Edwina, List:
ET: I don't need to be told, again, that I am either too stubborn or too
stupid for a discussion.
Those are your words, not mine. To set the record straight, here is what I
actually said in consecutive posts.
JAS: *Rational *people are open to persuasion, rather than dogmatical
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
I made the decision, since your very public post that you considered
me either [or both] too stubborn and/or too stupid to discuss Peirce
with you [-which actually means, to accept Your Opinion as The Right
O
Edwina, List:
ET: I follow Peirce's outline which puts 3ns as the development of laws ...
There is much more to 3ns than "the development of laws."
ET: ... and such laws develop afterwards, as matter develops. Not before.
Physical laws *govern *matter and developed from the psychical law (
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I think that Peirce's cosmological outlines and references to
'nothing' - both in 1.412 and 6.215 and on - are not the 'nothing of
death/negation' - but, this still doesn't, to me, set up any
suggesti
