The idea that things begin and end with "us" could be described as a nominalist notion. I don't accept it. I do not know where or how things began or how they end. Reality is what we know and what we do not know. What we do not know, we have thoughts about that are suppositions.
Pragmaticism suggests to me an attempt by Peirce to claim a meaning for his philosophy that represents him and not other pragmatists. Have I hijacked that term. I've used it to describe Peirce mainly. And since you have not read all I have written on the subject I would plead at least for a scintilla of slack. Cheers, S *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Matt Faunce <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, It appeared to me that you had hijacked the term "pragmaticism", > and I still think you might have. Peirce was an idealist, and the idea that > 'we are reality,' if "we" means those of us whose essence is our mind, is a > cornerstone of pragmaticism. In this sense there never was a reality before > we came into being and there would be no reality after us. > The Buddhist logicians Dignaga and Dharmakirti, who were objective > idealists, concluded that there could never have been a before "us" and > there will never be an after us. I came to see things their way. (Although > I was warned that my source, the translations and explanations by Th. > Stcherbatsky, circa 1932, are too "post-Kantian".) I'm not sure what Peirce > thought of the time before us but I suspect he agreed with the Buddhist > logicians. > > Matt > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 10:51 PM, "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > "All people" is my definition of "we" in the following statement: "We > are inevitably social. We are capable of achieving a sense of universality. > This universal sense distinguishes Triadic Philosophy." Triadic philosophy > regards most accepted divisions among human beings as secondary to a > fundamental unity which transcends them all. > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Matt Faunce <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Stephen, please define "we" as you used the word below. >> >> Matt >> >> On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:10 PM, "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
