Dear John, list,
I must admit, I am enjoying this conversation.
I would also absolutely, 100% for sure, no doubt agree with you that were
he alive today,
Peirce would agree with your
“I doubt that Peirce himself would continue to talk about fusing minds if
he were among us.”
On a
Terry,
I agree that Peirce's "mind fusion" is a good
metaphor. It reminds me of Spock's "mind meld" in Star Trek.
But the Trekkies don't explain how the Vulcan neural system (in
conjunction with the human neural system) could establish that
meld.
TR> Im delighted to find this remark in
Robert and Jon,
To determine whether students understand a topic,
teachers often ask them to explain it in their own words. Since much of
Peirce's terminology is radically different from common usage today, it
would be a good exercise to translate or at least explain his comments in
21st c.
Jon Alan, List
*JAS *> I used "multiple" exactly once in my five lengthy replies, and all
I mean by it (as Gary F. anticipated) is *more than one*, since Peirce said
that "signs require *at least two* Quasi-minds; a *Quasi-utterer* and a
*Quasi-interpreter*; and although these two are at one
