I concur with Edwina; I see no reason to call the real here 'god'. I have
taken a similar line in my classes for decades when looking at what
Aquinas' Five Ways would imply (Aquinas, of course, does not make
Peirce's distinction between existence and reality, so his use of
'existence' is misleadi
Thanks Ben. I have limited internet access these days so I didn't check til
just now. You're right, time is slower closer to a gravitational source
relative to time farther away. So much for that.
Matt
> On Jun 15, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
>
> Matt, as I amateurishly understand
List:
On Jun 16, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> is it ok to interpret Sungs statement as follows?
No, at least from my perspective.
A central issue of this particular CSP assertion is, from my view,
the question of how to deal with the mathematical distinctions between
independenc
Jerry, I think my answer is important. I'm working on it. I just need a few
days.
Matt
> On Jun 15, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Jerry LR Chandler
> wrote:
>
> Matt:
>
> It is a question of the relation between your usage of the term "us" and how
> I understood your sentence.
>
> My comment was based
C. S. Peirce said [EP2:258] , "Whenever we set out to do anything we ‘go
upon’, we base our conduct on facts already known." He adds that our
conduct can only rise from memory when our investigations have been
"made and reduced to a memorial maxim.”
Although I have operated, along with all manner
Supplement: When I wrote "the actual (secondness) reaction", I meant: Secondness is the being-called of the reaction (representamen, firstness, coin) by the memory content (secondness). The reaction "I might have a use for this coin" is already thirdness, interpretation.
Dear Sung, Jerry, Lis
Dear Sung, Jerry, List,
is it ok to interpret Sungs statement as follows?
"Formally" means "in its role as an object", and "ontologically" means: What it is (as an entity) in possible other contexts. One example: The agreement, that money is a value-exchange medium. "Money is a value-exchange-me
Cathy, list,
You wrote,
[Cathy quote] I’m not sure that I see that your distinction between
(antecedent) prejudice and (current) bias makes much real difference
pragmatically, though, given that inquiry is always moving forward
into the future. I.e. I don’t see a clear difference bet
List:
Given the current discussions, many of the readers of this list may find the
following announcement of interest.
Cheers
Jerry
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2014/14-091.html
News from the Library of Congress
Press contact: Donna Urschel (202) 707-1639
Public contact: Jason Steinhauer
Dear Stephen
I hope you are right. But I do not think we have a hundred years. That is also
why I think Nicolescu's work is important.
Best
Søren
Fra: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sendt: 16. juni 2014 15:43
Til: Søren Brier
Cc: Cather
Thanks, Soren, for this outline - very nice. In particular, the brief and
succinct account:
God is real but does not exists and therefore is not conscious and cannot have
a will based on a personhood as it is understood by most Theists. Therefore the
whole creationist concept of a conscious pla
I am posting the initial aphorisms of Triadic Philosophy in this thread.
The fifth follows:
You will note the introduction of the phrase "act or expression". As the
wonders or Triadic Philosophy unfold, you will see that there are typically
two practical means by which we translate consciousness
This gets at the significance of Peirce for theology and to the problem
facing all religions as the world becomes increasingly oriented to the
Peircean perspectives that you mention. It will probably take more than a
century for the change to sink in but it will happen simply because it
corresponds
13 matches
Mail list logo
