RE: Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs.

From: Matt Brown (
Date: Sat Dec 18 2004 - 14:38:41 PST

Michael et al.,

Just a quick point. I'm worried about the following point you make:

Quoting Michael Glassman <>:
> I think the Pragmatists avoided discussions of development such as
> those discussed at the end of the article very much on purpose. They wanted
> to escape dualism and once you start talking about development you can't help
> but fall into a dualist trap.

I don't see why this is necessarily true. Could you maybe explain this a bit
more? Is a notion of vertical development or a telos necessarily a part of the
notion of development as you're using it? What about a notion of development as
expansion, growth, or shifting? Or am I missing your point?


Matt Brown (

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST