Stephen, I don't think adding "unity" helps. Unity is already implied in
the form of the 'mind-body'. - The problem lies deeper than in
wordings. The mind-body problem needs to be solved. Which is not easy.
Right now I'm quite busy writing down the solution I have arrived at,
using both
I find Helmut's comments to the point. In terms of CSP's categories,
"instincts" do not, as such have a place. - Well, a kind of
firstnesslike, but that is it.
Nowdays, the quite common understanding of "instict" is different than
in CSP's times. Not to forget that HIS understanding differed
I'd disagree with Kirsti's view that instincts are unrelated to the Peircean
categories. I'd say that instinct in itself is in a form of Thirdness, in
that it is a genetically based knowledge. As to how it is activated and
accessed - that can be via both Firstness and Secondness.
As for 'the
Ad feminem. I used to moderate a forum that went on for a good while in the
90s. All forums suffer the slings and arrows of various dynamics. But this
is a case of renegade moderation and I am tired of it. I think Peirce would
be too.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Ad feminAm
Sent from my Sprint Phone.
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
Kirsti- that's not a logical response. If you wish to keep your short
assertions without explanation and refuse to either explain or discuss them,
then, don't post them on to a discussion site!
Also, if you can't accept disagreement - again, don't post your opinions to
a discussion site! The
Edwina,
You have no right to deny me my short comments. Only the list-minders
have the right to do so.
Your tone I find angry, aggressive & not agreeable.
Now, once and for all, this is the end of my discussions with you. - You
may write whatever you wish to the list. But do not ever expect
Stephen - what the heck does 'ad feminem' mean? Surely you aren't 'feminizing'
the fallacy of 'ad hominem' ? [ I'm opposed to political correctness]. My
comment to Kirsti had nothing to do with her personally (which is what ad
hominem is all about) but about her posting a comment and then,
Of course I am privy to Peirce's thought and so are you and anyone else.
You are privy to mine and vica versa. I found your post to K to be an
attack. I have found you to be functioning as a moderator-sort. I think I
am on the cutting edge of things, but this Forum is not interested in
Triadic
Edwina, Stephen, Kristi, List -
"Such an approach denies the nature of a discussion site - if you post
something and then, refuse to explain or discuss what you posted."
Here's how I look at it: After her earlier post, Kristi was queried. She then
had three options: 1-Not respond, 2-respond
Kirsti- Heh - I am not denying you your short comments. I am asking you why
you post them if you refuse to discuss them and their content!! What's the
point of posting them??
Heh - I could say the same about you: I find "your tone angry, aggressive
and not agreeable' - but I'm not interested
Stephen - please don't change the issue. When you write something like:
"But this is a case of renegade moderation and I am tired of it. I think Peirce
would be too."
Then I have every right to ask you if you are 'privy to Peirce's thought such
that you can assert that he too would consider my
Tom, Edwina, Stephen, Kirsti, List,
Tom wrote: So measures of patience, forthrightness and follow-thru all
promote a successful forum. I assume AND HAVE OBSERVED the existence of
these, to tolerable degrees, or I would not be here.
Yes. However, we'd like to remind list members of a principle
Kristina, Stephen, Helmut, Edwina, list members,
The heated debate between Edwina and Kristina reminds me of the Republican
debate we saw on TV last night. Let us not fight against each other but
focus on defeating the Democrats of the challenging problems in
contemporary science and
14 matches
Mail list logo
