Dear Jon, list - I also remarked that in McCulloch. You're right about the less than straightforward relation between logical consequence and temporal sequence … If the two were identical, mental processes probably would be unable to address contents different from those processes … Best F
Den 04/09/2014 kl. 16.10 skrev Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net<mailto:jawb...@att.net>>: Re: Frederik Stjernfelt At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13886 Frederik, Yes, the orthogonality or independence of descriptive and normative sciences is noted by McCulloch in his opening lines. The thing that struck me like a lightning synapse when I first read that passage, long time passing, was the fact that he set the logical arrow opposite to the causal arrow, invoking the shade of Duns Scotus and bound causes, which I looked up once or twice but didn't exactly get clear about, but anyway it sets the mind to thinking that there is nothing terribly automatic or straightforward about the relation of logical consequence and temporal sequence. Realizing that possibility opens up a much wider field, and I dare say a more realistic field of investigation. Et sic deinceps ... Jon
----------------------------- 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 .
