|
Posted by mbstevens on 11/19/59 11:34
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
>>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
That "for me" has no weight here.
> you cannot have a negative definition
It was never a negative _definition_ at all! Just an observation
about a quality.
> without having the
> corresponding positive defínitions...
Then you are using 'definition' in a non-standard way.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|