RE: virus: pop quiz #14

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Brett Robertson Next in thread: Joe E. Dees

--WebTV-Mail-1458696331-2076
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Seems we approach knowledge differently. While you apparently find the meaning of apples and "semiotic trilogies" magically included in dictionaries and (I assume) "other people's" writings (though can't seem to explain how they got there)... I (on the other hand) find that ideas, concepts, images, ideals, AND INDIVIDUALS (as well as "idols", a term you seem overly sensitive of) arise by natural mechanical expression of objects and are available (using certain natural tendencies) without recourse to the relativism suggested by "intersubjective" agreement and "subjective" compromise.

The difference in approach has obvious results in our writing styles. While you tend to mock some people and IDOLIZE others (by which you, perhaps, seek to affirm a particular agreed upon version of "truth" to the detriment of one on which you do not agree); I (on the other hand) express an inherent capacity to create and produce original work (which needs neither be affirmed by nor forced upon those who have the innate ability to discern the truth of it without the use of social engineering [or recourse to dictionary "b" when dictionary "a" doesn't satisfy their delusional construct]).

While I am sure you THINK you are critiquing the logic of my presentation... I assure you that your comments are difficult to make sense of LOGICALLY (for example, who cares-- with regard to prescriptive and descriptive images-- if the word apple is found in the dictionary?!?). Thanks, nonetheless, for your "contributions" to this discussion.

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876

--WebTV-Mail-1458696331-2076
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.99) by
	postoffice-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:57:28
	-0700 (PDT)

	mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id NAA16696; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	OAA22975 for virus-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 14:43:06 -0600

From:           	BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson)
Date sent:      	Fri, 21 May 1999 03:45:42 -0500 (EST)
To:             	virus@lucifer.com
Subject:        	RE: virus: pop quiz #14
Send reply to:  	virus@lucifer.com

> prescriptive is to descriptive as normative is to...
>
> Assuming "fruit" (Joe):
>
> Apples may be normative of fruit. Apples, AS A NORM, relate to fruit,
> as PRESCRIPTIVE,
>
Wrongo, schiz-boy; nothing says all fruit HAS to be apples, and reality informs (most of ) us otherwise.
>
> in such cases that "fruit" is an abstraction which only
> might include apples but which nonetheless names the apple with regard
> to a generalization from which the specifics of an apple might be
> EXTRACTED.
>
The specifics of an apple are not extractable from "fruit"; just the generic specifications of "fruit". The specifications of apple are, quite trivially, extractable fron the dictionary definition beside the entry "apple". DUH!
>
> Still assuming that apples are normative of fruit.
>

But they aren't; they are one type in a larger category, one example, among many, of fruit. The pears are pissed at you for excluding them.
>
> "Fruit" may also be
> considered descriptive of apples (illuminating the formula presented)
> assuming that "fruit" is a symbolic expression elicited by the icon (or
> token) "apple".
>
Among beaucoup other fruits, bretty.
>

. This particular example further suggests that said
> apple is not-- in such a case-- merely being prescribed by the generic
> term for similar objects
>
But it is not, to the exclusion of other fruits, dewde.
>
> (but is, as such, being DESCRIBED by the term
> suggested).
>

Only very generally, insomuch as an apple belongs to the category 'Fruit". A better description is found under the word "apple" (trust me on this).
>
> In cases where what is normative may be related by what is either
> prescriptive or descriptive of it, the essential nature of the example
> may be expressed by the term "normative" in both cases (that
> prescriptive might be contrasted from descriptive) similar to how idol
> may be contrasted from icon; that is, both may be normative-- yet the
> idol be prescribed from an abstraction and the icon described by a
> symbol.
>
"Idol" isn't even one of the semiotic trilogy; you commit fallacious "idol;"atry by illicitly bringing in this term (upon which you seem as ficxated as upon the term "negation".
>
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> http://www.window.to/mindrec
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!:
> http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
>
>

--WebTV-Mail-1458696331-2076--

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Brett Robertson Next in thread: Joe E. Dees