> >Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:37:55 -0600
> >From: Nathaniel Hall <natehall@worldnet.att.net>
>
> R:
> >> Well, that's a very interesting question Nate. Have you ever seen Magritte's
> >> famous painting of a pipe upon which is written (in french) "this is not
> >> a pipe"?
>
> N:
> >I like his stuff, but I don't recall ever seeing that one. Are you making
> >a play
> >on the "this sentence is a lie!" paradox?
>
> Well, it isn't a paradox, but the two concepts are related. Magritte was making
> obvious that the paining was a "representation" of a pipe...but you can't smoke
> with it, get it? The picture is not the object, the map is not the
> territory, the
> signifier is not the signifed and H2O is not what you drink.
>
> >> My organic chemistry professor in college was very clear on this point
> >
> >What? That H20 is not a molecule? Maybe the political science department
> >has taken
> >over the chemistry dept. at your university then!
>
> H2O is three characters.
>
> >> He considered it the essential key to understanding all of chemistry, and all
> >> of life.
> >
> >What "it" are you referring too?
>
> Knowing the difference between the map and the territory...that H2O is not
> water, but a "representation" of water.
>
> >> I have found that understanding useful...certianly other people
> >> claim I know a lot about chemistry. But your mileage may vary, right?
> >
> >I'm glad to see that you believe knowledge is possible. One less battle
> >for me to
> >fight.
>
> We probably have differing definitions of knowledge.
>
> >Vampire: A creature who by his very nature is unable to see the light of day.
>
> That's very good! ROFL!
>
> Reed
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again I'm called to battle to defend the existence of universals! I have other
posts which address this issue . However I will concede that the word used and the
substance it represents are two different things. A Chinese speaking person may
show me his word for a "tree" and I would have no idea what he was talking about.
Consider this: is there any language out there that does not have a word for
"tree"? The reason why you'd have a hard time finding such a language is that "tree"
is a form which has existence independent of anyone's particular word for it's form
. The word for theform makes it possible for the mind to know of the form.
The Nateman.
BTW what is ROFL? I'm not familiar with that *form*.