Ollie: I find it problematic, on the one hand, to conceive of human language as an organ, and, on the other, to have conditions imposed on it by external systems. Let's suppose that "uninterpretable formal features are the mechanism that implements the displacement property". That, to the extent that it is confirmed or accepted under current criteria, is OK. But it strikes me as a move of a different nature to go from that to conceiving "the displacement property as being forced by legibility conditions". For it would seem to me that the legibility conditions are not "conditions" at all, but simply functions of the displacement feature on external environments.

Me: Duzzawuzza goo-goo boy. Who's my good boy? Who's my snookie wookie?

Ollie: Remember how Descartes wrote, "All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived." I'm really resonating with that this morning.

Me: Does my sweetie weetie goodsy boy want a biscuit? Do you want a bisky bisky my little puppy wuppy?

Ollie: Mom, when Emerson wrote, "this old age ought not to creep on a human mind. In nature every moment is new; the past is always swallowed and forgotten; the coming only is sacred. Nothing is secure but life, transition, the energizing spirit." He wouldn't mind if I substituted dog for human, do you think?

Me: Oootzy cookie whoo whoo. Who's my snuggy bear? Who's my snuggy beast? Are you a beasty-poo? Duzzawuzza whoo whoo.

Ollie: Thanks for the chat, Mom. I really feel alot better.

got 2 cents?