Helmut, List,
My internet service has been messed up all week ... and I haven't been able to follow much of the
discussion down from this point ... it seems to be working now, but no way of telling for how long.
I guess I'll just try a brief note as a test.
Let me just begin with a couple of
FYI
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
E202-O
718 482-5700
*** *** *** ***--- Begin Message ---
View a selection of Routledge Paperback Monographs in their entirety for free
this month only!
Is this email not
Frank, list
> F: Well, I don't really agree that the legisign's final interpretant must
> be a third, since at this time I prefer to lean more on Peirce's sketch in
> the last letter to Welby, wherein he makes the final interpretant to have
> three possible modes just as any other aspect or respe
Dear Gary
I think this problem you bring up here hinges on the definition of "mystical".
I agree that Peirce does not use this term as he does not use the term
Panentheism. These are terms that I have used to describe his position. The
term "revelation" is also my term. I do not recall if Brent
I think within the NA text there is ample basis for inferring that at the
time of its writing CSP had long practiced what he advocated - a damningly
unstructured mode of thinking that he advocated almost universally and
certainly for persons untrained in the philosophy that is the basis for
most Pe
Søren, youve given us a lot to think about(!) in this introduction to the
final chapter of Kees book, and I can only focus on a couple of key words
here: mystical and revelation.
Im aware of the place in the Brent biography (revised ed., p. 210)
referring to an unsent letter from Peirc
