Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 Aug 2005 14:20:59 -0400
In article <dctljq$d64$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>On 4-Aug-2005, docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> >> It appears that 'no more information was added' when one equates 'It is'
>> >> with 'I believe it is'; I do not believe that this equating is, by any
>> >> means, a universal phenomenon.
>> >
>> >I never claimed it was universal. I claimed that in this particular case no
>> >further information was added.
>>
>> The condition of 'no further information was added' is predicated on the
>> condition of equating 'It is' with 'I believe it is'.
>
>In this case, yes.
And what criteria are being used to differentiate this case from other
cases?
>
>
>> >The main exception is when "I believe" doesn't really mean "I believe", but
>> >means "I could be wrong, but".
>>
>> Meaning is the result of interpretation, as Wittgenstein had it; a red
>> banner can be interpreted as 'Long Live the Glorious Socialist
>> Revolution!' or 'Happy Wedding-Day!'
>
>OK. Let's look at the possibilities we have discussed:
>
>It is stupid.
>I believe it is stupid.
>
>If they are synonyms, then "I believe" doesn't add anything. Why should I tell
>him to add that to what he said?
Predicated on 'It is' being equal to 'I believe it is', as you agreed to
above.
>
>or
>It is stupid.
>I believe it is stupid.
>
>If "I believe it is stupid" means "I'm not really sure", then they are not
>synonyms. If so, why should I be presumptuous enough to tell him that he
>didn't mean what he said?
Meaning is the result of interpretation, Mr Brazee... or so Wittgenstein
tells us.
>
>Do you have any alternative scenarios for this particular instance?
I have several... but all of them end with the Sweepstakes Notification
Team showing up at my house and presenting me with a check.
DD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- References:
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: docdwarf
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Prev by Date: Sha-1 on cobol2
- Next by Date: Re: Perceived dates
- Previous by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Next by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|