RE: virus: pop quiz #14

Joe E. Dees (
Fri, 21 May 1999 02:36:41 -0500

From:           	"Joe E. Dees" <>
Date sent:      	Fri, 21 May 1999 02:26:59 -0500
Subject:        	RE: virus: pop quiz #14
Send reply to:

> From: (Brett Robertson)
> Date sent: Fri, 21 May 1999 01:54:25 -0500 (EST)
> To:
> Subject: RE: virus: pop quiz #14
> Send reply to:
> > Joe: A word is a representation; your word "fruit" represents apples,
> > oranges, grapes and pears, among others...
> >
> > Me: The *word* "fruit" IS a descriptive term. As I said, the *symbol*
> > is descriptive while the abstraction is PREscriptive. That is, "apples"
> > when generalized to a system of apples, pears, oranges, etc must be
> > *prescribed* by the abstraction (an apple, with regard to the SYSTEM,
> > "fruit", may be described only in the negative as NOT orange, NOT grape,
> > etc. )...
> >
> Hadda get your negation fix in, ay, Brett? Apples are described by
> the word "apples", and fruit (including apples) are described by the
> word "fruit". There is NO NEED, nor is it COMMON USAGE, to un-
> Occamishly throw in a double negation and call apples non-other-
> than-non-
> apple-fruit; people just call them apples (how d'ya like THEM
> apples?). The word "fruit" is a category, NOT a "system", which
> has certain connotations (such as dynamism, energy exchange
> and fuzzy boundaries) not associated with definitional categories.
> >
> > whereas, the symbolic term *fruit* (more properly, fruity) is
> > described by the apple-- assuming the apple is presented as a token, or
> > icon, and the term "fruity" is evoked through apple's prime example
> >
> The apple is no more primal than any other fruit. "Fruity" is an
> adjective applicable well beyond the bounds of produce (chewing
> gum, hawaiian punch or Jello, for instance). The terms appley,
> peary, bananaey, etc. are illicit, as are chairy, couchy, tabley; but
> this does not mean that one can use "furniturey" as an analogue to
> "fruity", does it? That's because "fruity" applies to a basic
> category, taste, whereas there is no common functionality to
> furniture other than human utility. Language is too metaphor
> driven, polysemic and fuzzy to draw such general rules of usage. I
> suggest that you bone up on "WOMEN, FIRE AND DANGEROUS
> THINGS" by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson before you attempt
> to further scramble the intricacies of pragmatics and cognitive
> linguistics.
> >
> > ps... an "average" (or typical) Hawaiian wave is PREscribed by a range
> > of waves greater than and less than average (and this is true regardless
> > of the context to which the term "average" is constrained)
> >
> But the point was that, contra your original claim of consensus and
> compromise (which I won't let you bury to escape your error), an
> average or typical wave is different for a Gulf of Mexico dweller that
> it is for a Kona inhabitant; thus average or typical refers to the
> experience of the observer(s) (which can be _either_ an individual
> or a collectivity) observing either a subjective or an intersubjectively
> (whether you dislike the word or not) common phenomenon.
> >
> > Brett Lane Robertson
> > Indiana, USA
> >
> > MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> > BIO:
> > ...........
> > Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> > view great deals!:
> >
> >
> >