From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!hsdndev!burrhus!husc-news.harvard.edu!widder!zelen Tue Feb 11 15:24:50 EST 1992
Article 3515 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3515 sci.philosophy.tech:2059
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!access.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!hsdndev!burrhus!husc-news.harvard.edu!widder!zelen
y
>From: zeleny@widder.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: begging the question
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.181155.8523@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 92 23:11:52 GMT
References: <kou7j3INNaqa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Feb5.005652.8488@husc3.harvard.edu> <kp0ch6INNjk3@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 49
Nntp-Posting-Host: widder.harvard.edu

In article <kp0ch6INNjk3@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:

>In article <1992Feb5.005652.8488@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:

ES:
> If everything
> that MZ maintains is .true. , what discursive and/or analytical path
> is left vis a vis "thought, consciousness, and reference"?  Is there
> only exegesis and transcendental mimesis, then?

MZ:
>You have but two choices: either go
>completely gaga dada, or try to make a cursory effort to understand the
>subject of this discussion before you write again...

ES:
> Mikhail, you make your vapid exhortations, I'll make mine, however,
> if you would like to ANSWER the question, feel free to do so:
> You've posted quite a bit about what you think is NOT a good theory
> of reference, but I asked you effectively, what is YOUR theory of 
> reference?   Disdain and pejoratives do not an answer make, but feel
> free to excoriate us more, instead of describing your own theory of
> reference

You certainly didn't "ask me effectively", -- you clowned around, and I
answered in kind. As for MY theory of reference, I've said it once, I've
said it a thousand times: any connotative theory will do, provided that the
connotation (proposition or concept) is interpreted as an abstract,
non-linguistic entity.  On the assumption that propositions and concepts,
like all other objects, can be denoted by names, this entails the existence
of a transfinite hierarchy of intensional entities.  The explanatory trick
is that a non-material, abstract entity mediates the referential connection
between the name and its denotation.

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


