Helmut, Stephen, list, Helmut wrote *that assignment of elements of a triad to the categories depends on the observer position.* and *that assignment of categories to triads seem to underly an inversion due to observer position change.*
I would, rather, suggest that the putative "inversion" is the result not of "observer position change" but of not considering vectorial movement through the categories (which I'll briefly comment on below). First, in the matter of the categorial placement of reality, assigning it to firstness (1ns) as Stephen does, seems to me just wrong, at least from the Peircean perspective. Peirce holds that there are real possibles (bold enough thought that it was when he first introduced it), but actuality (2ns) is clearly also real enough that some, nominalists, have stopped there. Finally, Peirce argues repeated and persuasively that there are real generals. So, using the trikonic form some here are familiar with, Peirce's position is: Reality: real possibles (1ns) |> real generals (3ns) real actuals (2ns) In classifying the normative sciences and, the "third grand division of philosophy," viz., metaphysics, he writes: CP 5.121 . . . Normative Science, which investigates the universal and necessary laws of the relation of Phenomena to Ends, that is, perhaps, to Truth, Right, and Beauty [categorially 3ns, 2ns, 1ns GR]. The third grand division is Metaphysics . . endeavors to comprehend the Reality of Phenomena. Now Reality is an affair of Thirdness as Thirdness, that is, in its mediation between Secondness and Firstness. Most, if not all of you, are, I doubt not, Nominalists; . . . To be a nominalist consists in the undeveloped state in one's mind of the apprehension of Thirdness as Thirdness. The remedy for it consists in allowing ideas of human life to play a greater part in one's philosophy.* Metaphysics is the science of Reality. Reality consists in regularity. Real regularity is active law. Active law is efficient reasonableness, or in other words is truly reasonable reasonableness. Reasonable reasonableness is Thirdness as Thirdness. *(emphasis added) Now, again, to say that metaphysics in "endeavor[ing] to comprehend the Reality of Phenomena" does not and cannot imply that there are not real possibilities and that actualities aren't real, which would be absurd. But, as Peirce writes, in mediating between the 1ns of possibility and the 2ns of actuality, it "allow[s] ideas of human life to play a greater part in one's philosophy," it provides the regularity, the active law, the efficient reasonableness, the intelligence of reality. But, unlike Hegel's position, 3ns does not Aufheben (i.e., invalidate, annul, cancel out) the other two categories, but rather joins them in a genunine tricategorial relation. So, again, reality cannot be identified with 3ns (i.e., 3ns "by itself does not constitute reality") any more than it can be identified with 1ns or, as the nominalistic and materialistic reductionists attempt to do, with 2ns. So, while law, lawfulness, reasonableness, generality, etc. are expressions of 3ns, reality is a matter of all three categories in genuine relation. And, further, pragmatism involves "the recognition that continuity is an indispensable element of reality, and that continuity is simply what generality becomes in the logic of relatives." CP 5.436 . . . [I]f one cares at all to know what the pragmaticist theory consists in, one must understand that there is no other part of it to which the pragmaticist attaches quite as much importance as he does to the recognition in his doctrine of the utter inadequacy of action or volition or even of resolve or actual purpose, as materials out of which to construct a conditional purpose or the concept of conditional purpose. [Rather, pragmatism involves] the recognition that continuity is an indispensable element of reality, and that continuity is simply what generality becomes in the logic of relatives, and thus, like generality, and more than generality, is an affair of thought, and is the essence of thought. . . t*he third category *-- the category of thought, representation, triadic relation, mediation, genuine thirdness, thirdness as such -- *is an essential ingredient of reality, yet does not by itself constitute reality, since this category (which in that cosmology appears as ]the element of habit) can have no concrete being without action, as a separate object on which to work its government, just as action cannot exist without the immediate being of feeling on which to act *(note: one can see an involutional path originating at thought, 3ns, involving action, 2ns, which, in turn, involves feeling, 1ns GR]. Turning now to the Neglected Argument, speaking of the third Universe of Experience, Peirce famously writes: CP 6.455 . . .. The third Universe comprises everything whose being consists in active power to establish connections between different objects, especially between objects in different Universes. Such is everything which is essentially a Sign -- not the mere body of the Sign, which is not essentially such, but, so to speak, the Sign's Soul, which has its Being in its power of serving as intermediary between its Object and a Mind." And, I've been arguing, not only does 3ns mediate between the other 2 categories, but as the most general mode of reality, as noted just above, *involves* (vector of involution) the others (actuality, action, and possibility, feeling), this much in the way in which lawfulness (habit, 3ns) involves force (law in action 2ns). In such cases it is not, as I see it, a matter that, as Helmut phrases it, that "the categories depend on the observer position. . . and that assignment of categories to triads seems to underlie an inversion due to observer position change," but that there are exactly six paths (vectors) through a genuine tricategorial relation, and that in matters of *categorial involution* (such as the one just considered) one commences at 3ns, first, which involves 2ns (and 1ns), next, and 2ns in turn involves 1ns, finally. [Thus, "first" in categorial vector analysis is not necessarily category 1ns (commencing at 1ns is the case for only 2 of the six paths), but may commence at 3ns or 2ns.] Better comprehension of vectorial "movement through the categories" will, I believe, help clarify a number of issues related to the categories which are obscured or confused. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* 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 .
