Here's the sixth aphorism. We are almost to the point of articulating the root of Triadic Philosophy. As you might expect, it has to do with the number three. A triad is the sum of 1 and 2, a monad and a dyad. There is magic in this, almost enough to make it transparent that the triadic is the location where an infinite number or realities can nest. Buckminster Fuller might agree. Regardless, let me say now that the first two elements of the triad of Triadic Philosophy are Reality and Ethics. Charles Sanders Peirce had numerous triads in his philosophical quiver. Among them Icon, Index and Symbol. In Triadic Philosophy the Icon is Reality. And the Index is Ethics.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Matt Faunce <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ben. I have limited internet access these days so I didn't check > til just now. You're right, time is slower closer to a gravitational source > relative to time farther away. So much for that. > > Matt > > On Jun 15, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matt, as I amateurishly understand it, a gravitational field is an > accelerational field, so a distant observer outside of it and at rest with > respect to it will see the clocks there ticking more slowly (time dilation) > than the observer's own. On the other hand, if you were orbiting a planet > fast enough, the speed of your orbit might result (relativistically, not > mechanically) in your clock's ticking slower than the planet-based ones, in > the view of the aforementioned distant observer. Indeed, on return to > earth, your clock, placed side by side with an earthbound twin, would be > seen to be behind the time. > > - Best, Ben > > On 6/15/2014 1:05 PM, Matt Faunce wrote: > > Isn't the big bang now considered a slow birth? If so, since General > Relativity says clocks in a stronger gravitational field move faster than > clocks in weaker fields, and since everything was in such close proximity > right after the big bang and thus was in stronger gravity, and since we > should count the years back to the date of the big bang making sure to > adjust for the contraction of time, isn't it plausible that this places the > big event an infinite number of years ago? > > I doubt this is right since I've never heard it before. Nonetheless it > shows what shaky ground I'm on when I talk about the extremities of time. > > Matt > > On Jun 15, 2014, at 11:41 AM, "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
