Dear Steven, That's what I increasingly thought after re-reading your thread-commencing post again after sending my post about it. You did not think the things that you at times had seemed to me to think. It was really about stylistics and word choice.
In one case I noted that you had not literally said that which you somehow seemed to me to say, - instead you had indeed said the thing that made more sense - you had not said, as I somehow had thought, that a certain _discovery_ would impact the human species and the universe, instead you spoke of the discovery of _something_ that would impact the human species and the universe, and that thing was something on the order of "nature's plan." How did I go astray? "Impacting" us sounds like something that a _discovery_ would do, not something that _nature's plan_ would do. Nature's plan does something deeper than that, it plans or plots us. I suppose that one could speak of "something with radical significance for the human species and the universe." Well, maybe I'm too sleepy to make suggestions right now. Now, you have a right to expect a reader to attend to what you actually say and not just to vague impressions of what you say. But when one writes a book blurb, it's best to write it in extra-hard-to-misconstrue ways, as if the reader may be a bit groggy, like I am right now! Best, Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Cc: Benjamin Udell Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience Dear Ben, I appreciate your very useful response. I said "the entire species" and "that the universe could not proceed," not "the entire universe." So I would not expect the impact to fill the eternal moment, only localized parts. Similarly, I would hesitate to suggest that the entire mass/energy complex of the world could eventually be structured to become a single organism. It seems implausible 'though it is perhaps worth some consideration equally as a theme for a Science Fiction novel or as a potential solution to the dark-energy problem (I do, after all, propose a "weak" universe effect that may, I suppose, accumulate at very large scales to increase "thinning" edge-wise expansion). Your points, however, are well taken. If it continues in its current form I should define more clearly what I mean by "proceed." For example: ... the universe itself could not proceed, could not further evolve beyond the stage that we represent ... Thanks. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://iase.info --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
