Thanks Jerry. Here goes: "We" in my writing generally refers to "all people". Since I do not believe anyone should do anything that is not his or her choice, my statement that we do think in threes is an assumption not an instruction. My reasons for coming to this are frankly the fruit of my relatively recent encounter with Peirce. Although I would describe my thinking over time as pragmaticist, I never thought about how we think until I was exposed to the triadic thinking of Peirce. Quite simply it seemed utterly obvious that it made a difference if you think in twos or in threes. If you think in twos you see one side or another. Binary. If you think in threes you have always a third possibility and triangles can be iterated infinitely.
Now at what point did I also come to think that we do think in threes? I have been at this for only a short time, perhaps three years. I inferred that this is the case from a look at history. It is those who have found a third way that have made progress. That is certainly one element on the contention. You could call it as Niebuhr did our capacity for transcendence. As to logic - I believe that triadic thinking is conscious thinking and that everyone should think in threes, but that the number who consistently do is at present small and difficult to determine. I certainly do not think that everyone should be made to think thus. I do not think, incidentally, that logic is about what we must do. I think logic is about what makes the most sense. Triadic thinking is entirely an optional process and it involves, for me at least, thinking about more than three particular matters or terms. What makes the method triadic is that it encloses its stages in three related terms which I call the root triad - reality, ethics, aesthetics. To get through a conscious process using this triad, I would consider a sign and the word that expresses it and then an index of values of which there are four and then an action or expression which I relate to a linked term truth-beauty or beauty-truth. The whole process is a meditational or musement-like exercise grounded in the assumed efficacy of its elements to produce positive results. Finally, it seems to me that what I am trying to do is not to specify what constitutes the optimal means of resolving philosophical questions or indeed any other question that depends on an extended articulation of categories. My effort is the modest one of seeking to provide to the ordinary person a viaticum on a journey to truth and beauty, to borrow a phrase from Kenneth Burke. Is this pragmatic? I would not dare claim it since as I have indicated I am not seeking to abide by the pragmatic maxim's limitations. I am trying to arrive at a measureable means of proving out the power of memorial maxims to positively affect the course of history. *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 mathematics. > > 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 thought. > > The question emerges: > Is your first premise pragmatic? > > > Cheers > > jerry > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
