> kelley wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > so the whole thing about praxis is b.s. eh?
>
> I use the terms theory and practice. What do you mean by "Praxis"?
My
> general impression over the years (going back to around 1971) is
that
> most uses of the term "Praxis" use it as a bridge to idealist
> metaphysics.
=====
You need to go read some of the metaphysics of the last 30 years
then...
>
> Neither in theory nor in practice is communciation a philosophical
> problem. And it is only a practical problem in specific situations.
> Theoretical studies of communication tend to replace _both_ theory
and
> practice with endless detours into epistemology. I agree with
Timpanaro
> that all legitimate epistemological question belong to neuroscience,
not
> philosophy.
=================
Itself a philosophical position that cannot be confirmed or refuted
via neuroscience.
>
> Rhetoric, agitation, propaganda, and theory are legitimate topics of
> discussion. Communication in the abstract is not.
>
> Carrol
=========
There is no communication in the abstract.
Ian