For catholics, a confirmed unmarried man might be different than a confirmed bachelor .
_______________________________________________________________________ stephen.gue...@simtable.com <stephen.gue...@simtable.com> CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828 twitter: @simtable On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Has anybody mentioned that there are lot of unmarried men that you usually > wouldn't call bachelors? There are widowers, priests, and nineteen > year-olds, for example. I learned the word because my father's brother was > a thirty-five year old Major in the Air Force with no wife. He eventually > got married and had children. Late bloomer? > > Frank > > Frank Wimberly > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Jun 22, 2017 11:34 PM, "gepr ⛧" <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But the difference isn't merely rhetorical. If we take the setup >> seriously, that the unmarried patient really doesn't know the other names >> by which his condition is known, then there are all sorts of different side >> effects that might obtain. E.g. if the doctor tells him he's a bachelor, he >> might google that and discover bachelor parties. But if the doctor tells >> him he is "single", he might discover single's night at the local pub. >> >> My point was not only the evocation of various ideas, but also the side >> effects of various (computational) paths. >> >> >> On June 22, 2017 7:00:55 PM PDT, Eric Charles < >> eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in >> >it, >> >even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns >> >that >> >because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of >> >thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use." >> > >> >This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to me quite a >> >bit >> >about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a collection >> >of >> >conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term "practical" >> >was >> >unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good example of >> >why >> >Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary. >> > >> >Perice would point out that the practical consequences of being >> >"unmarried" >> >are identical to the practical consequences of being "a bachelor." >> >Thus, >> >though the spellings be different, there is only one idea at play there >> >(in >> >Peirce-land... if we are thinking clearly). This is the tautology that >> >Nick >> >is pointing at, and he isn't wrong. >> > >> >And yet, Glen is still clearly correct that using one term or the other >> >may >> >more readily invoke certain ideas in a listener. Those aren't practical >> >differences in Peirce's sense- they are not differences in practice >> >that >> >would achieve if one tested the unique implications of one label or the >> >other (as there are no contrasting unique implications). The value of >> >having the multiple terms is rhetorical, not logical. >> > >> >What to do with such differences.............. >> >> -- >> ⛧glen⛧ >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove