Good points. 'Real' could have different but valid meaning on several levels and angles. The problem, to me, is; that we have to be more precise in showing our intention how we use the word in particular set of mind in discourse. We are often careless to do so, why most of the arguments go nowhere. I, usually, don't have problem to understand the point when writer has clear notion of what he/she is talking about. Boris Shoshensky
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boris writes: > And I think we should not avoid any words in a > serious discussion. > Including 'art', 'aesthetic', 'Beauty' etc. > But Boris, I haven't advocated avoiding THOSE words. I said I suspect disputants will never agree on the notions to be entertained with the words 'real' and 'reality'. I offer the following evidence: Immediately after I posted my argument that those two words are prompted by -- and will stir -- too many different and incompatible notions, Williams writes this line: " I think a plan is a make believe script. It is not real until it's acted." Notice: Someone could respond that a plan is a notion. Notions exist. They are already "real". So a plan is "real". William will respond that he doesn't mean "real" in that sense, and he will maintain his sense of "real" is the better one --- I say just avoid the word. Whatever one wants to "say" about plans can be conveyed using other less ambiguous and fruitlessly disputable words. ************** Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) _____________________________________________________________ Need cash? Click to get an emergency loan, bad credit ok http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4tGBIrVrfL2yDH2oitLptfR9 PCeolnwXl8oVljATxnIlu53O/?count=1234567890
