Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17
So?  |
Excellent point, Curtis. And while I fully agree, allow me to posit these additional views:
Based on your response, I would expect your expounded view to have two aspects: 1) the diagnosis of logocentrism, & its nature & its characteristic error, & 2) the exposition of a viewpoint that transcends the limitations of logocentrism. Implicit in your view is that a proper grasp of speech situations would also not allow that error to occur. As I implied in an earlier post (above), the very problem of a relationship between thoughts & words implies an illusion that universal substances exist -- an illusion which, by the way, you yourself have verbalized within your very eloquent critique of transcendence, Curtis.