Still trying to come up with a clever use for the contraption; it looks like a cross between Nemo’s Nautilus and a shoe-horn.

Never read Matheson’s SHRINKING MAN, but the flick w/ Grant Williams is a 50s b-movie corker.

I used to really love Matheson. He wrote this story about some sort of monster child whose parents kept him chained in their basement. It's in first person and the kid/beast slowly begins to decide/realize that he's going to maul his captors. Scared the hell out of me. I forget what it's called, though. I also liked his novel "I am Legend" (several movies based on this) and a bunch of his TV things (like for "Outer Limits" and "Twilight Zone").

What would I record? Probably some frog lake. I love those grunting confabs....intensional or not :>}

Walt, I think that short story is called “Born of Man and Woman.” It creeped the bejezus out me too, especially when the ‘kid’ bleeds green ooze after his father hits him). “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” is great also in both its print & filmic incarnations- William Shatner or John Lithgow going mano y mano with the gremlin on the wing of the plane. And I’m pretty sure he wrote the screenplay for Spielberg’s DUEL (1971) - one of the highpoints of 70s suspense cinema.

For some *killer* frog field recordings check out:
http://www.folkways.si.edu/search/AlbumDetails.aspx?ID=2421

i will record the cracklings of my house
its old house and with temperature changes, the walls crack at nite and make really weird noise.
maybe one dayl it will all fall on to us.

“Born of Man and Woman.” Yes, that's the one, Derek. I haven't read it in many years, but it really really scared me once upon a time.

I've been using piezos on a floor tom, using the skin of the drum as a resonator surface for other rubbing activities and membranophonics. The piezos only cost a quarter or two and a quick solder to a patchcord is easy as pine.

What would I record? Probably some frog lake. I love those grunting confabs....intensional or not :>}

I'd record a bunch of sorites paradoxes, throw in a pair of borderline frogs or cogs, whatever (sneakers would be nice, too)...Maybe a shoe-in at Erstwhile's new Live series?...maybe :)

Utilizing the the recommended cellulose tape, I would attach my Truvoice to the sundry vibrating areas of my home's air conditioning vents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/052104-1vv.htm

"I wonder: ... too "pragmatic" --read: American-- for [non-American] tastes?" (posted here at August 2, 2004)

read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3533752.stm

""I wonder: ... too "pragmatic" --read: American-- for [non-American] tastes?" (posted here at August 2, 2004)

read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3533752.stm"

Actually, for those interested in back-tracking, it was posted by me, here:

http://www.bagatellen.com/archives/frontpage/000606.html

"I'd record a bunch of sorites paradoxes, throw in a pair of borderline frogs or cogs, whatever (sneakers would be nice, too)..." (non ame)

How would you square your use of the term "intension" with "sorites paradoxes", Walto?
We'd like to know.

Cf.:

Sorenson, Roy. "The Ambiguity of Vagueness and Precision." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 70(1989):174-83.

-------------. "Vagueness Within the Language of Thought." Philosophical Quarterly 41, no. 165(Oct. 1991):389-413.

I haven't really thought about it, and I don't have those papers. You could send me an email if you want to discuss this though.

BTW, you mention my "use of the term 'intension,'" but I don't think I ever used that word at all--either in the Prevost review or anywhere else. Concluding that there are "intensions" from if there are intensional activities (like, e.g., posting on an internet site) is kind of like inferring from Prevost's use of (the analogous term) "heuristic" that he must believe that there are "heurs."

I just got over a nasty case of the "heurs" and still have welts on my tuchus. Thank Jehovah for chewable penicillin.

"Concluding that there are "intensions" from if there are intensional activities (like, e.g., posting on an internet site) is kind of like inferring from Prevost's use of (the analogous term) "heuristic" that he must believe that there are "heurs.""

"Intensions Revisited"(1977), in Quintessence: Basic Readings from the Philosophy of W. V. Quine by W. V. Quine, edited by Roger F. Gibson (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004)pp. 350--it was mentioned here somewhere if I remember correctly--still makes for an excellent read on more than one of the issues given rise to in your posts.

I'd very much question this conclusion:
"objections (to Fregean theories) show that (i) senses are indexical, (ii) senses should be supplemented by a further semantic value, a subjunctive intension, (iii) senses should be understood as intensions, not descriptions, and (iv) the sense of an expression type can vary between speakers and between occasions of use.",
but the essay by well-known philosopher David J. Chalmers is easily available on the web:
"On Sense and Intension"
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/intension.html

on Sorites Paradox:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/

Roy Sorensen verbatim:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/
also: "Analytic Sorites and the Cheshire Cat", in
Vagueness and Contradiction (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2001).

Nice chatting with you, Walto.

"I just got over a nasty case of the "heurs""

Take a look at this, Derek:
http://www.evesindia.com/ohzone/confessions/selfish_intension.html

p.

Thanks for those links. I remember one of my extremely Wittgensteinian undergrad professors (Stephen P. Schwartz) making a lot out of the baldness paradox years ago. It's a tough nut, I admit, and I'm not sure how I'd try to handle it.

I haven't read much Chalmers, but did look through a couple of papers of his on mind-brain stuff once at my the suggestion of my brother (the neuro-physiologist) suggestion. I didn't care for those works, but I can't remember why. Maybe it was just a sytlistic thing: I don't know. OTOH, I did try to struggle through Dummett's (endless) book on Frege once....I failed.

I'm embarrassed to say that, for me, philosophy generally doesn't get much more recent than the writings of Everett Hall (who died in 1960). I agree with Hall on almost everything, but that may well be just a case of arrested development on my part. I've read some "younger" people--Putnam and Dennett come to mind, but nothing does much for me for some reason. I'm kind of stuck in those old Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society debates between Russell, Moore, Broad, Dawes-Hicks, and youngsters like Strawson.

BTW, the only thing I've done in philosophy myself during the past 20 years (if you don't count the musings in my fairly new agey book) is a paper criticizing Peter van Inwagen's now pretty old book on free will. It was something I sort of needed to write to since first hearing the Mill v. Hamilton compatibalism debate. I finally felt like I understood the damn issue, but I've never quite known what to do with the paper now that it's written....

BTW, one of my thesis advisors at Brown was a Phil Q.!

Thanks for your response. I agree with you on Putnam, but don't you find Dennett's Freedom Evolves so very, very readable? Strawson still holds up on Kant, IMHO.

Phil Quinn? Makes sense. My mentor at Duke was--I know you won't believe this--someone named Walter H. But I was taught the finer points of the art in Searle's classroom. He (still) knows how to play rough (remember his Derrida vendetta?). Well, Chalmers was sort of 'big' in the 90s (Time, NYRB) I guess, and there was something of (what folks here might call) a veritable slugfest between Searle and Chalmers. Name-calling and the likes. From Chalmers you would get this kind of stuff: "I deny a number of claims that John Searle finds 'obvious,' and I make some claims that he finds 'absurd.'...So instead of throwing around this sort of language, it is best to...see whether Searle says anything of substance that touches (my arguments)", and wonderful things like this: "From the fact that one can add flying pigs to the world, nothing follows." Chalmers' side could be found at
//ling.ucsc.edu/~chalmers/nyrb/, but it seems to have disappeared. The exchange is now available in Searle's The Mystery of Consciousness. Searle also used to be the guy with the memorable example. You'd hear him say: "How about the belief that George Bush wears underwear or that he has two ears? Are those also part of my unconscious Network?" (that's the dad, BTW. You find this now in his The Rediscovery of the Mind. But--to be honest--when the chips are down, I'm still with the guy across the hall from Searle, Davidson.

The question remains (don't you think?): how to address issues philosophically/theoretically here at bagatellen or similar forums, esp. in the States, without sounding pompous, obscure, like snobs posturing in the most arcane manner, testing everybody's patience by dropping names left and right (I've heard all these complaints before). Most of your educated readers could probably figure out the difference between 'heuristic(s)' and 'hermeneutic(s)', but most academics would be caught pretty speechless if you threw 'intentional' vs. 'intensional' at them. What's the answer? I don't know.

Judging from the bagatellen posts, I'd say, if one takes a risk, some will parrot you, some will cheer you on, some will try to eat you alive. And some will say you sound a lot like
Guionnet on his organ cd reviewed by Brian.

Maybe it comes down to Wittgenstein's example of the image of a man walking uphill. One could interpret this as a man sliding backward downhill. There's nothing internal to the image, even constructed as a pictorial representation of a man in that position, that forces the interpretation we find natural (On Certainty). Intensional or not:)

All the best,
p.

Yeah, it was Phil Quinn (along with Jim Van Cleve and one of Davidson's adversaries--Rod "the God" Chisholm). Mostly what I know about Searle is his early paper about deriving ought from is and a couple of things on philosophy of mind from the NY Review of Books. He's witty and fun to read, but never seemed too deep to me (again, only having read a couple of his things). OTOH, I thought Davidson was extremely difficult.

Re: Dennett, he gave a talk at Brown when I was there and got beat up pretty bad: that (and the fact that I almost never read philosophy anymore) probably explains why I haven't taken much time with him since. I did pick up his Darwin book recently though. I've also been meaning to get D. Parfit's book on personal identity which is supposed to be a lot of fun. But I really am fairly content in my dogmatic Hallian slumber.

There's a philosophy prof who hangs at JC, Jonathan Sutton, but it's hard to get him to post anything but what he's been listening to. I've read one of his papers on "dream beliefs." Pretty interesting stuff. I guess he probably has enough dealing with undergrads that he doesn't want to have the same cuckoo arguments online when he's trying to relax. I suppose there are a bunch of philosophy sites around, but for me it's awfully hard work...especially when lots of people are bound to disagree with every third word you type!

Hey, what's your suggestion for handling the sorites paradoxes?

Olympic skier Searle (Squaw Valley, 1960)? Except, I can't find any mention anywhere (Skiing examples abound in his work, but he apparently authored some kind of how-to book about his sport. Never seen a copy of it myself, but I remember the old catalog had an entry). Anyway, he was big on intension-with-an-s in the 70s, as you know. Davidson, not unexpectedly, never bothered much with that concept. Take, for example, "What is Present to the Mind?" from 1989 (with a couple of stabs at Searle and Dummett thrown in). How to handle/'solve' (meta-)sorites paradoxes you ask? I asked you that! I like Sorensen, but I put my money here (surprise) again on Davidson, esp. "True to the Facts" in Inquiries, tough, all right, but very readable (though not 'very, very'--like Dennett). Nietzsche anyone?

Seems awfully quiet around here at bagatellen these last few hours. So what you're saying about your man Sutton--schoolwork and all--, my sentiments exactly. Back to lurking then? yes, there's a pile of papers behind my back waiting to be read.
Keep posting, Walto.

p.

Hey, if you're a prof yourself, I hope you realize you should be the first on your block to be using "Perennial Solution Center" to teach philosophy of religion!

(I'm thinking of a $ back guarantee if the kiddles stop reading...Want a promo? ) ;>}

Phil Q. wrote:

"And some will say you sound a lot like
Guionnet on his organ cd reviewed by Brian"

Oooh...I like that analogy! Pretty decent mapping between much of the music on that disc and some of the posturing that's gone on here in the recent past...

Ever find yourself wanting to talk to flowers?
Now, they can talk back! They're NEW!

See (not hear) it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3656332.stm

td