Indeed. Deeper lies the matter of ethics and the agapaic and not so much the numerical markers but more the question whether we do Peirce an injustice if we do not say this aspect is equal in his mind to the need for rigorous science. Perhaps he did not distinguish between the two which would put him at the head of the line.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > To my knowledge: > > My concern remains that associating action/reaction/interaction with 3ns, >> rather than 2ns, fosters a fundamental misunderstanding of Peirce's >> Categories, and thus his entire philosophical system. >> > > no one on these threads (specifically Edwina, myself, or Stephen) has made > the assertion that 'action' is associated with "3ns, rather than 2ns". The > point has been that 'action' as used by Peirce is often contextual, and > there are triadic forms of action that reside in 3ns. I suggest dropping > this strawman argument. > > Mike > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
