[FRIAM] IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream!

[uǝlƃ ☣]

This is useful:

https://www.tor.com/2011/06/29/the-pooping-duck-marvel-of-18th-century-robotics/

> But what really fascinates me about all this is Wood’s suggestion for WHY a man of Vaucanson’s genius was so enthralled by mechanical duck defecation. In addition to proving both popular and lucrative (it scored him a gig designing looms for the King of France), Vaucanson was a man of troubled bowels.

As for distinguishing between one ideal Peirce and another ideal Peirce, I have time, but regard that as a useless thing to do. Ideals are great time wasters. I'd rather choose 1 thing Peirce did and try to use it. I've long wanted to try to use existential graphs, for example.


On 4/20/20 2:09 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> So, Peirce had many ideas of Peirce and we could be in love with different ones.  
> 
> Do you have time to distinguish between your idea of Pierce  and My idea of Peirce as regards the digestion of metal ducks?  
> 
> I am realizing the problem might be with my understanding of the metal duck example.  I took at as a kind of cranky, idiosyncratic project, like my desire to take apart a 25 year old fm radio and get it working again.  You might have meant it in a much more profound sense, a sense in which you use your study of the digestion of metal ducks as a part of a systematic inquiry into the nature of life.  In that case, you are right, Peirce would definitely have approved and I have slandered you both. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ