Agree about broad and do not think it is forced if the discussion can be related to such broader matters as realism, triadic thinking, continuity, fallibility, ethics, aesthetics, reality, signs, semiotics and so forth. When it veers off is when buttons are pushed. I for example think the use of myth to connote falsehood is wrong. I was constrained from saying so because it has no explicit relationship to what I have derived from Peirce.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote: > I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than > restrictive frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more > technocratic tactic / approach and not Perice related in style. > > Bev > >
----------------------------- 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 .
