Has anybody mentioned that there are lot of unmarried men that you usually wouldn't call bachelors? There are widowers, priests, and nineteen year-olds, for example. I learned the word because my father's brother was a thirty-five year old Major in the Air Force with no wife. He eventually got married and had children. Late bloomer?
Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 22, 2017 11:34 PM, "gepr ⛧" <[email protected]> wrote: > But the difference isn't merely rhetorical. If we take the setup > seriously, that the unmarried patient really doesn't know the other names > by which his condition is known, then there are all sorts of different side > effects that might obtain. E.g. if the doctor tells him he's a bachelor, he > might google that and discover bachelor parties. But if the doctor tells > him he is "single", he might discover single's night at the local pub. > > My point was not only the evocation of various ideas, but also the side > effects of various (computational) paths. > > > On June 22, 2017 7:00:55 PM PDT, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles@gmail. > com> wrote: > >Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in > >it, > >even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns > >that > >because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of > >thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use." > > > >This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to me quite a > >bit > >about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a collection > >of > >conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term "practical" > >was > >unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good example of > >why > >Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary. > > > >Perice would point out that the practical consequences of being > >"unmarried" > >are identical to the practical consequences of being "a bachelor." > >Thus, > >though the spellings be different, there is only one idea at play there > >(in > >Peirce-land... if we are thinking clearly). This is the tautology that > >Nick > >is pointing at, and he isn't wrong. > > > >And yet, Glen is still clearly correct that using one term or the other > >may > >more readily invoke certain ideas in a listener. Those aren't practical > >differences in Peirce's sense- they are not differences in practice > >that > >would achieve if one tested the unique implications of one label or the > >other (as there are no contrasting unique implications). The value of > >having the multiple terms is rhetorical, not logical. > > > >What to do with such differences.............. > > -- > ⛧glen⛧ > > ============================================================ > 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.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ 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.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
