Re: BHA: the litmus test

["Erik Weissengruber" <epweissengruber@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I think RB means them as universals, since the

>real/actual distinction would exist whether or not there were people, and

>that *any* creature which can sustain intentionality would be doing so in an

>empirical or semiosic domain. (The stratafication of nature that Hans

>discusses is, I think, more properly ontic than ontological, in RB's terms.)

Tobin, can you refresh my memory: what is the destinction between ontic and ontological.  Is it identical with the Hidegerrian use of the term ontic?

 

 

 

 

>

>I think Hans misconstrues pragmaticism, if by that he's thinking of Peirce;

>if he's thinking of William James's pragmatism, that's something else, and I

>won't dispute with him there. But probably this leads us too far afield,

>and anyway I have to pack.

>

>Cheers, T.

>

>---

>Tobin Nellhaus

>nellhaus@xxxxxxxx

>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce

>

>

>

>

> --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

---

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---