Thank you very much Helmut.

Triadic Philosophy definitely begins with the individual observer. And with
whatever comes up that he or she decides to attend to or consider. For
example I went for a stroll just now and thought and what came up was
Peirce List. All I do when something comes up is run the terms of my ethics
(aka index) through my head and maybe say something as to how they seem to
apply. Tolerance, democracy, helpfulness, non-idolatry. Then I utter in a
mildly mantra-ish way to myself the linked terms truth-beauty and
beauty-truth. Finally I ask myself for an expression or action and clearly
this is placing truth and beauty at the top of my sense of the aesthetic
and therefore of active performance of life..

I mention this as a prelude to saying that there is no effort on my part
ever to correlate, synch or otherwise harmonize my work with that of
Peirce. There are vast areas of the 70,000 pages of Peirce extant that are
either unfamiliar or beyond my comprehension. In particular I have found
Peirce's categoroes and terminology to impose a burden which would not be
bearable if I felt it was the only way I could benefit from what I do grasp
of what he is saying.  My deficiencies in math and related fields are so
pronounced that I cannot read many of the posts that come to the Peirce and
related lists. So it should be obvious that what I am propounding is first
of all an original method of improving life by the use of memorial maxims
(CSP's term) and secondly, over time, an expanding effort to justify some
precepts that may or may not be Peirce-related - among them realism,
continuity or in my terms chronology and syntropy by which I mean the
possibility of trumping entropy..

Having said all that, I would add that a person more familiar with Pierce
than I would be in the best position to create any harmonies that may be
shown to exist.

Finally, I do have one point of synthesis with Peirce. My mother's family
and the Pers family arrived in Watertown, MA, at the same time, perhaps on
the same boat. There is merely supposition here, but I was struck in
learning several things about Peirce that resonated with my own life, not
the least in terms of oddly outsider resumes rising from lives of
considerable privilege.



*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*


On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:

> Dear Stephen, List,
> Gary Richmond wrote, that your triad differs from Peirces. when I first
> read about your assignment of the triad reality-ethics-esthetics to the
> categories, I had the impression that it is different from my
> understanding. But now I think, that assignment of elements of a triad to
> the categories depends on the observer position. Your triad is a good
> example, I think. I refer to the rating qualia, like "good" and "bad" in
> their categorial development:
>
> Observer in the position of sign recipient (this was the assignment I was
> thinking of first):
>
> -Esthetics: Rating qualia are "beautiful" and "ugly", pure qualities,
> iconical, category 1.
> -Reality: Rating qualia have developed towards "technically good" and
> "technically bad", that, what gives one a beautiful or ugly feeling,
> indexical, category 2.
> -Ethics: "moralically good" and "moralically bad", the reasons for
> technical good- and badness, symbolical, category 3.
>
> Observer in the position of sign sender (here the assignment is yours):
>
> -Reality: I am sending an ugly or beautiful representamen out into
> reality, dont know what will happen, possibility, category 1
> -Ethics: I am confronted with the technically good or bad consequences my
> action implies: actuality, category 2
> -Esthetics: Before I have sent out the representamen, I have moralically
> reasoned, whether it will appear beautiful or ugly, be technically good or
> bad,  by having regarded the past and the future: Continuity, reasoning,
> category 3.
>
> So, what I want to say is that your assignment is in accord with Peirce, I
> think, and that assignment of categories to triads seem to underly an
> inversion due to observer position change.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
>  *Gesendet:* Freitag, 13. Juni 2014 um 19:06 Uhr
> *Von:* "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
> *An:* "Peirce List" <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>, "Gary Fuhrman" <
> g...@gnusystems.ca>
> *Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
>  Dear Gary F. For some reason my reply to your post did not find its way
> to the list. Here it is again. My apologies.
>
>
> 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 11:58 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 .
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .




Reply via email to