From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Subject: Re: BHA: bhaskar: 1, ruth: 0. A peep from the sidelines
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:51:17 -0500 (CDT)


    In answer to the closing question, Yes. And I had completely
forgotten about tha phrase of Engels.

    I raised the question in part because so much of 20th century
literary criticism (and not merely pomo thought) has revolved
rather foggy assertions that one could not separate "meaning"
>from the particular words that expressed it. In a body of criticism
that I have particularly immersed myself in, criticism of Milton's
two epics, one huge sub-stream of it can't distinguish lying (which
I would think, depends on the words naming accurately) from "corruption
of language." And of cour

    I could go on but typing is difficult with a cast on my left arm.

    Carrol
>
> At 01:38 PM 4/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >    Any world view which calls itself materialist must allow for
> >accurate paraphrase, ecen accurate multiple paraphrases, of any
> >discourse.
> >
> >    Comment?
> >
> >    Carrol Cox
> >
> >
> > Dear Carrol,
>
> Isn't paraphrase possible because it's not the words  -- but the meaning
> behind the words -- that matters (on a materialist and dialectical
> analysis)? Meaning emerges from the use of language in social action, and
> meaning is extended through critical thinking about structured social action
> and the social use of language. Don't the pragmatists say that meaning is
> the ability to control processes of change? To what extent can this be done
> without knowing something about the world realistically? materially? Engels
> said the world is not a complex of things, but a complex of processes (the
> Dialectics of Nature). He also said science is matter become conscious of
> itself as matter. Does any of this get at the issue you are raising?
>
> Charles Reitz  creitz-AT-toto.net
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---