PARTIAL & PROVIONAL ANSWERS SR: Can I assume that everyone agrees? Doubtful. -x- GCM: Everyone agrees that we can carry on a dialogue (except for those who do not respond) which at least sets up a dialectical schema. -x- SR: Certainly the contention that there are universal values is not settled. -x- GCM: Some universal values are absolute just as we EACH want to live, we want to do what we desire to do and do not want to do what we do NOT desire, we enjoy communicating if we learn something new that is definite and therefore potentially useful, and we pursue all this for the purpose of defining each one’s life. -x- SR: Likewise is there is such a thing as conscious (intentional) thought? -x- GCM: Yes. Intention is the reason for thinking at all. But it is based on a search for something formulated & targeted as “unknown” (not, as Peirce’s says, the “uncognizable” per se) and derives from a source that is unconscious though that “unknown” as such is projected into the formulation of intent and grammar. We think “from” and “in” PARTIALS but “partials” of what? The only “what” recognized so far is one’s mortal life leading to Aristotle’s universal “generation and corruption”, ergo another incomplete partial. -x- SR: And is there an inherent value in thinking threes? -X- Gcm: Yes, but that is the only way to think at all and therefore a “tool”, not a “value” as if we had a choice. -x- SR: What is a reasonable root triad? -X- GCM: The thrust and necessity to live, the end (goal/destination) of life, and the schema for one’s whole life (“Count no man happy until he is dead” conundrum, from Aristotle/Solon. But that is just a wild guess. -x- SR: Lots of questions including the direction implied in the remarks on pragmaticism. As indicated Triadic Philosophy is hardly developed theoretically, though I am working on it. I have tended to validate its premises on the basis of experience somewhat in the matter I infer from reading the NA many times.
On Friday, June 13, 2014 8:56 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: Can I assume that everyone agrees? Doubtful. Certainly the contention that there are universal values is noit settled. Likewise is there is a such a thing as conscious (intentional) thought? And is there an inherent value in thinking threes? What is a reasonable root triad for such? Lots of questions including the direction implied in the remarks on pragmaticism. As indicated Triadic Philosophy is hardly developed theoretically, though I am working on it. I have tended to validate its premises on the basis of experience somewhat in the matter I infer from reading the NA many times. @stephencrose On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks to Gary R for noting Triadic Philosophy. Insofar as it is a theory it is nascent. As a method of conscious thinking in line with Peirce's NA it is more developed. I have written some short books on the subject and all are available on Kindle. For this thread I will simply post excerpts with a reference to the book from which they are drawn. > > >From Triadic Philosophy - 100 Aphorisms Introduction >Triadic Philosophy is based on what is already within every person on the >planet. Conscience. A sense of right and wrong. And knowledge of values that >stand above all others. >Triadic Philosophy uses aphorisms and maxims to generate conduct. >Triadic Philosophy relies on its own adaptation of the pragmatic maxim >developed by Charles Sanders Peirce in the 19th century. The pragmatic maxim >stated: "Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical >bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our >conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object." >Triadic Philosophy is not concerned with narrowing our conception and limiting >it to the result. It is concerned with arriving at specific acts and >expressions which are intrinsically ameliorative, that make life better, less >harmful, more true, more beautiful. >Triadic Philosophy honors Peirce by claiming that it is a tiny offshoot of >what he came to mean by the term pragmaticism. This term was his evolution of >pragmatism. Pragmaticism is a bastion against the dominant notion that we are >all reality is. We are not all of reality. Our individual perceptions are not >all reality. Before we are, reality is. After we are, reality remains. >Pragmaticism opens the door to a metaphysics based precisely on the premise >that by our fruits we shall be known. It is a now metaphysics. It proves out. >It is not supposition. >We are inevitably social. We are capable of achieving a sense of universality. >This universal sense distinguishes Triadic Philosophy. >Triadic Philosophy seeks a world based on universal acceptance of universal >values. The battle to overcome harm, bullying and war is dependent on a move >to nonviolent understandings. This is the signature achievement underlying >Triadic Philosophy. > >From the Introduction to Triadic Philosophy 100 Aphorisms Kindle >Storehttp://buff.ly/1ioYQoA. > > >@stephencrose ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
