Stephen, List:
On Jun 13, 2014, at 12:06 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:

> The first premise I start with is that we do think in threes,

First, I observe the fact that this phrase is expressed in English grammar, a 
form of communication rooted in expressing meaning as sounds.

As stated, it asserts that thinking is somehow or other related to counting and 

Could you parse this first premise, that is, tell us what you mean?

The assertion of "we do think" is a assertion with the plural term, we.

That is, is this intended to be a logical premise?
Are you asserting that everyone must think in "threes"? 

For example, if I choose, in my thought, to interweave five concepts, am I not 
thinking? or merely not thinking is threes?  If a logic term is defined in 
terms of these five concepts, does it have meaning within your concept of 
thinking in terms of three?

What is your meaning of "think" as a representation of what, such that the 
concept of three is generated?

Could you generate a personal belief such that includes the phrase "we do think 
in fives"?

If you can do this extension, what would the difference between the "threer" 
philosophy and the "fiver" philosophy?

Would the "fiver" philosophy be more intelligent in the sense that if a 
conundrum a-rose in the "threer" philosophy, it could be resolved in the 
"fiver" philosophy because of the larger choice of pathways (icons) to resolve 
the source of the tensions?

In my view, one of the deepest conundrums of philosophy is the ineffability to 
express my thoughts.

Have you considered the possibility the assertion of the "threer" philosophy 
refers to expressions in at least three different symbol systems?

In the pragmatic world of thought, it appears to me that at least five clear 
and distinctly different symbol systems are essential to a philosophy of 

The question emerges:
Is your first premise pragmatic?



PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to