Hm. I don't think I could, or want to, figure out which series you're thinking of. In fact, not being a scholar myself, I put little stock in *exact* quotations, responses, citations, etc. A better approach would be for you to *paraphrase* what you *think* my position is.
I've done that with you (and/or Peirce). I can do it again, if you'd like. And I subsequently, in conversation with Eric, showed why I think it's fundamentally flawed. And I then presented my current position that I believe can be reduced to something very Peircian that avoids the flaws I pointed out. But repeating it wouldn't be that productive, obviously. It would be more productive for you to step out of your skin and pretend to be me for just 1 post.
If your paraphrasing of my position is *good*, then I'll have no choice but to do another round of pretending to be you. And if I then can't find any flaws, you will have changed my mind.
On 07/12/2018 08:01 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I had a few moments away from the grandkids, etc., this evening and started to put your comments in a single file so that I could do my best to do them justice. But I cannot, for some reason, find the crucial sequence of posts in which you said something, I responded, you responded by saying I hadn’t read what you had written, I asked you to try me, and you reluctantly accommodated me. I have now scanned through every post in the “scientism” thread, and that exchange, which I vividly remember, simply isn’t there!
>
> Is it under a different thread? Is it too much trouble to resend? Ach! This is awful.
--
∄ uǝʃƃ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
Locked
