Nice link, Molly. I like this particularly. We often tend to forget here that the encounter itself between the interlocutors has its own meaning and dynamic. (I know, Neil will now get annoyed with me for being all critical-theoryish, and my daughter would give me a lecture on the hermeneutic circle :-).) In my own defence, I would claim that personal and interpersonal agendas are often the real motors running ostensibly different processes
"I take coherence as an interpretive notion, which, because it is dependent on the hearer's ascribing an understanding to what he hears, is intrinsically indeterminate. Coherence is not a discourse-inherent property, but 'comes out' of discourse - it is not a state that can be arrived at, but both a process and a cooperative achievement." Francis On 28 Aug., 13:59, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > http://books.google.com/books?id=9OkoNXcZuN8C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=coh... > > cooperation and coherence in conversation can be important... > > On Aug 28, 7:38 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I guess you are correct Don, perhaps not for the reasons you invisage > > though? > > > I can see what BB is talking about but he leaps from one point in the > > debate to another without explianing why. > > I can see the differances in our stances I would like to try to > > understand why we have them, for that to happen I'm willing to explian > > the reasoning behind my own yet when I ask for others to do the same, > > I basicly get shouted at. I don't mind that as long as part of the > > shouting contians some form of explaination. > > > On 28 Aug, 12:11, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It sounds to me like you'd like to see the elimination of commerce. That > > > is > > > impossible. Ever since the first caveman traded a dead rabbit for sexual > > > favors we've had commerce and it is a part of society. Everybody working > > > together and sharing everything equally might work if everyone WAS equal. > > > Some folks are harder workers, smarter, more knowledgeable, better looking > > > and have better teeth then others. Until we're all clones of one another > > > we'll have commerce even if its some form of crude barter. and we'll > > > always > > > want what others have. > > > > Ok, this question isn't even sarcastic. I'm being serious. How come I > > > understand exactly what BB is talking about and others don't? If I > > > believed > > > like R. Kennedy and Molly that most folks wanted to help everyone else I > > > might go right along with socialism with the rest of you guys. But I > > > don't. There's the rub. > > > > dj > > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:28 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Can you prove that in order for such a system to work that people > > > > > > would have to be forced to provied 'free stuff'? > > > > > > You have not provided even an inkling of a "system" let alone me > > > > > being able to prove anything against it. You go ahead and show me how > > > > > it works and I will show you the force. > > > > > Sorry BB that is not how it works. Shall we remind ourselves what is > > > > going on here? > > > > > I have given no system except to say lets ban money lets get rid of > > > > the whole concept of it. I have admited that it is merely an > > > > idealsitic propersition and that I have no idea how to implement such > > > > a system. But here is the crux. You claimed that such a system would > > > > be unethical, I asked how so, you replied because it would force > > > > people into give you 'free stuff' > > > > > My request to you is simply this, proove to me that such a system > > > > would force people into giving you free stuff. You said it, you must > > > > belive it so show me why you belive it. There is no question of my > > > > needing to proove any thing to you, I made no claims whilst you > > > > certianly have. > > > > > > > Yes it is a legal requirment here in the UK to ensure that your > > > > > > children are educated. I.E. If you let your child skip school you > > > > > > can > > > > > > be prosecuted. > > > > > > Another lovely step taken in the "spirit" of the controlling state. > > > > > Are students jailed for failing to graduate? You might want to add > > > > > that step next. And I think you should just force feed socialism and > > > > > communism in the curriculum while you are at it, as it is obviously > > > > > "correct" isn't it? Of COURSE it is! So why teach anything else? > > > > > You need to control all those wrong thoughts. Don't even let those bad > > > > > thoughts start. > > > > > Come on now, lets not start with the 'unreasonable' leaps of > > > > sillyness. Why would a legal requirment for parents to get their > > > > children educated end in arrest for students who fail to graduate? > > > > Get ahold of your temper man, and think about what you are putting > > > > down in writting here. > > > > > > Deciding what is best for others is best! They don't "know" what is > > > > > best for them. Forced education of forced ideas! What could be > > > > > better than that? It is what is good for all. > > > > > Again where did this rant come from, what is it's porpuse and it's > > > > relevance to what we are talking about?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
