they can affect the ontic status of anything (except, > perhaps, the ontic status of the stipulation, the utterance). > > You may see ink on paper, but you've never seen a "word" in your life. Or > heard one. "Foopgoom!" Did you just hear a word? How would you tell? Run to > your little dictionary? The latest ones have lots of "new words". But they're > only sounds they've at last decided to call "words". What was their > "is-ness" before? > > You know about "is-ness" -- that fictitious "essence" thing that some > people believe makes an object not just what you call it, but what it "really > IS". Problem: "is-nesses" -- including "wordness" -- are mental inventions, > purely notional, like unicorns. And "souls". > > Did you ever wonder how some lucky sounds get to become "words", while > other sounds have to remain "sounds-second-class" until a bell rings? I'll tell > you. > > One summer in Switzerland, I found a thing in my room that I called a > 'foopgoom'. I thought it was so apt a label, I put my case to Plato and his > word-and-thing certification-committee way up there. In their meeting last > Thursday, they officially declared "foopgoom" to be a real word! And they made it > official by ringing a big bell they call the verbell! That Swiss object now > really IS a foopgoom! > > If your response is to say that that's a bad joke, my reply will be: > "ISN'T it!"
