Are there not some of both aspects here Arlo? I at least partly agree with Platt.
A lot of "definition" is social - authoritatively documenting accepted meanings in usage. As well as creating a defintion for an intellectual reasoning purpose. Meaning is surely spread across all levels, like value. We could "define" particular forms of meaning, which could be associated with particular levels and contexts ? I'm not sure we can reserve the word "meaning" to mean any one of them alone. Ian On 4/30/07, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Platt to Ron] > Would you agree that definition and meaning are social level patterns of > morality? > > [Arlo] > Don't mean to interject, guys, but "definition and meaning" are intellectual > patterns of morality. > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
