Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 Lewis Burgess wrote: > All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a limited room of four permeable walls... Permeable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a limited > room of four permeable walls... > > > Permeable? As part of the metaphor it indicates openness, not closed off, allowing passing through, non-separation, exchange,........ The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining nonduality are considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Tuesday, June 07, 2005 9:50 AM Re: permeable walls Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a limited > room of four permeable walls... > > > Permeable? As part of the metaphor it indicates openness, not closed off, allowing passing through, non-separation, exchange,........ The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining nonduality are considered. These Riverlets of Tears Are, I Know From my Original Face This Face I Just Met In You You and I Are a Crazy Experiment And I Fear My Heart Will Stop And I Will Die Within You Is This Enough For Human Or For God? Eternity is All I Ask In This Sweet, BitterSweet Vibration of " You " ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 Lewis Burgess wrote: >>> All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a limited room of four permeable walls... >> Permeable? > As part of the metaphor... Does metaphor infer infinity? > it indicates openness, not closed off, allowing passing through, non-separation, exchange,........ What suggests that something is on the other side? > The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining nonduality are considered. Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > >>> All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a limited > room of four permeable walls... > > >> Permeable? > > > As part of the metaphor... > > Does metaphor infer infinity? " Infinity " is within the room as are all conceptualizations. > > > > it indicates openness, not closed off, allowing passing through, > non-separation, exchange,........ > > > What suggests that something is on the other side? The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. > > > > > The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the > > ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining > > nonduality are considered. > > > Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor is > real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? No.... All of it is a metaphor or a heuristic. One can " stand in the room " and " discover " and " explore " and " create. " The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer to words and complexes of other words and all the associated meanings (connotations and denotations) constructed from implicit and explicit memories, perceptions, thoughts, intentions, emotions, imaginings and so on. In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be closed, non-permeable, having " no thing " other than words with words. In transforming the metaphor in this way, there is " no thing " beyond words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 Lewis Burgess wrote: Lewis: All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a limited room of four permeable walls... JP: Permeable? Lewis: As part of the metaphor... JP: Does metaphor infer infinity? Lewis: " Infinity " is within the room as are all conceptualizations. Ok. So can we agree that these conceptualizations are ultimately undifferentiated tautological semiotics? Or, said in reverse, these conceptualizations are relatively differentiated tautological semiotics? Either way, wouldn't you agree that we cannot dispense with the tautological nature of semiotics? Lewis: it indicates...passing through JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining nonduality are considered. JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be closed No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > Lewis: All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a > limited room of four permeable walls... > JP: Permeable? > Lewis: As part of the metaphor... > JP: Does metaphor infer infinity? > Lewis: " Infinity " is within the room as are all conceptualizations. > > Ok. So can we agree that these conceptualizations are ultimately > undifferentiated tautological semiotics? Or, said in reverse, these > conceptualizations are relatively differentiated tautological > semiotics? Either way, wouldn't you agree that we cannot dispense with the tautological nature of semiotics? Yes. > > > > Lewis: it indicates...passing through > JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? > Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. > > Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the > other side? All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what ever or who ever) can suggest that: something is on the other side. something is not on the other side. something is and is not on the other side. something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. > > Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the > ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining > nonduality are considered. > JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor > is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? > > > Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor > Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer > to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be > closed > > > > > No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? Lewis: Yes. As that was clearly stated above. In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. Lewis: Yes. It is " within " the " walls. " Ontology is mythopoetic as is every discourse. This is spoken " within the walls. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:02 AM Re: permeable walls Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > Lewis: All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a > limited room of four permeable walls... > JP: Permeable? > Lewis: As part of the metaphor... > JP: Does metaphor infer infinity? > Lewis: " Infinity " is within the room as are all conceptualizations. > > Ok. So can we agree that these conceptualizations are ultimately > undifferentiated tautological semiotics? Or, said in reverse, these > conceptualizations are relatively differentiated tautological > semiotics? Either way, wouldn't you agree that we cannot dispense with the tautological nature of semiotics? Yes. > > > > Lewis: it indicates...passing through > JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? > Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. > > Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the > other side? All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what ever or who ever) can suggest that: something is on the other side. something is not on the other side. something is and is not on the other side. something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. > > Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the > ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining > nonduality are considered. > JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor > is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? > > > Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor > Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer > to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be > closed > > > > > No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? Lewis: Yes. As that was clearly stated above. In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. Lewis: Yes. It is " within " the " walls. " Ontology is mythopoetic as is every discourse. This is spoken " within the walls. " Anna: And this is the holy quest, to make oneself " whole " thru the bricks of the walls, accomplished by removing one brick at a time, and sometimes that one brick is the one that shakes the foundation, thereby causing the walls to come down. ; -) love, anna ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:02 AM > Re: permeable walls > > > Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > > > > Lewis: All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a > > limited room of four permeable walls... > > JP: Permeable? > > Lewis: As part of the metaphor... > > JP: Does metaphor infer infinity? > > Lewis: " Infinity " is within the room as are all conceptualizations. > > > > Ok. So can we agree that these conceptualizations are ultimately > > undifferentiated tautological semiotics? Or, said in reverse, these > > conceptualizations are relatively differentiated tautological > > semiotics? Either way, wouldn't you agree that we cannot dispense > with the tautological nature of semiotics? > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > Lewis: it indicates...passing through > > JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? > > Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. > > > > Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the > > other side? > > All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what ever or > who ever) can suggest that: > > something is on the other side. > something is not on the other side. > something is and is not on the other side. > something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. > > The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. > > > > > > > Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the > > ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining > > nonduality are considered. > > JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor > > is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? > > > > > > Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor > > > Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer > > to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be > > closed > > > > > > > > > > No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? > > > Lewis: Yes. As that was clearly stated above. > > In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply > ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. > > Lewis: Yes. It is " within " the " walls. " Ontology is mythopoetic as is > every discourse. This is spoken " within the walls. " > > > Anna: And this is the holy quest, to make oneself " whole " thru the bricks of the walls, accomplished by removing one brick at a time, and sometimes that one brick is the one that shakes the foundation, thereby > causing the walls to come down. > ; -) > > love, anna The irony is that the very " oneself " you are trying to make " whole " is itself mythopoetic... fuzzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:01 PM Re: permeable walls Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:02 AM > Re: permeable walls > > > Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > > > > Lewis: All discourse takes place within a universe defined by a > > limited room of four permeable walls... > > JP: Permeable? > > Lewis: As part of the metaphor... > > JP: Does metaphor infer infinity? > > Lewis: " Infinity " is within the room as are all conceptualizations. > > > > Ok. So can we agree that these conceptualizations are ultimately > > undifferentiated tautological semiotics? Or, said in reverse, these > > conceptualizations are relatively differentiated tautological > > semiotics? Either way, wouldn't you agree that we cannot dispense > with the tautological nature of semiotics? > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > Lewis: it indicates...passing through > > JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? > > Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. > > > > Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the > > other side? > > All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what ever or > who ever) can suggest that: > > something is on the other side. > something is not on the other side. > something is and is not on the other side. > something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. > > The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. > > > > > > > Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the > > ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining > > nonduality are considered. > > JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor > > is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? > > > > > > Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor > > > Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer > > to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be > > closed > > > > > > > > > > No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? > > > Lewis: Yes. As that was clearly stated above. > > In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply > ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. > > Lewis: Yes. It is " within " the " walls. " Ontology is mythopoetic as is > every discourse. This is spoken " within the walls. " > > > Anna: And this is the holy quest, to make oneself " whole " thru the bricks of the walls, accomplished by removing one brick at a time, and sometimes that one brick is the one that shakes the foundation, thereby > causing the walls to come down. > ; -) > > love, anna The irony is that the very " oneself " you are trying to make " whole " is itself mythopoetic... fuzzie ;-) ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 Lewis: <semiotics are tautological> Msg 25116 Lewis Burgess wrote: Lewis: it indicates...passing through JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. JP: Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what ever or who ever) can suggest that: something is on the other side. something is not on the other side. something is and is not on the other side. something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. Are you saying that some semiotics suggest that something is on the other side, but other semiotics do not suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining nonduality are considered. JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be closed JP: No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? Lewis: Yes. As that was clearly stated above. JP: In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. Lewis: Yes. It is " within " the " walls. " Ontology is mythopoetic as is every discourse. This is spoken " within the walls. " When I applied the quotation marks, above, it was to quote your words. Why are you using quotation marks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis: <semiotics are tautological> Msg 25116 > > > Lewis Burgess wrote: > > Lewis: it indicates...passing through > JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? > Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. > JP: Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on > the other side? > > Lewis: All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what > ever or who ever) can suggest that: > something is on the other side. > something is not on the other side. > something is and is not on the other side. > something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. > The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. > > > Are you saying that some semiotics suggest that something is on the > other side, but other semiotics do not suggest that something is on > the other side? Lewis: Simply, semiotics is the study of signs and symbols. It does no thing. it does not suggest as defined. Semiotics is usually done by a constructed agent - A subject, reader, viewer, a you, me, he, she, it, or thinking, imagination or other meaning making capacities as mentioned above. Semiosis would be more appropriate to say as it is the producution of meaning using semiotics as Charles Pierce would opine. Again such production is usually assigned a constructed agent or agents who (what) do it, that is, in this case, suggest meanings in all the ways that can be done. So suggestions amount to these constructed agents doing semiosis with semiotics (signs and symbols). Constructions making constructions. > Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the > ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining > nonduality are considered. > JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the > metaphor is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are > permeable? > Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor > Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer > to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be > closed > JP: No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? > Lewis: Yes. As that was clearly stated above. > > JP: In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply > ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. > Lewis: Yes. It is " within " the " walls. " Ontology is mythopoetic as > is every discourse. This is spoken " within the walls. " > > > When I applied the quotation marks, above, it was to quote your > words. Why are you using quotation marks? Lewis: They are used in several ways. One is to bracket a word saying the meaning is variegated, up for grabs, moot, dependent on, etc. For example " settling. " This can mean attachment, use, opinion, belief, assuming, presuming and any other way a position may dealt with. It is open more than the other words, all of which can be interpreted in many different ways. Another way it is used is as a reminder against reification, objectification and entification of metaphors as ontologically substantive, independent, inherently self-existing realities. Your questioning roots to the issuer knowing that word meanings, their connotations and denotations and uses are not fixed once and for all. Thank you for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 <Semioses are tautological> Msg 25123 <All of it is metaphor> Msg 25123 Lewis Burgess wrote: Lewis: it indicates...passing through JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. JP: Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what ever or who ever) can suggest that: something is on the other side. something is not on the other side. something is and is not on the other side. something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. JP: Are you saying that some semiotics suggest that something is on the other side, but other semiotics do not suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: Simply, semiotics is the study of signs and symbols. It does no thing. it does not suggest as defined. Semiotics is usually done by a constructed agent - A subject, reader, viewer, a you, me, he, she, it, or thinking, imagination or other meaning making capacities as mentioned above. Semiosis would be more appropriate to say as it is the producution of meaning using semiotics as Charles Pierce would opine. ** Are you saying that some semiosis (or semiotics, or words, or signs and symbols, or constructions) suggest that something is on the other side of a permeable wall, but other semiosis (or semiotics, or words, or signs and symbols, or constructions) do not suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: Again such production is usually assigned a constructed agent or agents who (what) do it, that is, in this case, suggest meanings in all the ways that can be done. So suggestions amount to these constructed agents doing semiosis with semiotics (signs and symbols). Constructions making constructions. **Is it subjectivity (of the subject/object duality) which suggests something on the other side? **Forgive me Lewis, but I would like to see the origin of what you are talking about when you say...permeable walls. Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining nonduality are considered. JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be closed JP: No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? Lewis: Yes. As that was clearly stated above. ** Agreed. Then can we discard " In this sense...closed " ? Isn't positing closure " In this sense " (or any sense) a contradiction to " All of it is a metaphor " ? JP: In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. Lewis: Yes. It is " within " the " walls. " Ontology is mythopoetic as is every discourse. This is spoken " within the walls. " JP: When I applied the quotation marks, above, it was to quote your words. Why are you using quotation marks? Lewis: They are used in several ways. One is to bracket a word saying the meaning is variegated, up for grabs, moot, dependent on, etc. For example " settling. " This can mean attachment, use, opinion, belief, assuming, presuming and any other way a position may dealt with. It is open more than the other words, all of which can be interpreted in many different ways. **Yes, I understand the semantics there. Lewis: Another way it is used is as a reminder against reification, objectification and entification of metaphors as ontologically substantive, independent, inherently self-existing realities. **Indeed, yes. It seems that we are well past that though. My concern is the use of quotations as derivative dialectics; I do not see what quotation marks (as a defense against reification) can possibly add to a conversation which front-loads an agreement that all words are both metaphor and tautological. Lewis: Your questioning roots to the issuer knowing that word meanings, their connotations and denotations and uses are not fixed once and for all. Or perhaps not even uses (let alone fixed). Lewis: Thank you for that. And thank you, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: <Semioses are tautological> Msg 25123 <All of it is metaphor> Msg 25123 Lewis Burgess wrote: Lewis: it indicates...passing through JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. JP: Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what ever or who ever) can suggest that: something is on the other side. something is not on the other side. something is and is not on the other side. something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. JP: Are you saying that some semiotics suggest that something is on the other side, but other semiotics do not suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: Simply, semiotics is the study of signs and symbols. It does no thing. it does not suggest as defined. Semiotics is usually done by a constructed agent - A subject, reader, viewer, a you, me, he, she, it, or thinking, imagination or other meaning making capacities as mentioned above. Semiosis would be more appropriate to say as it is the producution of meaning using semiotics as Charles Pierce would opine. ** Are you saying that some semiosis (or semiotics, or words, or signs and symbols, or constructions) suggest that something is on the other side of a permeable wall, but other semiosis (or semiotics, or words, or signs and symbols, or constructions) do not suggest that something is on the other side? **Lewis: Yes Lewis: Again such production is usually assigned a constructed agent or agents who (what) do it, that is, in this case, suggest meanings in all the ways that can be done. So suggestions amount to these constructed agents doing semiosis with semiotics (signs and symbols). Constructions making constructions. **Is it subjectivity (of the subject/object duality) which suggests something on the other side? **Lewis: Sujectivity as agent employing semiotics, yes. **Forgive me Lewis, but I would like to see the origin of what you are talking about when you say...permeable walls. **Lewis: Look no further than the experience you have in reading, examining words, writing messages and posting. That which does the reading, examining, writing and posting also can suggest this or that or not about the other side. Lewis: The walls may be considered or drawn non-permeable, if the ultimate limits of discourse in describing or explaining nonduality are considered. JP: Are you saying that the metaphor is non-permeable if the metaphor is real, but if the metaphor is metaphor then the walls are permeable? Lewis: No.... All of it is a metaphor Lewis: The limits of discourse and language use is that words refer to words... In this sense it [can] be considered in thinking to be closed JP: No. All of it is a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? Lewis: Yes. As that was clearly stated above. ** Agreed. Then can we discard " In this sense...closed " ? Isn't positing closure " In this sense " (or any sense) a contradiction to " All of it is a metaphor " ? **Lewis: Yes or no. It depends on the making of it. It is all a matter of construction. It can be closed, open, both neither or other. The way it was is fine. Also, it can be changed to suit other purposes. JP: In other words, that " words refer to words " in no way can apply ontology as an actuality to your " walls " metaphor. Lewis: Yes. It is " within " the " walls. " Ontology is mythopoetic as is every discourse. This is spoken " within the walls. " JP: When I applied the quotation marks, above, it was to quote your words. Why are you using quotation marks? Lewis: They are used in several ways. One is to bracket a word saying the meaning is variegated, up for grabs, moot, dependent on, etc. For example " settling. " This can mean attachment, use, opinion, belief, assuming, presuming and any other way a position may dealt with. It is open more than the other words, all of which can be interpreted in many different ways. **Yes, I understand the semantics there. Lewis: Another way it is used is as a reminder against reification, objectification and entification of metaphors as ontologically substantive, independent, inherently self-existing realities. **Indeed, yes. It seems that we are well past that though. My concern is the use of quotations as derivative dialectics; I do not see what quotation marks (as a defense against reification) can possibly add to a conversation which front-loads an agreement that all words are both metaphor and tautological. **Lewis: There are other readers not as familair with this sort of stuff. Lewis: Your questioning roots to the issuer knowing that word meanings, their connotations and denotations and uses are not fixed once and for all. **Or perhaps not even uses (let alone fixed). **Lewis: Yes Lewis: Thank you for that. And thank you, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Lewis agrees: <all words are both metaphor and tautological> Yet Lewis argues: <some words suggest that something is on the other side of a permeable wall but other words do not suggest that something is on the other side of a permeable wall> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > Lewis agrees: > <all words are both metaphor and tautological> > > > > Yet Lewis argues: > <some words suggest that something is on the other side of a permeable > wall but other words do not suggest that something is on the other > side of a permeable wall> Lewis: No. That was not said in anyway nor argued. The yes answer was given in response to semiosis, a process of producing meaning from words signs and symbols. That process was described to you plainly and includes a constructed agent. It was clearly explained to you six (6) times as done by a constructed agent. Words suggest nothing. Semiotics suggest nothing. The constructed agent deals with words, the semiotics, and through semiosis creates meaning and then settles on those two above or the others mentioned in the tetralemma. This was explained six (6) times. This was answered in six times, JP. Here is the relevant text from post 25138 Nisargadatta/message/25138 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (1) JP: What suggests that something is on the other side? Lewis: The viewer, reader, subject, you, it, etc. (2) JP: Are you saying that all semiotics suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: All semiotics applied by " thinking " " verbalizing " (as/by what ever or who ever) can suggest that: something is on the other side. something is not on the other side. something is and is not on the other side. something is neither on the other side nor not on the other side. The " settling " on any of these or none of these is possbile. (3) JP: Are you saying that some semiotics suggest that something is on the other side, but other semiotics do not suggest that something is on the other side? Lewis: Simply, semiotics is the study of signs and symbols. It does no thing. it does not suggest as defined. Semiotics is usually done by a constructed agent - A subject, reader, viewer, a you, me, he, she, it, or thinking, imagination or other meaning making capacities as mentioned above. Semiosis would be more appropriate to say as it is the producution of meaning using semiotics as Charles Pierce would opine. (4) And here semiosis refers to process of production from as said above with the reference to Charles Peirce and below the yes again.. ** Are you saying that some semiosis (or semiotics, or words, or signs and symbols, or constructions) suggest that something is on the other side of a permeable wall, but other semiosis (or semiotics, or words, or signs and symbols, or constructions) do not suggest that something is on the other side? **Lewis: Yes Lewis: Again such production is usually assigned a constructed agent or agents who (what) do it, that is, in this case, suggest meanings in all the ways that can be done. So suggestions amount to these constructed agents doing semiosis with semiotics (signs and symbols). Constructions making constructions. (5) **Is it subjectivity (of the subject/object duality) which suggests something on the other side? **Lewis: Sujectivity as agent employing semiotics, yes. (6) **Forgive me Lewis, but I would like to see the origin of what you are talking about when you say...permeable walls. **Lewis: Look no further than the experience you have in reading, examining words, writing messages and posting. That which does the reading, examining, writing and posting also can suggest this or that or not about the other side. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you think that what was said means what you imply please make your argument clearly and use the proper reference to where you see contradiction in this most simple of presentations. Six times saying the same thing in slightly different ways to what amount to the same question is sufficient. There is no other answer to it from here. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Lewis Burgess wrote: Lewis agrees: <all words are both metaphor and tautological> Yet Lewis argues: <some words suggest that something is on the other side of a permeable wall but other words do not suggest that something is on the other side of a permeable wall> Lewis: No. That was not said in anyway nor argued. The yes answer was given in response to semiosis, a process of producing meaning from words signs and symbols. That process was described to you plainly and includes a constructed agent. How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) be produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? If that is not a contradiction, perhaps it is a paradox that I am not seeing? I do not understand how your emphasis on subjectivity has any validity OVER objectivity. Indeed, one does not even exist without the other. Simply, you seem to be trying to point to an ACTUAL value in words which I am not comprehending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: > How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) be > produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? Lewis: The simple answer is - it arises inexplicably. Below, if you need it, is some blathering on that answer. Otherwise skip to the next. Blathering: After the mother lode, JP? Well let's put in squarely on the table. What is meaning? What is actual meaning? How is meaning created and how do words, signs, symbols come to mean? If you are familiar with the philosophy of meaning, language, and epistemology, you will find that there are no definitive answers for those questions and what answers are provided are ephermeral at best, convoluted and tortured at worst. They are always post hoc formulations, conceptualizations, explanations and descriptions. All fiction. But there is a simpler answer. Now I suppose that you do not know the answer or you would not ask it. Or you are testing me out since your perspective does not match what was presented. Or perhaps both to some degree? Perhaps, but mostly like not, neither. Which is it?..... It does not matter. It is clear to me, that meaning arises simultaneously with language and thought and that all three abstractions are not in any way separate as it goes. And the possiblity of knowing how this occurs has not ever been and seems it will never be available to the understanding. As you read these words, you are understanding what is being said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? Now all one has to do is to figure out how one does that or more appropriately how one did that because you are unable to see how meaning, thought and language arise fullblown as it does in the mooment, in the popular jargon the now. All explanations will be post hoc ones abstracted from short and long term memories held in attention and constructed and manipulated and in doing that laborious job, one will never know how. One can only think or believe one knows how. So, in trying to do this impossible task all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning, thought and language and all the other abstractions made to be arising with those (emotions, intentions, images, perceptions, etc.) and all that will result from all of this will be similar to what was presented to you and to which you now ask a question where the answer is obvious to the clear. It arises inexplicably. There are no words. Can you take that bit? Not many people like that they cannot have the slightest idea of how anything happens as it does. Not one thing. All we have is post hoc metaphors, tautologies, analogies, explanations, theories, scriptures, teaching and other fictions, conceits, imaginings and concpetualizations to try to make secondary sense of what is obviously immediate and inexplicable and inexpressible. JP: If that is not a contradiction, perhaps it is a paradox that I am not seeing? I do not understand how your emphasis on subjectivity has any validity OVER objectivity. Indeed, one does not even exist without the other. Lewis: This arises because of first and is answer by the first. There are no inherent contradictions and there are no paradoxes in the words. All of that is in your interpretation in relation to my words and your words or perspective(s). There is no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity. At the level of analysis presented it was stated clearly that it is a process (semiosi and in a process all is one (agency, semiotics and semiosis) unless there is a focus to see one aspect over another. After all, you pushed for greater and greater distinctions. So that sort of separation emerged in your questioning to see more specifically were in the beginning it was vague. You are seeing emphasis where there is none intentionally made. Also there is a confusion and mixing of levels of analysis where there is a descent to a more fundamental level of analysis with the question on meaning while hanging on to the ideas of the level above it as it is done and these ideas in the level above are emergent from the level below. In other words, for example, it is like asking a question about quantum phenomena in physics while using molecular phenomena in chemistry as an example to demonstrate how quantum phenomena are not appearing and acting as it should given what quanta are supposed to be and act and appear; molecular phenomena are not acting as quantum phenomena. This is a confusion and mixing of levels. > Simply, you seem to be trying to point to an ACTUAL value in words > which I am not comprehending. Lewis: So, given all that was said above, I am not pointing to any ACTUAL value in words at all. Any number of values actual or otherwise can be constructed about words. There is no one value constructed or focused on and if anything there is a pointing to infinite potential of words to express all things as well as their limits and problems. The metaphor used is a heuristic device. I answered your delightfully probing questions about a disposable metaphor. There is nothing more than that. No teachings or beliefs here, no trying to point, just putting something out to have a dialogue like we are having. You and me. For me as it is right now there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 - Lewis Burgess <lbb10 snipped: > Can you take that bit? Not many people like that they cannot have the > slightest idea of how anything happens as it does. Not one thing. All > we have is post hoc metaphors, tautologies, analogies, explanations, > theories, scriptures, teaching and other fictions, conceits, > imaginings and concpetualizations to try to make secondary sense of > what is obviously immediate and inexplicable and inexpressible. ****Just real simple amazement that anything at all shows up. Ya. Like: Oh............ya. Then there is the hilarity of realizing you are unable to know anything at all. snipped again to the juicy part: For me as it is right now there is " no thing " beyond words. There > is " no thing " to point to. > > Lewis *And it's pointing in all directions all at once. Joni xo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Joni " <jonidurham@e...> wrote: > > - > Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > snipped: > > Can you take that bit? Not many people like that they cannot have the > > slightest idea of how anything happens as it does. Not one thing. All > > we have is post hoc metaphors, tautologies, analogies, explanations, > > theories, scriptures, teaching and other fictions, conceits, > > imaginings and concpetualizations to try to make secondary sense of > > what is obviously immediate and inexplicable and inexpressible. > > > ****Just real simple amazement that anything at all shows up. > Ya. Like: Oh............ya. Then there is the hilarity of realizing you > are > unable to know anything at all. > > > snipped again to the juicy part: > For me as it is right now there is " no thing " beyond words. There > > is " no thing " to point to. > > > > Lewis > > *And it's pointing in all directions all at once. > > Joni > xo A gift: Of Mere Being The palm at the end of the mind, Beyond the last thought, rises In the bronze decor, A gold-feathered bird Sings in the palm, without human meaning, Without human feeling, a foreign song. You know then that it is not the reason That makes us happy or unhappy. The bird sings. Its feathers shine. The palm stands on the edge of space. The wind moves slowly in the branches. The bird's fire-fangled feathers dangle down. -- Wallace Stevens, 1954 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 > A gift: > > Of Mere Being > > The palm at the end of the mind, > Beyond the last thought, rises > In the bronze decor, > > A gold-feathered bird > Sings in the palm, without human meaning, > Without human feeling, a foreign song. > > You know then that it is not the reason > That makes us happy or unhappy. > The bird sings. Its feathers shine. > > The palm stands on the edge of space. > The wind moves slowly in the branches. > The bird's fire-fangled feathers dangle down. > > -- Wallace Stevens, 1954 Thank you for your gift. Today, I am that human merely being. I don't know what " joni " means. Not today. xo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Joni " <jonidurham@e...> wrote: > > > A gift: > > > > Of Mere Being > > > > The palm at the end of the mind, > > Beyond the last thought, rises > > In the bronze decor, > > > > A gold-feathered bird > > Sings in the palm, without human meaning, > > Without human feeling, a foreign song. > > > > You know then that it is not the reason > > That makes us happy or unhappy. > > The bird sings. Its feathers shine. > > > > The palm stands on the edge of space. > > The wind moves slowly in the branches. > > The bird's fire-fangled feathers dangle down. > > > > -- Wallace Stevens, 1954 > > Thank you for your gift. > Today, I am that human merely being. > I don't know what " joni " means. > Not today. > xo Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 JP: How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) be produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? Lewis: it arises inexplicably. **Does it really? It seems fairly evident that we both agree it doesn't. Lewis: It is clear to me, that meaning arises simultaneously with language and thought... **Again, it seems fairly evident that we can agree that the arising is not an actuality. Lewis: ...knowing how this occurs has not ever been and seems it will never be available to the understanding. **Yes, of course, once we see the tautological nature of all conceptualizations - there is nothing to understand (beyond playful relativity). Lewis: As you read these words, you are understanding what is being said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? **Playfully, relatively, as a dream-like pretense, yes. Actually, no. Lewis: ...all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning **Agreed. Lewis: All we have is post hoc metaphors, tautologies **Agreed. Lewis: There is no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity. Lewis: At the level of analysis presented it was stated clearly that it is a process (semiosi and in a process all is one (agency, semiotics and semiosis) unless there is a focus to see one aspect over another. **Though clearly we can agree that in actuality there cannot be any emphasis of subjectivity over objectivity, or any aspect over another. **In this way your, permeable walls, imagery can be problematic. **That which may appear as a handhold at one level may be a finitude obstacle at another level. Lewis: You are seeing emphasis where there is none intentionally made. **Yes, and more problematically, smelling ontology because of the tenacity of your imagery and the subtle use of quotation marks. Quotation marks are exceedingly deceptive as defense against reification in that reification is exactly what they most often protect by obfuscating tautology. Lewis: Also there is a confusion and mixing of levels of analysis where there is a descent to a more fundamental level of analysis with the question on meaning while hanging on to the ideas of the level above it as it is done and these ideas in the level above are emergent from the level below. **Indeed, conceptualizations dissolve in the descent. Now, can any actuality of one's self remain? Lewis: ...there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " johnmp_nr " <johnmp_nr> wrote: JP: How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) be produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? Lewis: it arises inexplicably. **Does it really? It seems fairly evident that we both agree it doesn't. **Lewis: Yes, for me it does. No. I do not agree with you. It arises inexplicably for me. Then I make post hoc explanations about how I imagine or conceive it to have happened. What you find as evident is what you find. You be you. Lewis: It is clear to me, that meaning arises simultaneously with language and thought... **Again, it seems fairly evident that we can agree that the arising is not an actuality. **Lewis: It is what it is or what it is conceived to be. It can be considered an actuality or an illusion, or an appearance, or a potential, or an ineffability or...Choose what you wish....I use any conception as is needed. Agreement in this case does not matter. Do as you are as I do as I am. Lewis: ...knowing how this occurs has not ever been and seems it will never be available to the understanding. **Yes, of course, once we see the tautological nature of all conceptualizations - there is nothing to understand (beyond playful relativity). Lewis: As you read these words, you are understanding what is being said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? **Playfully, relatively, as a dream-like pretense, yes. Actually, no. **Lewis: You deal with these matters as you wish or can or imagine. You do with it and think of it as you want. If you think actually, no, then it is as that for you and others who do as you do. It is your opinion nothing more and does not matter one way or the other except in how one deals with life. If it suits you and your doings, good. No need to assert it as this or that. It is moot always for me. Lewis: ...all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning **Agreed. Lewis: All we have is post hoc metaphors, tautologies **Agreed. Lewis: There is no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity. Lewis: At the level of analysis presented it was stated clearly that it is a process (semiosi and in a process all is one (agency, semiotics and semiosis) unless there is a focus to see one aspect over another. **Though clearly we can agree that in actuality there cannot be any emphasis of subjectivity over objectivity, or any aspect over another. Lewis: What is actuality? I am not agreeing with your assumptive statements. There is nothing to agree to in this case. You use it (actuality) generally to cover specifics. What are you talking about? You believe in actuality (whatever that is). **In this way your, permeable walls, imagery can be problematic. **Lewis: It is obvious that the permeability of the walls is not in your liking or perspective. Change it to what you like or dispose of it. What do you want me to do? Think and be like you? **That which may appear as a handhold at one level may be a finitude obstacle at another level. **Lewis: Ok. Change it to what you like so it is more satisfying. Lewis: You are seeing emphasis where there is none intentionally made. **Yes, and more problematically, smelling ontology because of the tenacity of your imagery and the subtle use of quotation marks. Quotation marks are exceedingly deceptive as defense against reification in that reification is exactly what they most often protect by obfuscating tautology. **Lewis: The smell of ontology and tenacity of the imagery is in you. You can do what you want with the metaphor. The quotation marks too. It was made up for discussion like many things I make here and elsewhere for exploration and dialogue. I use it as necessary and put it down or dispose of its use if it is no longer viable. It is transient stuff, just like you are. There is no attachment to ungraspable air. Lewis: Also there is a confusion and mixing of levels of analysis where there is a descent to a more fundamental level of analysis with the question on meaning while hanging on to the ideas of the level above it as it is done and these ideas in the level above are emergent from the level below. **Indeed, conceptualizations dissolve in the descent. Now, can any actuality of one's self remain? **Lewis: That was not the point....JP. Now are you trying to root for some conception of self I may hold or if I have an intact self or some other thing, like an ego or some bundle of skandahs or neuronal firings that are mistaken for me or some other conceptualization? If so, just ask plainly and avoid seeking needless agreements. We were not talking about a self or any of that. And agreements are unecessary unless you think you are Nagarjuna trying to use another's argument against him/her so that they see the error of their thinking, logic, beliefs and so on. If so, you are wasting your time. There is no thing here to argue about. Lewis: ...there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 JP: How can actual meaning (or a constructed agent for that matter) be produced from that which is both metaphor and tautological? Lewis: it arises inexplicably. JP: Does it really? It seems fairly evident that we both agree it doesn't. Lewis: Yes, for me it does. Then I make post hoc explanations about how I imagine or conceive it to have happened. **Yes, but surely you can let go of that and say that it does not really arise inexplicably? Or, more simply, it does not arise inexplicably? Why assert it? Lewis: I use any conception as is needed. JP: What do you want? Lewis: Agreement in this case does not matter. JP: Agreement can even be dulling. Lewis: As you read these words, you are understanding what is being said in some way and if I say, the brown cat walks across the lawn in the rain, there is instantaneous recogition of some " meaning " in those words. There it is instant meaning production. Is that not so? JP: Playfully, relatively, as a dream-like pretense, yes. Actually, no. Lewis: No need to assert it as this or that. It is moot always for me. Lewis: ...all sorts of imagining will be made to try to account for the arisings of inseparable meaning JP: Agreed. Lewis: There is no emphasis on subjectivity over objectivity. **Yes, no agency emphasis (no tautological counterpart emphasis). Lewis: At the level of analysis presented it was stated clearly that it is a process (semiosi and in a process all is one (agency, semiotics and semiosis) unless there is a focus to see one aspect over another. Lewis: What is actuality? **In this dialogue, a worm on a hook, and I was hoping not to catch anything. Lewis: You believe in actuality (whatever that is). **There is no actuality. JP: In this way your, permeable walls, imagery can be problematic. Lewis: It is obvious that the permeability of the walls is not in your liking or perspective. Change it to what you like or dispose of it. What do you want me to do? Think and be like you? **No. I want to see how tenacious you are. Resistance inhibits the disappearance of abstractions (participants, you and I). JP: That which may appear as a handhold at one level may be a finitude obstacle at another level. Lewis: Ok. Change it to what you like so it is more satisfying. It is not a question of what is satisfying. It is a question of intellectualization. Thus far this is all (stripped down) abstractions, all semaphoring into a vacuum called self. Lewis: You are seeing emphasis where there is none intentionally made. JP: Yes, and more problematically, smelling ontology because of the tenacity of your imagery and the subtle use of quotation marks. Quotation marks are exceedingly deceptive as defense against reification in that reification is exactly what they most often protect by obfuscating tautology. Lewis: The smell of ontology and tenacity of the imagery is in you. **It's in relativity. Lewis: You can do what you want with the metaphor. The quotation marks too. It was made up for discussion like many things I make here and elsewhere for exploration and dialogue. **Perhaps less emphasis on making exploration and dialogue and more emphasis on selflessness would net less ontology on everyone's part. Lewis: I use it as necessary and put it down or dispose of its use if it is no longer viable. It is transient stuff, just like you are. **Yes, Lewis, just like I am. Lewis: Also there is a confusion and mixing of levels of analysis where there is a descent to a more fundamental level of analysis with the question on meaning while hanging on to the ideas of the level above it as it is done and these ideas in the level above are emergent from the level below. JP: Indeed, conceptualizations dissolve in the descent. Now, can any actuality of one's self remain? Lewis: That was not the point....JP. **Yes, Lewis, it was the point all along...right from the beginning (a beginning well a priori to this dialogue). There is no difference between epistemology (or, derivatively, semiotics), ontology and self. Lewis: Now are you trying to root for some conception of self I may hold or if I have an intact self or some other thing, like an ego or some bundle of skandahs or neuronal firings that are mistaken for me or some other conceptualization? **Yes, is there any other rooting going on here (on this board)? Lewis: If so, just ask plainly and avoid seeking needless agreements. **I am not looking for agreements. I am looking for infinity to say something zero point inside apparent conventionality without Lewis' or JP's self blocking the conversation. **If you say that is impossible, then I will move on in kindness and gratitude for the time you've shared, noble sir. Lewis: We were not talking about a self or any of that. And agreements are unecessary unless you think you are Nagarjuna trying to use another's argument against him/her so that they see the error of their thinking, logic, beliefs and so on. **I do not want Lewis to see the error of his thinking. I want his thinking out; I want him out. Lewis: If so, you are wasting your time. There is no thing here to argue about. **No argument there. Lewis: ...there is " no thing " beyond words. There is " no thing " to point to. **What about Lewis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.