[Arisbe] Re: Language is but one possible formal system

[Jon Awbrey]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Don Mikulecky wrote:
> 
> Jon,
> I take it we will have to disagree.
> Don

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Okay, but I would feel a little better if I knew what
we disagree about.  I am learning that people who are
laconic can be just as obscure as ones who are prolix.
There are disagreements that can be settled with just
a little bit of inquiry and then there are those that
can be resolved only with a whole lot of inquiry, and
that's assuming that anyone still cares enough to see
what the end of it will be.  Whether Peirce asserted
that his theory of signs was good for something more
broadly conceived that just words and more words is
a question that can be answered with only a little
bit of looking into the horse's mouth.  Whether he
was justified in the apparent belief that we may
assume rests behind such a claim is, of course,
a horse of a whole nother color.

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤