ONT Re: Model Theory
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
JC = John Collier
JC: Good God, Jon, I was being generous, assuming that you didn't
read what you seem to so thoroughly fail to understand.
JA: Ah, then I thank for your alms and again for your sweet charities,
as you are indeed quite right in your appreciation that there is
a vow of poverty -- the "pragmatic maxim" by name -- that comes
with our order and its mission in this not too promising land,
a tenet that has recursively deprived us of so many "riches"
that others enjoy, up to a point, all of which we so easily
renounce in the exchange for a deeper dimension of meaning.
JC: Ah, then you are begging the question against what you reject.
Be honest about that, then, and perhaps rejoice in it.
JC: I am afraid, however, that I cannot agree that our differences fail
the pragmatic maxim, as I understand it. This is because I have tried
it your way, and I have tried it the other way, which I now prefer, and
the difference is in what expectations they produce for the development
of knowledge, the possibility for finding common ground among sentient
beings, and the perception of our fallibility, all of which I have
found to be better satisfied by the views I now hold, not in some
idealised possible future state. I have come to regard holding
out for the latter to be a counsel of despair that is, sadly
for its proponents, largely unnecessary. But, I have tried
to convey this theme before, too.
I do not know where you get this stuff. Not from me. Not from Peirce.
You are failing to recognize a regulative principle even as you trip
all over one. I am hardly going to defend a POV that I do not have.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤