Dan, Hi. I really don't think that at any point I was avoiding the point of your argument. I really did try to answer your assertions as best I could. If, maybe you'd like to explain to me why my alteration of human to humyn bothers you so much, maybe we could get somewhere.
...We seem to have common ground in that we both think that the construction of deliberate symbols defines the meaning of what can be discussed with those symbols. My contention is that the symbols in common usage set certain limits on our understanding of the world, those limits prevent us from communicating in a meaningful way with classes and groups of people who fall outside the scope of representation built in to the symbols we use.
...so far as I can tell, you think that the assumptions built in to the present construction are either invisible or inconsequential, I don't think that's the case. I think the symbols which we notice least are the ones which require the most analysis - they're the ones which have the greatest impact on our conception of the world.
...I really would like to continue this discussion with you, perhaps off list would be best though.
> At 10:04 AM 24/05/99 -0400, Richard wrote:
>>...the graphical alteration is only one facet of engaging the meme. >>The other component is the establishment of the meme as a focus for >>attention. My small graphical alteration would have little or no >>value unless it served as a vehicle to focus the consciousness of
>>alteration, it would have had no effect. >>...thanks for your assistance :)