Hello everyone On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:33 AM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd say they'd also articulated a certain stubbornly obtuse evasion of > sincere philosophical discussion, Matt. > Their "I" wasn't being too faithful and their non-language an expression of > "not I" - as in, who wants to philosophize? > > "Not I" being their answer.
Dan: I think Matt is pointing to context,., and attempting to show you, John, in a simple fashion, that not all reality can be reduced to language. So, "it" is not language all the way down. But you must know that, so I am not at all sure why you're on about it, other than to irritate, maybe. If you really want to have a sincere philosophical discussion, then I suggest being sincere. Who has time for nonsense? Not I. I am quite sure others here will accomodate you though. Dan > > John > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Matt Kundert > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Think about this way John: if you told someone that it was language >> all the way down, and they looked down at their feet and said they >> didn't see any language anywhere, they'd just articulated to you the >> sensitivity to context Steve and Rorty desire, and how the notion of >> "not language" still plays a role. >> 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
