Dear Karl, Thank you so much for this elegant closure of the session. Let me, however, correct one point:
> In Loet's view, there exists a framework within which we can observe how the actual states of the things are. I would formulate: "ons is able to entertain frameworks (model) in scholarly discourse that enable us to specify expectations about how the actual states of things are." The issue is the specifications of (theoretically informed) expectations that precedes epistemologically (but not historically) the observation. > Therefore, in this approach there is no need for a separate concept of order; as each possible alternative is a priori known, it is the information content that gives a description of the world. By information, this approach means the deviation of the actual cases from the ideal-typical case, in which an order exists. (universalia sunt ante rem) The problems in this mediaeval formulation is the "sunt". "Can be expected"? In the res cogitans, derivatives of "esse" can perhaps be replaced with derivatives of "frangere" such as "fractals," "fragments", "failures," etc. Thus, Descartes' "error" matters, and one cannot go back before his distinction without reorganizing the tradition. The paradigm of epistemology has changed! Best wishes, Loet _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
