apokrisis

What's the point of repeating what you can't understand? The very thing of a purpose defines its own epistemic boundaries - the point at which differe...

Some excerpts.... So the Peirce initially thought Spinoza didn't get firstness, then later wanted to change his mind... So the true Aristotle got it, ...

You seem to view this arse about face for some reason. You appear to treat misery as an inescapable end rather than the escapable beginning. So misery...

If you want to be taken seriously, talk sense.

Thanks, but none of that really clarifies the issue. There looks a good article on exactly this topic - Firstness, Evolution and the Absolute in Peirc...

Yeah, so you will be with those who feel that nature frustrates you with its fundamental quantum indeterminism and general relativity. You want existe...

Your understanding seems not incorrect.

If it matters to you, then you have a reason to enquire. So where is the difficulty. Mind you, if you claim that everything actually does matter to yo...

If x is not not-x, then it just seems straightforward that it is claiming its identity apophatically. I don't get that there can be any difficulty. I ...

This of course is what I deny. There is only relativity, never the absolute. However, vagueness can't be absolute either. And generality can approach ...

So note Peirce argues here by implication for the pragmatic principle of indifference. If we are now talking cosmology, it is the Universe that is ind...

Again, as already said, semiosis goes further. It defines indiscernability as a pragmatic issue - the principle of indifference that underlines probab...

So then the actual only has character to the degree that reality has thought about it. That fits. What materialists call the actual is only that which...

I already covered this where you first made your objections about my mention of an unresolved "tension". If 3ns is the constrained totality, then 1ns ...

Another way to put it is that if generality and vagueness are real yet not actual, then the actual would be the not real. Or if the first two are the ...

What does Australia makes its living from? Coal and minerals. Who owns the media. Coal billionaires like Gina Rhineheart. Who owns the politicians? Th...

Or x = not not-x is true. That employs the context to derive the specificity via a dichotomy. Check out the Spencer-Brown's laws of form. Or Kaufmann'...

I don't think it is essential to arrive at one perfect word. Peirce called them one, two, and three precisely because the same basic triadic relation ...

Yeah, lets go for a proper 20th century cure like pharmaceuticals or ECT. Have a lobotomy while you're at it. That's the beauty of it. We can each do ...

It is peak cheap oil that is the economic issue. So the EROEI (energy return on energy invested). And cheap oil did peak. We are now in the era of sta...

Yeah. But anyone can wiki the set theoretic definition. Keep up.

Yep. The problem with Spinoza is that he was right about there having to be a "One", but wrong in conceiving of that basic materiality as a singular s...

Vagueness and generality are defined as not being constrained in two of the ways that actual particulars are constrained. So materiality can be vague ...

Hence positive psychology. Once you realise that it is all about contextual framing, then the obvious next step is to take charge of your own psychoso...

So 2ns is dyadic reaction. Actuality is being defined in terms of a difference that makes a difference. This is quite in contrast to a tautology where...

This would be what Peirce's secondness challenges. Uniqueness would still be defined relatively. Inidividuation or identity is a difference that makes...

Well I've already explained the reason why this is naturally logical. The whole arises from the parts it shapes. So of course the parts would have to ...

An exemplar is simply an ideal instance. The general particular. It is the essential example in having the least that is accidental about it, and so t...

So you didn't realise that tautologies exclude semantics so are no use when it comes to making actual sense?

They might say that they do, but the majority certainly don't act as they do. Given you are arguing that there is a general contract as well as these ...

I note you never got around to talking about the fate of the point but instead wandered off to talk about something else.

Yes. So this subcontracted notion has evolved because it works and we naturally seek to perpetuate it - even if it doesn't always make us happy. But e...

I'm guess that you were baffled by the OP's talk of both a general social contract and a variety of more particular sub-contracts. Don't bother answer...

So you agree with me. Cool.

And so you demonstrate how entrenched an intolerance for difference can be. You really think yours should be the only institution handing out the subc...

But if the institutions do shape the individual, then why wouldn't the individual - in at least a general way - not want that to continue? In wanting ...

Well my view is that the laws of thought are designed to make the world safe for predicate logic - reasoning about the concretely particular or actual...

Why not just do much less rebuking all round and focus on dealing with the substance of any post. What are you talking about. Generality is defined by...

Where is the dispute as such? I expected fishfry to tell me where I was wrong about category theory vs semiotics in his own words, not assign me furth...

Yes. And so does that now suitably define 2ns or actuality as that to which the principle of identity does not apply? (And can you find the quote wher...

Sigh. It was the failure to reply in kind. I made substantial points I believe. It is then tiresome to be told to go read what the paper says rather t...

Well the facts are I gave a lengthy explanation of how I see the connection between category theory and semiotics, then fishfry came back with no othe...

Yep. I cite that brilliant insight most days. And yet where does the principle of identity sit as actual individuation if vagueness and generality are...

What was I saying about instability? I don't claim special expertise in category theory. But I think I know enough to know from your description that ...

I just said why. If fishfry thinks I was wrong, then I am genuinely interested to know on what grounds. I hardly have a settled view here. And I don't...

Is it? Like when I say that category theory might recover the stablised image of the synthetic in the limit? It seems you don't understand either cate...

You've been reacting to the word "brute" and missing the reason I applied it. There is still this tension when trying to look back at talk of freedom,...

I don't really see that myself as category theory seeks a closed structure preserving relation whereas semiosis is open ended both in being grounded i...

Yes, I realise. But my point was that he actually talks about 1ns in misleadingly brute terms. For instance when he makes the analogy with being infus...

So you already dismiss the alternative that the social relations are the source of the personal individuation? The capable individual is what society ...