tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5620955206458634321.post1331625137156769357..comments2010-05-11T15:33:12.903+12:00Jesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11342674460270122374noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5620955206458634321.post-25109408574863370292010-05-10T22:21:00.583+12:002010-05-10T22:21:00.583+12:00However you see it, the action and the theory must go together to create something stronger than either one individually. At the end of the day I reckon we should challenge ourselves to connect the two. Might mean taking help from a 'thinker' if you are a 'doer' and vice-versa.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5620955206458634321.post-52187507217053627482010-04-30T17:28:06.422+12:002010-04-30T17:28:06.422+12:00This kind of speech-act theorising seems to me to succumb to a kind of relativism though, where the word only has meaning when I attach it to something concrete and so create my own meaning. Whereas words do carry a disembodied meaning, otherwise they mean nothing and any text can mean anything. So, ultimately it leads to a poor hermeneutic. We can talk about action, but if we have no idea why we act, but we just do it because thats the only reason we will have meaning, then why act? The only words that then have meaning are the absolute words which state that there is no disembodied meaning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com