On Mar 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote:
> ... I am convinced that for further progress in information, let alone other
> matters, some recognition of the limitations of Peirce may have to be
> recognized. John's statement that "pragmatics means action" can be applicable
> to
On Mar 15, 2011, at 7:47 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>
> v.547.8 Steven writes:
>
> "However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly
> uniform and it is that uniformity upon which we rely."
>
> I disagree.
> for reasoning see comment to v547.12
>
>
> v547.12 Steven wr
Replying to Joseph --
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:18 PM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <
joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
Dear John, Pedro, Jerry and All,
-snip-
In my view, this simply displaces the problem further, since the Peircean
categories themselves are derivative, epistemological constructions
Dear Loet, Joe, Fis colleagues
>Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations – e.g., Carnap – is much
>more doubtful. Most of >us will have given up on this “realistic” position.
This is a very interesting issue. It seems to me very reasonable to claim that
for any observation one has
To paraphrase Antonio Salieri's famous "Prima la musica, dopo le parole", I say
"first reality, then the signs".
Dear Joseph: “allegro, ma non troppo”!
In the 18th century, “nature” is still considered as God’s creation and
therefore has priority to our (human) wordings and signings. Thus
