> Robin writes:
> >I don't think W's take is necessarily better just
> >because it covers all 3, but it does have the
> >advantage of leaving out causation where is there
> >is no human (or sentient?) agency. So a canyon
>
> Why is that an advantage?
>
> >is not a "meaning" of a river.
>
> If a river creates a canyon you don't think the canyon is part
> of the river's meaning?
Sounds periliously close to intentionality on the part of the river, if you
ask me.
`Meaning' is man made. It is not a property of things themselves.
-Prof. Tim