Frances to Cheerskep... To be fair, the grumbling seems to be mostly about my stumbling with the limits of language and the almost necessary use of words like "is" and "you" in ordinary common discussions like ours, which is admitted an irritating limit. All we have to do is accept the implied or intended meaning of our remarks, and keep forgiving each other of the limits. We may not otherwise manage to communicate any information at all among ourselves with language. The imperfect signs of language after all are the degraded and degenerative moderations of notions in mind.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Architecture and Philosophy: Review Frances makes me feel mean-spirited, because I dislike my grumbling that someone of good intent is utterly hopeless. Frances writes: > Frances to William the almost realist... > (1) > The norm or normal or normative is what ought to be, and not what > was or is or will be or must be. The normal does not mean the > perfect or the absolute. The norm is what stuff seems to sense by > way of signs to be. > Restated that says: "The norm is what ought to be, and not what is. The norm is what stuff seems to be." Again: "The norm is not what is. The norm is what seems to be." Frances is not asserting the old cliche about the difference between appearance and "reality". She is simply so overcome by her relentlessly smokey notions and locutions she ends up in effect contradicting herself. ************** Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221354145x1201369495/ao l?redir=http:%2F %2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By)
