Just to maintain good order I am reposting to this thread a reply to Gary R that addressed two oif his questions but did not mention that he was their author. I have not yet gotten the hang of ensuring all posts that belong together are in fact together. No harm done I hope. S
(Responding to Gary R) These are important questions: What's the triadic connection to the PM? I see the pragmatic maxim as a foundational insistence that all thought move toward some experimental process by which it can be validated. Thus in matters of religion, which can be described as supposition, the PM might place some weight on the experience Peirce describes in the NA. The implication being that the process of musement can lead to better expressions and behaviors. Triadic Philosophy holds this =point of view explicitly and argues that there is an inherent, positive result (reduction of possible harm) in conscious consideration of signs in terms of Reality Ethics and Aesthetics using the ethical index of democracy, helpfulness, tolerance and non-idolatry and the aesthetic prod to truth-beauty, beauty-truth to create a positive expression or result. To the NA? The Neglected Argument of Peirce is not something I read before developing Triadic Philosophy. Much of TP is an amalgamation of about 10 years spent wrestling with Neitzsche (including a trip to Sils-Maria), decades of involvement with a critique of Christianity focusing on creedal messianism and experience in the world of mental health and with the thinking behind Roberto Assagioli's Psythosynthesis. I saw Peirce as the generator of TP because his realistic premises seemed to me immensely relevant for now and the future. So I sit somewhat light to the text of NA and happily advance my own experience of using the elements of Triadic Philosophy to achieve results similar to those suggested by Peirce in NA and elsewhere. *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > S. Yes, your 2nd attempt at a reply to GF made it to the list. If there is > a response to your answers to the questions I asked, you might in response > to that note those two questions were mine; otherwise, don't worry about > it. I think you're doing fine! G > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> It's possible but I did not see that in my sent mail so I may have made >> some other error. I did write the reply! And now I assume I have managed to >> get it sent correctly. I am sorry about not referencing your questions and >> can correct that if you wish. Hope to get the proper hang of this! Cheers, S >> >> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Could you have responded to GF but not to "All"? >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I am confused at this point. >>>> >>>> I answered the following: >>>> >>>> Stephen, can you say a bit more about what "a reasonable root triad" >>>> for your philosophy would look like? I assume it's not >>>> Object-Sign-Interpretant, or Firstness-Secondness-Thirdness, otherwise >>>> you would have said so instead of asking the question. Does it have to be a >>>> triad of *values* (rather than a semiotic or phaneroscopic triad as in >>>> Peirce?) >>>> >>>> But I do not find it in the thread. >>>> >>>> I am going to copy it here and see of you saw it: >>>> >>>> The first premise I start with is that we do think in threes, at least >>>> when we are conscious and certainly when we will to do so. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The second premise is that if this is so the initial starting point >>>> would be the realm from which all signs emerge. To me this came up as >>>> Reality so that was and remains my notion of Firstness. (I am NOT trying >>>> to preempt Peirce, merely to acknowledge a linkage.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I conceived of Triadic Philosophy as a conscious process and of the >>>> triad as deriving from icon (reality) to index to symbol. Rather >>>> spontaneously, I chose Ethics as the second (index) and Aesthetics as the >>>> third. Actually I have for four decades relied on an ethical index derived >>>> from my work in music and with teaching kids to sing the gospel of Mark. >>>> When this is done, at least in my declension, the values that pop up are >>>> tolerance, helpfulness, democracy and non-idolatry. If that is not an >>>> index, what is? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then it followed (to me) that in terms of my elaboration of the >>>> pragmatic maxim the purpose of thought should be an action or expression, >>>> something that can be known and measured for impact. By making aesthetic my >>>> third in the triad, it opened up a world to me in which we move past an >>>> ineffective ethics and a terribly confined notion of aesthetics to >>>> something closer to reality. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I should mention that my laboratory is Twitter and that premises such >>>> as those discussed here are regularly honed to and submitted to a l;arge >>>> group of folk who may or may not respond, but whose reactions are of >>>> inestimable value in determining the effectiveness of communications. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I should note also that I have taken with great seriousness Peirce's >>>> suggestions regarding memorial maxims. What is a tweet if not at least a >>>> stab at such? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As to what this looks like, I do contend that Reality Ethics Aesthetics >>>> is a workable triad for the conscious method of doing triadic philosophy >>>> and that it corresponds (possibly even theoretically) to Peircean notions >>>> of firstness, secondness and thirdness, first second third and 1 2 3. I do >>>> have some questions about Peirce's brief description of universes of >>>> experience in NA. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Gary Richmond < >>>> gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> S. I'm still not sure you saw this post by Gary F. You responded to >>>>> *my* questions (btw, without noting that they* were* my questions), >>>>> but not to Gary F's. He will be an important interlocutor if you get him >>>>> interested in discussing TP--so, I'd encourage you to answer his post. >>>>> Best. G >>>>> >>>>> *Gary Richmond* >>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>>>> *Communication Studies* >>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> >>>>> Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM >>>>> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction >>>>> To: Peirce List <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Stephen, can you say a bit more about what "a reasonable root triad" >>>>> for your philosophy would look like? I assume it's not >>>>> Object-Sign-Interpretant, or Firstness-Secondness-Thirdness, otherwise you >>>>> would have said so instead of asking the question. Does it have to be a >>>>> triad of *values* (rather than a semiotic or phaneroscopic triad as >>>>> in Peirce?) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> gary f. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] >>>>> *Sent:* 13-Jun-14 9:57 AM >>>>> *To:* Peirce List >>>>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >>>>> 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 Store >>>>> http://buff.ly/1ioYQoA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/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 >>>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
