"Less useful" is relative, my dear, Watson, relative. :-).
On Mar 24, 2012, at 4:34 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
