From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 19:54:58 BST
Sam,
Connections based on phonics? You're starting to sound like Derrida ;-)
The differences I was thinking of were just the little ones that we were left with just the other day when we were discussing it for the first time. I haven't actually thought about it since then, so as far as I know they stand as:
I think there should be five levels, ala:
Inorganic level - non-replicating persistence (rocks)
Biological level - replicating persistence (cells)
Social level - non-linguistic semiotic behavior (tigers)
Intellectual level - linguistic semiotic behavior (humans)
Eudaimonic level - autonomous behavior (citizens of bourgeois nations)
What I think you objected to was the placement of tigers at the third level. Besides that I think its mainly your reticence at becoming fully pragmatic. I just wanted to make reference to the fact that, though you, myself, and Marco would all appear to think that language is a social activity (cudos to us), we still are quite divergent (in the case of myself and Marco) to a bit divergent (in the case of you and I) in the way we interpret the MoQ.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 19:57:20 BST