From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Feb 19 15:55:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 19 Feb 2001 23:55:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 27745 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 23:34:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2001 23:34:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2001 23:34:19 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.80]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010219233401.KMKC26323.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:34:01 +0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: Orcutt (again?!) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:33:21 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6d.fa096e1.27c29359@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > I don't see the connection of any of this to the issue about Maggie Thatcher > and George Eliot. The differences there are just about the authority or > sanity or whatever of the believer, not a problem about intensional contexts. The connection is that intensional contexts were (arguably) one reason for wanting names to have senses, and another reason for wanting names to have senses is shown by the Maggie Fatcher, George Eliot examples, which attempt to be part of an argument that (a) there is a distinction between knowledge/belief about (all members of) a category and knowledge/belief about what characterizes its intension (= "knowing what word X means"), and (b) this distinction applies also to names. --And.