John quoted Peirce:
..."our capacity to enter into more general relations through our use of signs the very definition of human personality" dmb says: Yes. In fact, this is one of the things I have in mind when I insist that only idiots think they can have their own private definitions. As your author said in describing Peirce's view, "a being speaking a purely private language would have a self utterly devoid of humanity". In a place like this, where we are supposed to be talking about metaphysics, the need for common understandings of the terms is especially crucial. I mean, there is just no way to effectively communicate philosophical ideas unless you're very clear about what the central terms mean. If anything, our definitions should be more precise and elaborate than any dictionary. It's probably safe to say that few disciplines are more careful about language. And of course Pirsig's quest was all about rescuing the Sophists and "rhetoric" from centuries of slander. It's some kind of ugly crime to be sloppy or idiosyncratic with language in this context. > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
