List,
I think Paul and I am starting with different assumptions. I assume that
"noises (or symbols)" mean something and that we don't "make" them have
meaning but that words (and ideas) have a history and a development which
gives them a logic of their own...that they refer to objects which have
specific characteristics and that the words, as prime examples of these
characteristics, have a specific relationship to these objects which we
uncover but do not create.
Further, while I understand that *people* compromise... I do not think that
ideas are best served by compromising as regards their inherent logic or
meaning.
Also, I don't consider myself a "free thinker" in many senses: Like people
who choose to defer ideas to people and must compromise in ways that honor
the person at the expense of the idea and in ways which are pleasing to the
people involved; by choosing to defer people to ideas, I must compromise my
involvement with people and honor the idea in ways that "please" the idea.
It is a thankless task (trying to please ideas)...and about the only joy I
get is in the "ah-ha" of understanding the fullness of concepts--seeing
their beauty.
If I try to share that beauty and it offends the "compromise" that
individuals make to other individuals...it is only my loss (and gain). I am
always surprised, however, just how offended people become when I choose the
purity of the idea over the compromise of humanism. Same as it ever was...
Brett
http://members.tripod.com/~Brettman35/index.html
ICQ &MindRec "Chat" UIN 6630756
If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as
a nail.-- Maslow