Triadic philosophy sees reality as all pervasive and all embracing. It can be no other. If all thinking is in signs and all that is can become a sign, can there be anything that is not a sign? Triadic philosophy sees the spectrum as the best means of evaluating (valuing) the elements of reality that we perceive and consider. A spectrum is the projection of a hierarchy that denotes values. The heights are reserved for terms we associate with good, with the positive, with life. The depths for terms that denote harm, evil, death. The spectrum is a utility within the mind that enables and facilitates discrimination. The terms which we value at the high end could be called ontological, meaning that they are universal. Why so? Because they enhance the being, the fulfillment, the realization of every person on earth. Now to be a realist and not a nominalist is to believe that these terms are not merely what we put up there on a spectrum of our own making, but that they represent realities that exist regardless of whether we perceive them or not. It is to such terms that I would attach the description ontological. And yes I would hazard the guess that they are indeed part of the being to which history aspires.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > Avoiding the expletive, I have been characterized as incoherent, a mess, > nonsense, unethical and a scoundrel. I have been writing on the Web from > the beginning, first as the moderator of a successful forum on Ecunet, then > on various blogs. When I wrote daily for UN agencies and for newspapers and > magazines, and as editor of the lead magazine CHOICES for UNDP, no one > applied these terms to me. Since I do not believe that characterization is > far removed from casting spells and since I feel no animosity toward you, I > will merely say that I have considerable faith that I am on to something, > not something that is Peircean, but something I have fairly suggested is > related to his thought. It is influenced by Peirce to borrow from Harold > Bloom. If Gary R agrees with you that I should not continue this, I am > happy not to. But I will defend my right to write as I do. And I will stand > by what I have written, reserving as always the right to revise it. Like > Peirce himself I have had a life of collision with persons who have taken > exception to me. I think well outside the box. To my knowledge few have > read what I have written beyond posts here. But I must conclude that I have > never been the recipient of an attack like this. > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Stephen, I can't make any sense out of this or pretty much anything you >> write. It all appears to me as incoherent bullshit. A few times today I >> tried to make sense out of this email, first taking the terms in their >> established senses, then I thought that maybe you're using different senses >> of the words so I tried substituting a few options for each word in >> question, but every combination came up with incoherent nonsense. I give >> up. I've been able to make sense out of many esoteric writings but not >> yours. So I reasonably conclude that your philosophy is a veritable mess. >> Yes, i can see scraps of sense, like your aversion to false >> dichotomies, but these scraps are mixed in with too much nonsense. >> I've wasted too much time trying to make sense of your writing so I'll >> be mostly skipping over your posts. >> It is unethical for you to forgo a sustained effort to study standard >> usages of terms and put the burden on other people to figure you out. >> Also, it is very unethical for you to pose, in your published writing, >> as if your nonsense is informed by Peirce's philosophy. You are lying to >> your readers and I think you're a scoundrel. >> >> Matt >> >> >> On Jun 19, 2014, at 1:17 PM, "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> The use of the term reality in philosophy to denote >> universals makes it logically impossible to state, >> as Triadic Philosophy emphatically does, that everything >> is real, that reality is everything known and unknown, >> and that Reality is a logical first in the triad Reality >> Ethics and Aesthetics. When I first encountered this >> problem, I quite easily grouped universals under the >> category of things that are ontological, that have >> universality, that participate in being itself. Related >> terms. beyond universal, would be reason, will, love etc. >> One reason for conceiving things thus may have been due to >> a misunderstanding of Peirce. It seemed clear to me that >> the vague beginnings of thought that Peirce called signs, >> the source of all thought I was given to understand, were >> "real". I had no trouble accepting that given my own >> presupposition. But it seemed to me that to distinguish >> such "reals" from everything else was creating a confusion >> that need not be. So I held and hold that reality is all. >> And that what is universal within reality is ontological. >> This relates in my view to ethics because it would seem to >> me that we wish being to be the locus of those things which >> values represent. But that gets beyond the subject of >> how the word real is used in philosophy. I am sure it is >> correct that real is used to denote universality. I just happen >> to think that that creates a confusion and a reduction of >> what reality in fact is. >> >> >> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Stephen, Our evolution can be understood as having a direction without >>> the belief that it will or can reach an end. We might be heading >>> asymptotically toward that end. >>> >>> It occurred to me that you might not be using the term *realism* in the >>> way Peirce did. He used the term as it's mostly used in philosophy, as a >>> philosophical position maintaining that universals are real as opposed to >>> merely nominal. >>> The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good article on the >>> realist vs nominalist debate, titled Universals. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> On Jun 18, 2014, at 6:17 AM, "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Where does the word realism come in? In Law of Mind Peirce describes his >>> synechistic philosophy as follows: "first a logical realism of the most >>> pronounced type; second, objective idealism; third, tychism, with its >>> consequent thoroughgoing evolutionism." While I have indeed seen >>> pragmaticism as linked to what I think and do, I have been scrupulous in >>> the obvious rejection of the notion that I am qualified to or have a desire >>> to, represent Peirce as a scholar might seek to do. Here is what I mean in >>> the text cited regarding us and reality. Precisely because I see us as >>> involved in an evolutionary process I assume that the reality of which we >>> in any conscious sense are a part is bound by a beginning and that it is >>> likely to be bound by an end. If anything I have said suggests that >>> reality can be separated from that process or that it does not contain it, >>> I reject it. Reality and us is a unity and to say it circumscribes us is to >>> say what within that unity we are an event, endowed with the capacity to >>> understand ourselves as part and parcel of all that is. Triadic Philosophy >>> is principally a method which should be obvious from the excerpts I am >>> posting here. It is a means of using memorial maxims to improve one's life. >>> There is plenty in Peirce to suggest the usefulness of such an effort and >>> plenty to discuss regarding the veracity of its underlying premises. But it >>> seems to me that the notion that us and reality are somehow separated >>> within triadic philosophy is simply not the case. >>> >>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Jerry asked, >>>> >>>> What is your understanding of your usage of the term "us" in your >>>> sentence? >>>> Could you find a better articulation of your intended meaning(s)? >>>> >>>> >>>> My usage was in response to what Stephen said, quoted here: >>>> "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." >>>> >>>> The part of my response Jerry asked me to better articulate: >>>> "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." >>>> And I defined 'we' as "those of us whose essence is our mind." >>>> In another post I wrote: >>>> "Regarding what I meant by 'essence of mind,' Peirce did say >>>> 'Matter is effete mind', but I think he could have also said the reverse, >>>> that 'Matter is nascent mind.' Maybe some minds are hardening into nothing >>>> but habit, i.e., matter, and some minds hardened into habits are >>>> transforming into what most people would recognize as minds." >>>> >>>> Now, why idealism? We have to choose between these three philosophies: >>>> idealism, where everything is mental; materialism, where everything is >>>> material; and pluralism, eg., dualism says part of the world is ideal and >>>> the other part is material. If you admit the importance of simplicity, in >>>> Ockham's Razor, then you should admit that is everything is continuous, >>>> since the alternative is only more complicated. That leaves the first two >>>> mentioned which are monistic. Since in anyone's thinking the material world >>>> is derived from their ideas, it seems simpler to choose idealism, and admit >>>> the mental as the primordial stuff of reality and the physical as a special >>>> case of the ideal. To infer that in our evolution, somewhere along the >>>> line, particles snapped together and produced ideas seems to gratuitously >>>> give the common notion of mind, e.g., that animals have a mind but >>>> non-animals don't, a privileged status analogous to the idea that the >>>> current human form couldn't have evolved from an extremely simple past so >>>> it must have snapped together from God's command; anything that preserves >>>> our nobility. >>>> >>>> I used "we" as in "those of us whose essence is our mind" in a way I >>>> understand Peirce. He was an idealist, as I am, which means we believe >>>> reality is mental. I used 'we' in the widest sense because there is no >>>> value in Stephen Rose's statement if the term is taken in a narrower sense. >>>> Here's why i think that: If he claimed pragmaticism was a bastion against >>>> solipsism he would've use the term 'I' or 'you' in the singular. If he >>>> meant some narrow use of 'we' like 'all Americans', or 'all humans over the >>>> age of two,' etc., it would be a worthless statement—everyone knows that >>>> reality kept going after great grandma and grampa's death. But if he meant >>>> it in the widest sense Mr. Rose's statement does have value but it directly >>>> contradicts Peirce's idealism, so he shouldn't identify the idea with >>>> pragmaticism. The widest sense of 'we' is everything, and to a synechistic >>>> idealist that means all minds, which encompasses reality. >>>> The idea that Reality is the container of everything but separate >>>> from everything is absurd: There is something in addition to everything? It >>>> also contradicts synechism in that it assumes a dualism, i.e., that there >>>> is a fundamental, unbridgeable, difference between the container and the >>>> contents. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < >>>> jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Matt: >>>> >>>> It is a question of the relation between your usage of the term "us" >>>> and how I understood your sentence. >>>> >>>> My comment was based on my understanding of the term "us" as a 1 st >>>> person pronoun. I have copied the entry for "us" from the Apple dictionary >>>> below. >>>> >>>> What is your understanding of your usage of the term "us" in your >>>> sentence? >>>> Could you find a better articulation of your intended meaning(s)? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> >>>> >>>> us |əs|pronoun [ first person plural ]1 used by a speaker to refer to >>>> himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or >>>> preposition: let us know| we asked him to come with us | both of us . >>>> Compare >>>> with we.• used after the verb “to be” and after “than” or “as”: it's >>>> us or them | they are richer than us.• informal to or for ourselves: we >>>> got us some good hunting.2 informal me: give us a kiss.PHRASESone of >>>> us a person recognized as an accepted member of a particular group, >>>> typically one that is exclusive in some way.us and them (or them and >>>> us )expressing a sense of division within a group of people: negotiations >>>> were hampered by an “us and them” attitude between management and unions >>>> .ORIGIN Old English ūs, accusative and dative of we, of Germanic origin; >>>> related to Dutch ons and German uns .usage: Is it correct to say they >>>> are richer than us , or is it better to say they are richer than we >>>> (are) ? See usage at personal pronoun and than. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: >>>> >>>> Please explain or cite the scientific facts that are opposed to the >>>> idea that minds always were and always will be. >>>> >>>> To answer what I think you meant: The big-bang and accelerating >>>> expansion of the universe do not refute the idea that minds always were or >>>> that minds won't adapt to the expansion. I can only imagine you would say >>>> what you said because you either have a definition of "mind" much narrower >>>> than Peirce's, or a weltanshauung very different from his so to interpret >>>> scientific facts as opposing the idea that minds always were and always >>>> will be. >>>> Regarding the weltanshauung, maybe you assumed science agrees with >>>> Cartesian dualism and disagrees with the idealist side of >>>> objective-idealism. >>>> Regarding what I meant by "essence of mind," Peirce did say "Matter >>>> is effete mind", but I think he could have also said the reverse, that >>>> 'Matter is nascent mind.' Maybe some minds are hardening into nothing but >>>> habit, i.e., matter, and some minds hardened into habits are transforming >>>> into what most people would recognize as minds. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:05 AM, Jerry LR Chandler < >>>> jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Matt: >>>> >>>> Scientific facts are in opposition to your conclusion. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> jerry >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Matt Faunce 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" <stever...@gmail.com> >>>> 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 <mattfau...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Stephen, please define "we" as you used the word below. >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:10 PM, "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> >>>>> 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 >>>>> 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 . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
