|
|
Posted by Luigi Donatello Asero on 11/19/97 11:34
"mbstevens" <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Nnsnf.3547$Tg2.150@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> > "mbstevens" <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:C_rnf.3541$Tg2.1085@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>It's very *unaustralian* ;-)
> >>
> >>>>Yes, but how do you define it in words?
> >>
> >>>I mean, if you say that a certain behaviour is unaustralian, then you
> >
> > need
> >
> >>>define what is australian!
> >>
> >>No, you just need to know that it is against _one_ of the qualities you
> >>associate with being a thing. You don't need some _complete_
definition.
> >>
> >>Let's say you are acquainted with a Mr. X. You know that he wears only
> >>blue suits. You have seen him on the bus every day for years, always
> >>only in blue suits, but that's about all you know about him. If you saw
> >>him one day wearing a bright red suit, you could say that it is un-X
> >>kind of thing to do. But that is very different from having a
> >>definition of Mr. X.
> >
> >
> > But you still define Mr. X with reference to the colour of his suit.
> > In your example you assume that Mr. X usually has blue suits and that
it
> > what the positive definition is about.
>
> This "positive" definition is likely a kind of weird Semiotic technical
> term for what a definition is. You can't expect the rest of us to buy
> into anything like that. It all dates back to the structuralist
> "signifier/signified" - world-made-of-language claptrap.
Expect? Not at all...
You may think what you want..
but for me you cannot have a negative definition without having the
corresponding positive defνnitions...
--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/rom-lagenhet-nara-colosseo.php
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|