I'm sure you're a bright and knowledgeable fellow, and I look forward to reading that article of yours.
CLS
At 09:08 AM 10/9/2003, you wrote:
>I have been around this block too many times, and I
>now find the topic dull for the most part. It's funny,
>btw, that you should object to my drawing the correct
>inference that you think the world is a text --that is
>putting words in your mouth -- while blithely accusing
>me of saying that himans are 'grounded in the real.'
>Now that is putting words in my mouth! Not only don't
>I think that, I have no idea what it means. Pomo,
>phooey, reactionary obscuranist claptrap.
>
>Yes, I think we can know things without words.
>Nonlinguistic animals know lots of things. My cat
>knows that I feed her, that this is her house, etc.
>Mo I don't think we can say things without words. We
>can, however, represent things without words. That's
>what pictures do.
>
>I actually have a paper on this: Propositional
>Attitude Psychology As An Ideal Type, Topoi, 1992.
>I'll send it to you if you like. What does the
>question of whether mental representation is
>linguistic have to do with anything?
>
>Will you knock off the sex-baiting, it's really boring
>and stupid. It doesn't add or detract the least little
>bit from the truth value of a proposition to suggest
>that it is maintained because its holder is in the
>grip of some sexist delusion. It's partl;y because of
>that sort of dumb ad hominem, aside from the
>relentlessly awful prose chock-a-block with glutinous
>hheartstopping jargon, and the gaps in the argument
>big enough to drive a semi through, that makes people
>in philosophy departments think that pomo is
>worthless.
>
>jks
>
>
>--- Cliff Staples <clifford_staples at und.nodak.edu>
>wrote:
> >
> > >Ahhhhh, a crushing refustion of realism. That's the
> > >signifier of the Phallus! Veddy bad. Now you really
> > do
> > >sound like Brian S's caricature.
> >
> > I wasn't making any sort of theoretical point. I'm
> > just tired of the
> > ritualistic trashing of what ignorant people declare
> > to be "postmodern
> > thinking."
> >
> >
> > >But your particular move, that you
> > >can't say anything without using words, therefore
> > the
> > >world is nothing but a text
> >
> > Sigh. Not only do you put words in my mouth, you
> > put well worn ones at
> > that. I did say, in effect, that you can't say
> > anything without using
> > words.. you dispute this? It would seem self
> > evident. I did not say that
> > this means "...the world is nothing but a text..."
> > That's your.. well,
> > borrowing. It does not necessarily follow, but it
> > serves the purposes of
> > those who would prefer not to deal with the
> > possibility that humans aren't
> > as grounded in the real as some wish to think (and
> > that's all it is: a wish).
> >
> > So, you want to have a discussion? Fine, let's
> > start with what I said
> > instead of your fantasy of what I said (Sort of an
> > odd position for a
> > hardboiled manly realist to find himself in, don't
> > you think? Making shit
> > up. How real is that?). So, you agree or don't
> > agree that we can't say or
> > know anything without words? Let's get that
> > straight before any more bs.
> >
> > CLS
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>http://shopping.yahoo.com
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20031009/461472f9/attachment.htm>