Hi Marsha, First off,
"Less useful" is not synonymous with "useless". I agree completely, of course. But my point remains. While "less useful" is not the same as useless, it sure is antonymous with "more useful" and that is my claim. That it is precisely linguistic conceptualization's tendency to overgrow it's boundaries (or to jump a level!) that makes it so precious, so important and makes humans so much more than mere machines. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:43 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi John, > > Not sure what your problem might be, and not sure that I have any dominion > over what you find problematic. I'm pretty much at ease with > indeterminate, and depend on the provisional (static) like most everybody > else. > > Dominion? Like I could be dominated, Hah! Or you for that matter. We share that much in common at least. What resonates with me is the Ellul quote I provided some long time ago in the past, that it is precisely language's ambiguities and misunderstandings which make it MORE useful rather than less, cojoined with C.S. Peirce's idea of language as a sign, and not a discrete "thing". That's the baggage I carry which makes Pirsig's scientific bent, as revealed in the quote, problematic for me. Take care, Me. 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
