From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Nov 09 2005 - 23:14:39 GMT
Erin, Arlo, Scott and all --
Recently I've noticed some rather bizzare expressions being recirculated in
this thread which make no sense to me. Here are a few examples of what I
mean:
Erin on 11/7:
> Case this is the kind of posts that I was referring to
> when I said it frustrates when people argue against
> Scott's theory with not taking into consideration his
> reconceptualization of language.
>
> I don't have a problem saying that the tree
> intellect is the same type as my
> intellect but I what I don't know is the tree
> perspective....does the tree
> intellect not percieve my intellect?
Arlo on 11/7:
> Give me an example of a behavior that is not governed
> by signs? You could say, I suppose, that an infant
> "at birth" is completely void of semiosis*. In this
> state, s/he is completely "pre-intellectual". But, the
> MOMENT that the earliest associations are found,
> between say a recognized face and a sensation of
> "good", the infant is engaging in semiosis.
I don't know what such terms as "redescription" (a favorite of Matt now
altered to "reconceptualization") and "semiosis" have to do with the Primary
Difference. And I certainly don't know what the intellect of a tree is
supposed to mean. But it seems that we can now freely "redescribe"
everything to make it fit a particular epistemology, thereby adding to the
general confusion of what the MoQ or any other philosophy is all about. I
wonder if this is Scott's notion of language as existence.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 10 2005 - 01:26:00 GMT