Replies

Thank you for the reply. Please do tell me where you think either I or Anselm are being equivocal in our ***meaning***. Also, did you read what I wrote? Do you have any thoughts about it other then, "failed"?

_Any_ argument can be deconstructed by construing its terms as being equivocal. Perhaps you _intend_ the terms of the argument to be equivocal.

But neither I nor Anselm, who's argument it is, do so. We have an exact and consistent meaning for each of the terms.

boris, would you deal with a technical question or dispute you had with a colleague by launching unlistening assertions at him or would you sit down and actually try to reason, to discuss the issue with him. I'm not saying that you or I are acting unreasonably toward one another, but I fear that unless we move towards more directly addressing what each other is ***saying*** that we will mearly be talking at or past one another.

Isn't all language equivocal? But meaning is not. I think if you understand my and Anselm's ***meaning*** you will see that we are not, even though some textbooks say otherwise, being equivocal.

Has anyone argued that man created God is his own image, yet?

What better way to explain his own hunter/gatherer/shepherd existence than to "blame" it upon powers beyond his control.