Pim: So you claim and others disagree. And why are you limiting
yourself to the 4 gospels ? The meaning of the words depend on the
reader especially since we do not have the authors available to explain
it to us.
But even if the author were around to "explain" his intended meaning to
us, wouldn't we still have to interpret his explanation? Or do you
really mean that you prefer your coffee with cream and sugar? At least
that's how I understood what you said. ;-) Pim, if you really believe
that the meaning of a written text is reader dependent, why do you
expend so much time and energy trying to communicate in an e-mail
discussion group?
I don't know about anyone else on the list, but I really do find you to
be a hard one to pin down. I would gather from some of your previous
posts that you believe that words are adequate vehicles for
communicating thoughts. In fact, in the past you have been quite
strident about the necessity of properly defining words. On occasion,
you've even written as though you believe that it is wrong for one to
make words mean whatever they decide. For example, in a message dated
Mon, 14 April 1997 (Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics) you wrote:
> On the contrary, evolution is well defined and only creationists seem to
> obfuscate the issue by defining it to mean something it isn't. You have
> claimed yourself that creationists are (partially) guilty of the
> 'misunderstanding' of their statements since they use evolution in a wide
> sense not the correct scientific sense.
Again, in a post dated Sun, 4 May 1997 (Re: Origin of life,
thermodynamics #5 2/2) you wrote:
> SJ: Actually "the book" is part of *the beginning* of "the theory of
> intelligent design and the origin of life", so it goes without
> saying that "little progress has been made" to date.
>
> So they claim, and I disagree. Depends on the meaning of the word progress.
In a post dated Mon, 28 April 1997 (Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics)
you wrote:
> SJ: "When discussion turns to evolution in the more restricted sense-
> biological evolution on the earth-then obviously it is highly
>
> Of course the strawman is to use the word evolution to imply more than
> it's common meaning.
And in a post dated Wed, 30 April 1997 (Re: evolution?) you wrote:
> SJ:"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and
> where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth. (Johnson
> P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p133-134).
>
> Nice redefinition of myth versus science. Why the need to redefine words
> to suggest that there is no difference between a creation myth based on
> unprovable assumptions of a super natural being and a story of evolution
> (which is btw not creation, a common confusion) ?
Quotes such as these, along with your periodic quotes from the scholarly
writings of others, lead me to believe that you are not as relativistic
about the meanings of words and the interpretation of verbal
communication as your most recent reply to CW might let on. It appears
to me (an interpretive call to be sure) that when it is convenient to
you, you are a staunch proponent of the ability of words to adequately
convey the intended meaning of an author or speaker. On the other hand,
when it is not advantageous to your case, you resort to the more
postmodern mindset that makes meaning dependent on the reader's/hearer's
interpretation rather than upon the author's/speaker's intention. So,
which way is it?
Keith