Re: Deacon's Incompleteness and Peirce's Infinity

Re: Gary Fuhrman
At: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/7940

Gary,

It wouldn't do for me to make anything more than tangential remarks on Deacon's work,
as it doesn't appear I'll be able to get around to reading it anytime soon.  Most of
the words I've heard so far are reminiscent of some hoary old topics in my own studies --
"incompleteness" especially, in logic, math, physics, and the sciences generally, was
a constant theme throughout my undergraduate decade, and though I did not exhaust the
subject I fear I exhausted my fascination with it.  But I may need to emphasize that
I always use the words "object" and "objective" with 1 or 2 eyes to the pragmatic
senses that refer to "pragmata", and these senses remain ever open to the future.

As far as dispositions, final causes, intentions, teleology, and all that goes,
I think those questions are best handled by the ways and means that have become
available to us since the dawning of classical cybernetics, mathematical systems
theory, and systems engineering.

On the theme of "absence", all I have at present is this corollary ...

http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_:_Part_5#5.2.4._Either.2FOr_:_A_Sense_of_Absence

Regards,

Jon

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/