"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message news:9budnfmhENZiY0TMnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 7/7/2013 5:02 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message >> news:_9idnQkXucdXIETMnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 7/7/2013 1:10 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >>>> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message >>>> news:6LSdnVj9KObNO0TMnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>> On 7/7/2013 8:06 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >>>>>> "Julio Di Egidio" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message >>>>>> news:email@example.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> We know it when you know it, it self-represents >>>>>> >>>>>> Oops, I just meant: We know it when we know it... >>>>> >>>>> It is common among the men with whom I >>>>> work to hear, "It is what it is". >>>>> >>>>> I take it to be an article of faith >>>> >>>> Is that all you could gather? Then I'll give you another pearl to >>>> think >>>> about: dogmatism and scepticism are the two sides of the same coin. >>>> But >>>> take your time... >>> >>> Well, I had been thinking in terms of the >>> fact that experience has an unavoidable >>> subjective sense. It invariably admits the >>> reduction of linguistic expressions to mere >>> syntax. But, it is also the subjective >>> experience that affords meaningful interpretation. >> >> I do not see how linguistic expression (language) can be reduced to >> syntax: a sign is not a symbol, the magic is all in the interpreter. > > Two different individuals with two different > subjective experiences may interpret linguistic > expressions differently.
Nope, language is a mutual thing per definition (well, the one I am giving), where private language is a limit case.
> In like fashion, there is the Fregean argument > that any mark can signify.
An argument perfectly in line with the enslavement to mechanical signification... I've never liked it.
> There are a great many aspects to pragmatics > involved with meaning. Carnap is attributed > with delineating syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. > > Agreements as to the fact that an expression is > well-formed and that particular well-formed > expressions have particular meanings are matters > which fall into the domain of pragmatics.
Carnap has done interesting things in linguistics, but I think pragmatics is properly about a distinction within semantics. Anyway, I do not see considerations of pragmatics conflicting with my various theses.
>>> It is in the transition from subjective to >>> objective where all of the difficulties seem to >>> arise. >> >> We have already spoken about these seeming difficulties: what >> "objectivity" I would ask? I.e. same cart before the horses. > > Then I must assume you choose to be a > Humean skeptic.
I laugh at Hume. I am just saying we are back to where we were.