RE: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 7, "framework" vs "foundational"?

"Accompaniment" carries no overtone of fundamentality or necessity, no sense of "without which not". "Framework" does. From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 13:51 To: Deely, John N. Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE

Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 7, "framework" vs "foundational"?

Then how about accompaniment. Or accompany, the verb. *@stephencrose * On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Deely, John N. wrote: > Perhaps "framework" rather than "foundational", as foundational lies > behind, as it were, whereas semosis accompanies every step a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 7, "framework" vs "foundational"?

John, Ben, list, I very much like this notion of pragmatism being a 'framework' rather than a 'foundation'. It would as well seem to help resolve the issue mentioned at the end of my last post as to whether it might be important not to conflate the informal use of pragmatic ideas with the formal p

RE: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 7, "framework" vs "foundational"?

Perhaps "framework" rather than "foundational", as foundational lies behind, as it were, whereas semosis accompanies every step along the way? From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:50 To: Benjamin Udell Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal