On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Kelley wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 7/31/01 -0700, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> >Well, here's an answer that completely disregards JH:
>
>
> except that you haven't disregarded JH at all!
>
> no time now.
>
Ya know, this discussion reminds me of psychoanalysis: You're motivated by your unconscious! "No I'm not!" See--you're repressing! I was right!
If you're clever enough, you can interpret any language use according to any principles you please, just as a Freudian can interpret any dream as a disguised representation of an unconscious wish. But again, please explain: what's the point of this assumption--and it is in fact an a priori assumption, no matter how you try to wiggle out of it--that any communication can be analyzed according to universalized philosophical principles?
Miles