Matt had said (and DMB said "Right, that's what I'm talking about") "I applaud [Steve's] good answer to the "mere conversation" slogan this is: "Of course conversation is not excluded from experience, but what you fail to get is that nothing is excluded from conversation." What's great about this is that it catches exactly how the two, conversation and experience, are inverses of each other. Just as part of our experience is conversation, so can conversation be _about_ anything."
[IG] Sorry if I missed some specific technical sense "hermeneutic" was being used here (which I've always interpreted as interpretation of meaning through and beyond text / conversation), but Matt I still take issue with this. JUST as conversation is "part of" our experience, SO experience is NOT "part of" conversation, This is NOT a simple inverse relation. [Direct] experience IS excluded from conversation; it can be no more than the subject the conversation is ABOUT. Clearly a conversation can be ABOUT ANY experience, but that conversation is not that experience. Sincerely trying to help bottom this out, and again at the risk of winding Dave up, this seems trivial and I still don't see actual disagreements, just people saying different things past each other (for reasons that remain unclear). Ho hum. Ian PS I recall hermeneutics was in my original on-line glossary of epistemology and semantics ten years ago, long before Wikipedia and before I discovered SEP. http://www.psybertron.org/semantics.html On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:19 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matt said: > When Dave says (and Ian agrees with), 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
