I LIKE THAT!
A baeza
On Dec 9, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Michael Brady wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2012, at 2:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 12/9/12 12:44:36 PM, [email protected] writes:
>>
>> "just because the listener or reader has no knowledge of the
>> referent does not mean he or she cannot produce a notion in response to
the
>> word."
>>
>> I wrote: A shepherd in the Andes "could conjure effectively no notion at
>> all
>
> I thought the guy was in "remote western China." Did I not conjure a
correct
> notion?
>
>>> (and
>>>> certainly nothing "informational")" if someone utters to him the sound,
>>> "Cleopatra".
>>>
>> I didn't mean he couldn't hear the utterance, couldn't determine if the
>> speaker is female or male, etc. I consciouslessly depended on my phrases
>> "effectively no notion" and "nothing informational" to convey the shepherd
>> wouldn't "understand" the utterance. But Michael is justified in saying
the
>> shepherd would certainly come away with some notions or other.
>
> You're back to an old conundrum you haven't resolved: how does anyone
confirm
> that another person has a serviceably similar notion as you do? You all
have
> to trade proxies, namely, words, pictures, gestures, etc. And you all have
to
> be individually confident that the proxies remain stable enough to proceed
> with the communications.
>
> Cheerskep, I don't think that in the years we have all been discussing this
> general topic that you have addressed that tertium quid, that entity that
> exists between the speaker and the listener, or more accurately, between
the
> speaker's mind and the listener's mind. You have continually focused on the
> NISH (notion in someone's head) and given practically no attention to how
that
> is conveyed between parties. You just declare that an Andean shepherd said
> "Cleopatra" and the remote western Chinese guy thought of foopgoom.
>
>
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Michael Brady
