Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Pinterest Share on Linkedin

George Hillocks Sayings

...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.

George Hillocks Sayings: ...[T]he Inherent Polysemous Character Of Language And The Necessity Of Interpreting Language According To One's Personal Understandings Eliminate The Possibility Of Infusing One's Sentiments Directly Into The Mind Of Another. At The Same Time, These Characteristics Of Language And Its Interpretations Suggest That No Text Ought Ever To Be Thought Complete. We Can Never Manage To Complete Our Ideas, To Work Out Their Full Implications, To Recognize Their Inadequacies, Or To Say What 'we Really Meant.' Further, Since Anything We Say Can Be Challenged, As Graff (1992b) Points Out, We Can Never Manage To Meet All The Possible Challenges. Such An Idea May Seem To Be An Unbearable Problem. But We Have Always Lived With These Conditions. We Have Simply Ignored Them.