0331 My sudden turn to semiotics does not occur in Tabaczek’s text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such is the examiner’s prerogative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At this point, I stand at the threshold of section 1.3.4, almost precisely in the middle of the book.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
My commentary on this book is significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shall I review?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I represent the Positivist’s judgment as a content-level category-based form and discuss how it might be situated (points 0155 to 0184).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I suggest how reductionists can game emergent phenomena. Plus, I follow Tabaczek back to the four causes (points 0185 to 0239).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I present a specific example of an emergent phenomenon, building on the prior example of a hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell. Then, I return to Deacon’s general formula for emergence (points 240 to 0276).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finally, I examine Tabaczek’s “philosophical history of panentheism” up to the section on Hegel (points 0277 to 0330).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
0332 These are notable achievements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But, my commentary is not more significant than Tabaczek’s text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At this point, it is if I look through Tabaczek’s text and see something moving, something that catches my eye. It is not for me to say whether it is an illusion or a registration. It is enough for me to articulate what I see<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0333 At this point, I draw the veil on Razie Mah’s blog for April and May of 2024 and enter the enclosure of Comments on Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2024)<\/em>, available at smashwords and other e-book venues. Comments <\/em>will cover the rest of Part Two of Divine Action and Emergence<\/em>. June 2024 will look at the start of Tabaczek’s next book, Theistic Evolution<\/em> and Comments<\/em> will complete the examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My thanks to Mariusz Tabaczek for his intellectual quest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 0334 But, that is not to say that I abandon Tabaczek’s text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No, my slide into sign-relations<\/em> is part of the examiner’s response<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This occurs in Comments<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is good reason to wonder whether the response is proportionate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I let the reader decide.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 0331 My sudden turn to semiotics does not occur in Tabaczek’s text. Such is the examiner’s prerogative. At this point, I stand at the threshold of section 1.3.4, almost precisely in the middle of the book. My commentary on this book is significant. Shall I review? I represent the Positivist’s judgment as a content-level category-based […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[417,18,175,429,254],"tags":[59,62,39,230,449,448,450,447,304,34,124,214,44,35,126],"class_list":["post-7694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-review","category-interscope-intersection","category-peirce-and-aquinas","category-positivists-judgment","category-triadic-structure-of-judgment","tag-aquinas","tag-aristotle","tag-category-based-nested-form","tag-causality","tag-deely","tag-dennett","tag-divine-action","tag-emergence","tag-metaphysics","tag-peirce","tag-philosophy","tag-positivist-intellect","tag-science","tag-semiotics","tag-theology"],"yoast_head":"\n