[MD] Apologies for Dropped Threads

[Ian Glendinning]

Matt had said (and DMB said "Right, that's what I'm talking about")
"I applaud [Steve's] good answer to the "mere conversation" slogan
this is: "Of course conversation is not excluded from experience, but
what you fail to get is that nothing is excluded from conversation."
What's great about this is that it catches exactly how the two,
conversation and experience, are inverses of each other.  Just as part
of our experience is conversation, so can conversation be _about_
anything."

[IG] Sorry if I missed some specific technical sense "hermeneutic" was
being used here (which I've always interpreted as interpretation of
meaning through and beyond text / conversation), but Matt I still take
issue with this.

JUST as conversation is "part of" our experience,
SO experience is NOT "part of" conversation,
This is NOT a simple inverse relation.

[Direct] experience IS excluded from conversation; it can be no more
than the subject the conversation is ABOUT. Clearly a conversation can
be ABOUT ANY experience, but that conversation is not that experience.

Sincerely trying to help bottom this out, and again at the risk of
winding Dave up, this seems trivial and I still don't see actual
disagreements, just people saying different things past each other
(for reasons that remain unclear). Ho hum.

Ian
PS I recall hermeneutics was in my original on-line glossary of
epistemology and semantics ten years ago, long before Wikipedia and
before I discovered SEP. http://www.psybertron.org/semantics.html

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:19 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt said:
> When Dave says (and Ian agrees with),