Okay Jose, suck on this…
Question:
> – a philosophical bone to chew… >In Being And Nothingness, Sartre famously said, "We are what we are not, >and are not what we are."
Since this continues to ask the wrong question, I thought that you were joking until I saw this message sent a second time. There is no bone relevant to what I’ve said about communication to chew. Nevertheless, I will answer just the same, but, as this is not a NG for discussions on linguistics or continental philosophers, in e-mail. Thanks, JM
Response:
Okay. But I think it’s a shame ocders can’t discuss in here the other interest(s) they might have, and regard ocd as an area of commonality, rather than one of exclusivity. And actually, being what we are not, and not what we are is sort of topical at the moment (though of course not in the same sense Sartre meant it). And I think there are few issues that wouldn’t hurt a philosophical once-over, especially in regard to the language we all use. But if you prefer email, that’s perfectly alright. -John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Jose Martinez wrote: >> – a philosophical bone to chew… >>In Being And Nothingness, Sartre famously said, "We are what we are not, >>and are not what we are." > Since this continues to ask the wrong question, I thought that you > were joking until I saw this message sent a second time. > There is no bone relevant to what I’ve said about communication to > chew. Nevertheless, I will answer just the same, but, as this is > not a NG for discussions on linguistics or continental philosophers, > in e-mail. > Thanks, > JM
– **************************************** http://www.furryworm.freeserve.co.uk email – please use the mail form ****************************************
Response:
- a philosophical bone to chew… In Being And Nothingness, Sartre famously said, "We are what we are not, and are not what we are." Person one doesn’t understand it, nor cares. Person two doesn’t understand it, thinks the person saying it is a clever dick. Person three is a logic teacher and says it is downright contradictory. Person four thinks he/she understands it (but it isn’t what the author meant). Person five think he /she *knows* what the author meant (but cannot be sure since the author is dead). Person six says maybe if the author had lived longer, he may have recanted what he said. Q: In all of this, what precisely is the information being communicated? -John ************************************************************ http://www.furryworm.freeserve.co.uk email – please use the mail form for private contact ************************************************************
Response:
Sorry, I meant chew. John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -John Jones wrote: > - a philosophical bone to chew… > In Being And Nothingness, Sartre famously said, "We are what we are not, > and are not what we are." > Person one doesn’t understand it, nor cares. > Person two doesn’t understand it, thinks the person saying it is a clever > dick. > Person three is a logic teacher and says it is downright contradictory. > Person four thinks he/she understands it (but it isn’t what the author > meant). > Person five think he /she *knows* what the author meant (but cannot be > sure since the author is dead). > Person six says maybe if the author had lived longer, he may have recanted > what he said. > Q: In all of this, what precisely is the information being communicated? > -John > ************************************************************ > http://www.furryworm.freeserve.co.uk > email – please use the mail form for private contact > ************************************************************
Response:
I was wondering…. Chyort "John Jones" <usethemailf…@mywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:9tndih$6bj$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk… : Sorry, I meant chew. : : John : : John Jones wrote:
: : > : > - a philosophical bone to chew… : > : > In Being And Nothingness, Sartre famously said, "We are what we are not, : > and are not what we are." : > : > Person one doesn’t understand it, nor cares. : > : > Person two doesn’t understand it, thinks the person saying it is a clever : > dick. : > : > Person three is a logic teacher and says it is downright contradictory. : > : > Person four thinks he/she understands it (but it isn’t what the author : > meant). : > : > Person five think he /she *knows* what the author meant (but cannot be : > sure since the author is dead). : > : > Person six says maybe if the author had lived longer, he may have recanted : > what he said. : > : > Q: In all of this, what precisely is the information being communicated? : > : > -John : > : > : > ************************************************************ : > http://www.furryworm.freeserve.co.uk : > email – please use the mail form for private contact : > ************************************************************ : > : :
