Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"Renia" <renia@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fqcoot$m9b$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>
>> I simply wish Renia to understand something about the nature of
inquiry. 
>> Its a process thing. That is what I am writing about. I do not insist 
>> Renia agrees with me on any issue, since I am hardly stating any
'issue' 
>> or result of inquiry, but how we go about acquiring inofrmation.
>
> I have not discourse with you on any matter save to say I am interested
in 
> onomastics but know little about it.

But do you understand your terms, Renia? To discourse as we are /is/ 
ontological. That is from the [Gr.] 'logos', discourse.

> As to philosophical enquiry, well, that is something I studied at degree

> level and we could have fun with that.

I wonder? Though one bland, original and Greek idea of philosophy means
only 
that one reflects on what one [loves to do] does.

To talk otherwise, not from that stance is what your heavy bearded and 
tragic German blokes have called 'Pathic' discourse - as if between
idiots, 
neither having any digested experience.

> If only you had explained that we are supposed to be having a 
> philosophical discussion and not one on the nature of the origins on the

> English language, about which you seem to know so little.

There are those who would say that is a distinction without a difference. 
But hey! I am just reading some Fowles on John Aubrey, and Fowles was most

grateful that Aubrey's 'vice' existed - for it let exist all sorts of 
records which would not fit into any discipline, but which we latterly
have 
come to value very much. As well as often being the sole recorder of any 
instance, Aubrey also gave us a context within which 'data' or facts 
existed.

>
>> I cannot proceed further if these messages are intercepted by people
who 
>> do not wish any mutual understanding to occur. Which, sadly, is all too

>> typical newsgroup fare, and must discourage those who would actually
like 
>> to share their processes and explorations.
>
> Well, indeed. We just don't understand your processes and explorations
and 
> that is what we are trying to get to the bottom of.

That is the very question, Renia! If process and exploration are
understood 
as resulting in knowledge. Just plonking out some data doesn't mean anyone

understands it, eh? That is mere rhetorical assertion.

Since if process itself is not acknowledged, then how can anyone say they 
know anything? After reading some cove's "not!" or "nonsense" comments for

the 50th time, without any attempt on their part to say their own process,

then those people do not even understand that investigation of anything is

necessary. They may know much, but in the sense of idiot-savants, not 
understanding what they know to the degree that they can't *****s anything

beyond their knowledge.

Its not unusual - and explains why newsnet is often rather heavier on 
dissent and arguments, than anything that might be called cooperative 
investigation. Serious students have oftern referred to such 'athorities' 
who can't say how they have determined something, or even don't know that 
they need to say 'how, as 'The Rage of the Librarians.'

And of course history and anthropology is literally 'complex' - meaning 
composed of many parts - and simplifications of it are too often for
rather 
simple understandings.

Cordially, Phil Innes