BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}The 'standard of consistency' is Thirdness, which answers to the
facts rather than fictions of objective reality and the Final
Interpretant among the 'community of scholars'. This view of Peirce
therefore denies any power
List,
As Edwina pointed out, the argument which Peirce declares to be a miserable
fallacy bears a close resemblance to what we now call moral or ethical
relativism (I prefer to avoid the term postmodern though). Peirce spells
out the analogy between the defendant argument and the falla
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List:
Additionally, as Peirce noted, in 'Some Consequences of Four
Incapacities' [1868], "to make single individuals absolute judges of
truth is most pernicious" [5.265.2].
This is a basic rejection of C
List, Helmut:
I am bit puzzled by your message.
What is the definition of “emanations” that you are thinking of?
Do you consider emanations necessarily spatial?
While I can easily imagine a “set” of emanations, such a set would not be
emanations; the physicality of the emanations can not be re
