In a message dated 6/29/09 10:57:31 AM, [email protected] writes:
> What is the point of this entire thread? > I had a specific point, a potential utility, for entering this thread. It had little to do with the "text" of the discussion, and much to do with the method: I saw it as an opportunity to compel some listers to see how often they will join in an argument with no clear notion of what the other guy has in mind with a key word. I maintain the A.C. Ewing quote I cited was right on point: That guy commenced a would-be "important" essay about "meaninglessness" without conveying just what his notion of 'meaning' was. (He simply assumed everyone knew what he had in mind when he said it's the meaning of 'meaning' that one saw displayed in Strand Magazine.) So Ewing, and many other subtle, learned, and shallow philosophers of that era who embraced Ewing essay, wasted an immense amount of time on an effort that could not possibly lead to anything conclusive. This is directly parallel to what many listers repeatedly do. And we should not do it because among the muddy results is a waste of time similar to Ewing's. ************** It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
