Daniel:
> I must say that you fail to have a good grasp on what the logical grammar
of
> language means. You should refer to my second response to cris. Logical
> grammar is indifferent to which language. It is the foundation
> "intelligence" (so to speak).
Having followed this thread with somewhat bemused horror, I +still+ can't
fathom what "the logical grammar of language" could possibly be. Unless
it's coming totally off-field from Korzybsky's +General Semantics+.
Which would (lor' help us) carry us back into The Sokal Question. Is it
only me or did anyone else notice how (relatively) many figures footnoted
(towards the beginning) in Sokal are connected with The Institute for
General Semantics?
There's a full-blown conspiracy theory lurking here somewhere ....
Robin
|