: Re: Realism Vs Constructivism (/ second-order cybernetics) attention nucleus
Philip Baker
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
MB
>>>some proponents of RC are developing Peirces notion of 'abduction' to give
>>>an account of synthetic knowledge. it is very useful;
PB
>>Peirce! That unequivocal realist.
>>
>> "We have direct experience of things in themselves. Nothing can
>> be more completely false than that we can experience only our
>> own ideas. That is indeed without exaggeration the very epitome
>> of all falsity."
MB
>correction, "peirce was unequivocally a Scotistic realist" (and by his own
>admission) which is vastly different from direct realism or naive realism. but
>this is a moot point,
PB
He may well have been, as opposed to being a Platonic realist. But we
are not talking about the reality of universals but of the reality of
the individual objects of everyday life.
MB
> his logic system was vey comprehensive and has proved most
>useful to many constructivists in accounting for 'synthetic knowledge' which
>are
>considered 'illogical' by most logicians (i hate logicians! to me, excluding
>illogicality from the outset is itself illogical)
PB
Do you hate casuists?
--
Philip Baker
http://textual.net/link.to/amazon/critical_thinking
http://textual.net/The_Doh_of_Homer
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Philip Baker" <ph...@thalasson.com> wrote in message
news:zcvkFABOvZM$Ew...@thalasson.com...
> In article <bgq32l$2r5$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Mr Michael Bibby
> <s403...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>>
> Do you hate casuists?
>
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Mr Michael Bibby
>In article <bgq32l$2r5$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Mr Michael Bibby
><s403...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>MB
>>>>some proponents of RC are developing Peirces notion of 'abduction' to give
>>>>an account of synthetic knowledge. it is very useful;
>
>PB
>>>Peirce! That unequivocal realist.
>>>
>>> "We have direct experience of things in themselves. Nothing can
>>> be more completely false than that we can experience only our
>>> own ideas. That is indeed without exaggeration the very epitome
>>> of all falsity."
>
>MB
>>correction, "peirce was unequivocally a Scotistic realist" (and by his own
>>admission) which is vastly different from direct realism or naive realism. but
>>this is a moot point,
>
>PB
>He may well have been, as opposed to being a Platonic realist. But we
>are not talking about the reality of universals but of the reality of
>the individual objects of everyday life.
this is an oversimplification, but it is a moot point. i am not interesting in
his 'semieotics' as such. i am interested in his logic, or, should i say, his
illogic.
>MB
>> his logic system was vey comprehensive and has proved most
>>useful to many constructivists in accounting for 'synthetic knowledge' which
>>are
>>considered 'illogical' by most logicians (i hate logicians! to me, excluding
>>illogicality from the outset is itself illogical)
>
>PB
>Do you hate casuists?
i wasnt sure what you meant by 'cusuists' so i looked it up in the O.E.D. which
says "A theologian (or other person) who studies and resolves cases of
conscience or doubtful questions regarding duty and conduct" but i know there
are other connotations associated with casuistry, but i am not entirely familiar
with their meanings. so, i am not sure what you are implying here.
>Philip Baker
><a href="http://textual.net/link.to/amazon/critical_thinking">http://textual.net/link.to/amazon/critical_thinking</a>
><a href="http://textual.net/The_Doh_of_Homer">http://textual.net/The_Doh_of_Homer</a>
>
>
>
mickeyd
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Mr Michael Bibby" <s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:bgsil0$fif$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>
> >Do you hate casuists?
>
> i wasnt sure what you meant by 'cusuists' so i looked it up in the O.E.D.
which
> says "A theologian (or other person) who studies and resolves cases of
> conscience or doubtful questions regarding duty and conduct" but i know
there
> are other connotations associated with casuistry, but i am not entirely
familiar
> with their meanings. so, i am not sure what you are implying here.
>
going to.