>I don't know about that, but here's one that covers
>all these: meaning is use in a particular context.
>Which was (the later) Wittgenstein's view.
I see Wittgenstein's view as a (compatible) subset of my own.
>I don't think W's take is necessarily better just
>because it covers all 3, but it does have the
>advantage of leaving out causation where is there
>is no human (or sentient?) agency. So a canyon
Why is that an advantage?
>is not a "meaning" of a river.
If a river creates a canyon you don't think the canyon is part
of the river's meaning?
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/