And not seeing through disharmonics of multiverses? On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:47 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote:
> How my post sounds to you, or how you choose to label it, is not an issue > for the Peirce list, Edwina. If there is an issue for the list, it’s > probably the distinction between dynamic and immediate objects. > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > *Sent:* 23-Oct-15 09:55 > *To:* g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things > > > > Never mind the ad hominem - and the smiley face is irrelevant. Stick to > the issue. Again, the issue is that your outline sounds to me to be pure > postmodernist nominalism/relatavism. The opposite of Peirce's insistence on > the objective reality of objects - regardless of what anyone thinks of that > object....whereas you are saying that 'things are so because they are > called so'! > > > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
