I have never in any forum seen more quibbling over terms which either cannot be clarified or need not be clarified. I think this is not great for this forum. I see little here that convinces me that what is truly revolutionary in Peirce -- his convincing attacks on nominalism and dualism, the things he clearly identifies as general or universal, his insistence on an ultimate union of what was called metaphysical with what is called empirical or simply science, etc, etc. will ever get a hearing if this is a conduit to a wider world.
I personally feel that Peirce by standing for the triadic as against the binary is more than significant. But I see little effort to apply that to practical matters. Maybe we do not want to acknowledge what that might mean in terms of what we most deeply believe. Peirce didn't go there either in any prescriptive sense. Reading here I must confess I feel less drawn to Peirce. Maybe we should blame Peirce for leaving things in a jumble. But we should not perpetuate it. I am not complaining because things cannot be said elsewhere. They can and will be. I am just tired of reading the first parts of posts whose remaining parts can be easily inferred and appear to repeat mainly bilateral conversations. I am sure inclusion is among the dominant values here. Maybe I am just harping away. Forgive me.
----------------------------- 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 .
