From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Sun Sep 01 2002 - 00:43:25 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> 2. If the answer to the first question is "yes", then I
> announce to the world that from now on my statements
> about the sun are to be *taken* as referring to that
> ball of gas, and *not* any possibly weird thing going
> on in people's brains.
Of course! And Damien should see this, as well: that's how Lee and many
other people have built "reference" and "aboutness" ("intentionality" in
high-falutin' Searlean circles). We don't use "about" like this:
All my words are about other words.
We use "about" like this:
All my words are about their referents.
and we use "referent" like this:
The sun is the referent of "the sun."
or how about:
When I say "the sun", I'm talking about the sun.
And there's the old classic:
"Snow is white" is true if, and only if, snow is white.
But Lee, as sure as you see this, you should be able to see that we could
use these words in different ways, to capture important aspects of our
language and ourselves. It may be informative and enlightening. I charge
that, *in fact* (WOO! Go team!) it *is* informative and enlightening to
consider this perspective shift. You don't have to jump in headlong, but
you should check out the pool AND the jacuzzi, if you follow my meaning.
-Dan, a postmodernist who knows what the sun is. ;)
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:36 MST