Hello,
Sorry but where on the net can those abstracts and
papers from the Salzburg
conferences be found?
Kind regards,
Wilfred Berendsen
Van: Jerry LR
Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 15 juli 2006
19:35
Aan: Peirce
Discussion Forum
Onderwerp:
Dear Jerry,
I agree my attempt to explained handedness was faulty. Here is the Peirce
reference to the issue. Glad the conference was such a success.
Best wishes,
Jim Piat
"Take any fact in physics of the triadic kind, by which I mean a fact
which can only be defined by simultaneous referen
Dear Jerry,
I agree my attempt to explained handedness was faulty. Here is the Peirce
reference to the issue. Glad the conference was such a success.
Best wishes,
Jim Piat
"Take any fact in physics of the triadic kind, by which I mean a fact
which can only be defined by simultaneous refere
Firtness and quality, Secondness and quantity, and Thirdness and
sequence --- self, an other, another.Otherness in
itself may be adequate to account for quantity in as much as the notion of
"and" seem implicit in the notion of "otherness" as for example a self
"and" and an other self constitutes otherness. So that quantitity is
implicit in other-others. Likewise time as Peirce oft cited
examplar of Thirdness par excellence carries within it the notion of sequence
or order among others.Just wondering.Cheers,Jim
Piat---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber
[EMAIL PROTECTED]__ Información de NOD32,
revisión 1.1662 (20060715) __Este mensaje ha sido analizado
con NOD32 antivirus systemhttp://www.nod32.com
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
Dear Jim, Rob and List:Before turning to Jim's post, a couple of comments about the Salzburg conferences.The Whitehead conference attracted about three hundred (300!!) participants. The Chinese are keenly interested in Whitehead. It was rumored that they intend to establish 25 research institutes
Jim, list,
You got me thinking this time!
>Your comment below raises another related thought:
>>I agree about nummbers as othernesses. "Other" is not unlike an ordinal form
>>of the phrase "more".>>
>What I meant to suggest in my earlier remarks was that "other" was akin to the
>notion of q
