<html> <body> I find a bit too much ad hominem in your response and it keeps me from wanting to respond.  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: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>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@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 > > > ___________________________________ > <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk" eudora="autourl">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search <a href="http://shopping.yahoo.com/" eudora="autourl">http://shopping.yahoo.com</a> ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk" eudora="autourl">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </blockquote></body> </html>