> >> >There can _be_ no resolution without a third reference.
> >>
> >> Meaning is consensual - there is no-meaning without it! Meaning is
> >> contextual - there can be no one meaning outside of no-meaning!
> >>
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >That,as I understand it,is the essence of the problem which
> postmodernism
> >> poses
> >> >to world civilisation....whose meaning,or which meaning,is THE
> meaning....
> >>
> >> This is not a "problem," it is the nature of human social life!
> >> Postmodernism takes that as a meaningful subject of study!
> >
> >Well,once more,I can't make head nor tail of what you are on about,Lenny.
>
> The head-and-tail of meaning is consensus and context!
>
> >Whatever the point was that you are responding to,I cannot see the
> connection.
> >
>
> Meaning is not an individual phenomena! What's so hard to grasp in this
> "connection?"
>
> >> >[snip]
> >
> >Aha.A spark of light amidst the fog.
>
> The only "fog" in this thread is your insistence upon a meaningless solution
> to a fabricated problem!
No,it is your insistence in responding to propositions which I never made
but which you have concocted out of thin air.I am not responsible for the
wild imaginings which_your_ mind invents.
> >What I was talking about in the
> >above paragraph was the position as posed by postmodernism,i.e. 'the
> problem'.
>
> Now that's an original spark - the problem is 'the problem!' Sheesh!!
>
> >I suggested 'zen mind' as a possible answer to the problem,in the service
> of
> >scientific archaeology.
>
> And I think you've been challenged upon that, remaining undeterred in your
> stance despite your cluelessness as to the critique!
What critique,Lenny ? I can't see any critique in these recent posts from you.
All I see is playing with words to create a smokescreen which hides the fact
that you have said nothing positive or constructive or relevant to the original
discussion.
> >You seem to have confused or transposed the two somehow.
> >
>
> The two 'what'? The problem is 'the problem'? Or the solution is
> 'scientific'? Your so-called 'problem' is not, as I've pointed out, and
> neither is your solution 'scientific!' Is that still too obtuse for the 'zen
> mind?'
>
> >> >[snip]
> >> It appears that the source of your own validation is the hope that what's
> so
> >> clear in your mind is not just a reflection of it!
> >
> >Again,I do not understand this statement at all,Lenny.
> >
>
> Narcissism!
Well,I understand what 'narcissism' is.Do you often throw random words
into debates like this ?
> >> >[snip]
> >>
> >> It leads to an anti-human, anti-meaningful "understanding" of itself,
> which
> >> is not the subject of archaeology, unfortunately!
> >
> >I find your conclusion bizarre.
>
> Good! The 'zen mind' cannot grasp everything after all!
The statement referred to your conclusion.It still does.
> >I don't know what 'anti-human',or 'anti-meaningful'
> >could be,at least in this context.
>
> Meaning is in the context, and meaning is consensual! Since your method is
> neither it cannot be an act of human nature, or have any meaning! It is
> individuated and beyond the subject realm!
>
> >You say that "It" - I suppose you mean my suggetion
> >re 'zen mind'-would lead to this strange vision that you have concocted,and
> which I do
> >not understand.
>
> You put words in my mouth - must be a 'zen mind' thing, eh? Unfortunately,
> such practices are not conducive to consensual and meaningful sharing of
> knowledge and only further invalidates your method!
>
> >It does not seem to resemble what I was proposing at all.
> >
>
> Then it must not be independently verifiable, another strike against your
> method!
Not at all,merely that your 'interpretation' bears no resemblance to what I
originally proposed.
Chris.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|