| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Mdgn4x8hj3","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ6Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ6Ӻ","endOffset":974°Ӻ,"quote":"I have deliberately introduced the term “communication” in the context of the modern theory of communication Ӷ8Ӻ, because if we do not carefully restrict its meaning there will be no end to our misunderstanding. The literature of animal communication, for instance, is a blatant example of how human communication breaks down when the central term in a discussion remains, as Sebeok has recently said, “an undefined prime” Ӷ9Ӻ. One of the reasons why “communication” was either left thoroughly opaque or defined with such generality as to include any kind of organismic interaction Ӷ10Ӻ, is that the concept of “purpose” had been declared out-of-bounds for scientific explanation. The reaction to Aristotelian teleology has been so vigorous and sweeping that many of the arbiters who decided what was to be “scientific” and what not, failed to notice that some scientists were creating a new approach to teleology and that purposiveness of which we are all subjectively aware.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321079218495795044192":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Infragestellen und falschen Weg aufzeigen ","category":"Rethorische Figur","data_creacio":1551193267746°
|
