On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Bruno,

I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there are claims that such and such know or believe or bet. I am trying to widen our thinking of how the potentials of acts is important.

I don't understand how you reason.

I try to obey the rules of grammar in communication. If a word implies an action, such as "run" or "implement" or "interview", then there should be some action involved in the referent of the word. Or else it does not imply an action and it an object. Simple logical consistency in semiotics.

This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of actions. In physics this is traditionally done by adding one dimension. The action of throwing an apple (action) can easily be associated to a parabola in space-time. This invalidate your point, even if you say that such parabola does not exist, as you will need to beg on the "real action" to make your point.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to