I wrote: > I see no reason to bar my will to believe that the explanation may lie in > part in what is currently occult. And I'll even add to that that it may be > the nature of the relation of the occult to us that the occult will always > remain occult. (Peirce would scoff at that addition on the grounds that it > entertains nominalism, which I certainly still do at times.)
I wrote: > I see no reason to bar my will to believe that the explanation may lie in > part in what is currently occult. And I'll even add to that that it may be > the nature of the relation of the occult to us that the occult will always > remain occult. (Peirce would scoff at that addition on the grounds that it > entertains nominalism, which I certainly still do at times.)
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
