<DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Jon Johanning <zenner41@mac.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<P>These are various ways of talking about the world. The world is not the <BR>same thing as talking about the world, even though "social theory" <BR>seems to have a problem telling them apart. In the world of my room, <BR>there are two chairs, no matter how you decide to talk about them.<BR><BR></P>
<P>Manjur's Response:</P>
<P>This conversation is not going anywhere. Seriously, I think we are wasting our time. I don't know which social theory you are referring to, but no body denies that the world is not the same thing as talking about the world. No body is denying the independent existence of an objective reality. What I am saying is that the only way we can make sense of that world is the way we talk about it. Without that discursive-communicative context, the world does not exist for us. And your friend Rorty would agree with me, every discursive-communicative context has its own internal logic, own truth claims. Now, which part of this argument you are not grasping?</P>
<P>Manjur </P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV><p>__________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com