Dear Loet, Joseph and All,
Let me just clarify the difference making a difference between both of you
and me.
First, to Loet;
In other words: time is a construct of language?
The answer will be yes if the physicist accepts time when preparing an
authentic user’s manual on
(I am still in China with disrupted internet. This may have to come to the list
indirectly. In this reply, I take advantage of the amazing corpus of FIS emails
over 14 years. This is an important resource and from time to time I use it in
my work. Thank you, Pedro for sustaining this.)
Dear Joseph,
I feel that in point 3. of your note you describe a key to time but you do
not use it!
Right. The last time, I skipped over something. The issue is how to
descriptively approach phenomenological time via the interplay between real,
physical systems without prior
Dear Koichiro and colleagues,
Let me try to raise some questions. I find the language sometimes difficult.
Examples might help!
Ø The underlying issue is how can we construct the flow of time from the
tenses.
In other words: time is a construct of language?
When the constant
to highlight the specificities of organisms and humans
in terms of systems and constraints where our understanding is sometimes
limited (“ “).
Best
Christophe
From: l...@leydesdorff.net
To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 21:16:01 +0200
Subject: Re: [Fis] replies
Folks,
Joseph wrote:
Two aspects of the exchange between Koichiro and Loet merit attention: 1) Loet
said that his point of replacing “why” with “what” did not seem necessary to
him. In my mind, however, when Koichiro refers to “what is communicated by
what”, he is insisting on not
.
===
Jacob Lee
ttp://www.jacoblee.net/
- Original Message -
From: Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net
To: joe brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch, fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 12:16:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] replies to several
Dear Joe
