Jerry, I think my answer is important. I'm working on it. I just need a few days.
Matt > On Jun 15, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > wrote: > > Matt: > > It is a question of the relation between your usage of the term "us" and how > I understood your sentence. > > My comment was based on my understanding of the term "us" as a 1 st person > pronoun. I have copied the entry for "us" from the Apple dictionary below. > > What is your understanding of your usage of the term "us" in your sentence? > Could you find a better articulation of your intended meaning(s)? > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > us |əs| > pronoun [ first person plural ] > 1 used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other > people as the object of a verb or preposition: let us know| we asked him to > come with us | both of us . Compare with we. > • used after the verb “to be” and after “than” or “as”: it's us or them | > they are richer than us. > • informal to or for ourselves: we got us some good hunting. > 2 informal me: give us a kiss. > PHRASES > one of us a person recognized as an accepted member of a particular group, > typically one that is exclusive in some way. > us and them (or them and us )expressing a sense of division within a group of > people: negotiations were hampered by an “us and them” attitude between > management and unions. > ORIGIN Old English ūs, accusative and dative of we, of Germanic origin; > related to Dutch ons and German uns . > usage: Is it correct to say they are richer than us , or is it better to say > they are richer than we (are) ? See usage at personal pronoun and than. > > > >> On Jun 15, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: >> >> Please explain or cite the scientific facts that are opposed to the idea >> that minds always were and always will be. >> >> To answer what I think you meant: The big-bang and accelerating expansion of >> the universe do not refute the idea that minds always were or that minds >> won't adapt to the expansion. I can only imagine you would say what you said >> because you either have a definition of "mind" much narrower than Peirce's, >> or a weltanshauung very different from his so to interpret scientific facts >> as opposing the idea that minds always were and always will be. >> Regarding the weltanshauung, maybe you assumed science agrees with >> Cartesian dualism and disagrees with the idealist side of objective-idealism. >> Regarding what I meant by "essence of mind," Peirce did say "Matter is >> effete mind", but I think he could have also said the reverse, that 'Matter >> is nascent mind.' Maybe some minds are hardening into nothing but habit, >> i.e., matter, and some minds hardened into habits are transforming into what >> most people would recognize as minds. >> >> Matt >> >> >>> On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Matt: >>> >>> Scientific facts are in opposition to your conclusion. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> jerry >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Matt Faunce wrote: >>>> >>>> Stephen, It appeared to me that you had hijacked the term "pragmaticism", >>>> and I still think you might have. Peirce was an idealist, and the idea >>>> that 'we are reality,' if "we" means those of us whose essence is our >>>> mind, is a cornerstone of pragmaticism. In this sense there never was a >>>> reality before we came into being and there would be no reality after us. >>>> The Buddhist logicians Dignaga and Dharmakirti, who were objective >>>> idealists, concluded that there could never have been a before "us" and >>>> there will never be an after us. I came to see things their way. (Although >>>> I was warned that my source, the translations and explanations by Th. >>>> Stcherbatsky, circa 1932, are too "post-Kantian".) I'm not sure what >>>> Peirce thought of the time before us but I suspect he agreed with the >>>> Buddhist logicians. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>>> On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:51 PM, "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "All people" is my definition of "we" in the following statement: "We >>>>> are inevitably social. We are capable of achieving a sense of >>>>> universality. This universal sense distinguishes Triadic Philosophy." >>>>> Triadic philosophy regards most accepted divisions among human beings as >>>>> secondary to a fundamental unity which transcends them all. >>>>> >>>>> @stephencrose >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Stephen, please define "we" as you used the word below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matt >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:10 PM, "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Triadic Philosophy honors Peirce by claiming that it is a tiny offshoot >>>>>>> of what he came to mean by the term pragmaticism. This term was his >>>>>>> evolution of pragmatism. Pragmaticism is a bastion against the dominant >>>>>>> notion that we are all reality is. We are not all of reality. Our >>>>>>> individual perceptions are not all reality. Before we are, reality is. >>>>>>> After we are, reality remains. Pragmaticism opens the door to a >>>>>>> metaphysics based precisely on the premise that by our fruits we shall >>>>>>> be known. It is a now metaphysics. It proves out. It is not supposition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are inevitably social. We are capable of achieving a sense of >>>>>>> universality. This universal sense distinguishes Triadic Philosophy. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >>>>>> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >>>>>> BODY of the message. More at >>>>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >>>> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >>>> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >>>> . >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but >> to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of >> the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
