7. If Triadic Philosophy has any claim to originality it might be in the third term in its root triad which is Aesthetics. What in heaven's name is aesthetics doing in what bids to be the upper limit of a universal philosophy that will create a sea change in our troubled earth? The simple answer is that it fell naturally into place. Charles Sanders Peirce eventually gave a place to aesthetics and ethics but suggested that aesthetics comes first. I beg to differ and much of what follows is an effort to explain. But for the moment we can rest in the knowledge that in Triadic Philosophy the root triad is Reality, Ethics, Aesthetics.
8. Why have a triad at all? The answer opens up what may be the biggest aha moment in Triadic Philosophy. The reason history has turned out so sadly is, in large part, because we failed to think in threes! We thought and we fought. We thought in twos. We thought either-or. We saw only two things when there were always three. *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see how anyone can avoid choosing, either consciously or > subconsciously, either monism or dualism. You can switch, but I don't see a > way out. > I'm not sure if there's a real philosophical difference between the > two monistic philosophies or if one is just a more convenient view from > which to explain and understand certain issues. > > If we've successfully boiled our philosophical disagreement down to a > difference in the values we hold then I consider this a successful > discussion. > > Matt > > > On Jun 20, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > wrote: > > List, Matt: > > Thank you for articulating your views. > > I was somewhat stunned by the notion that the First person pronoun, a > simple term of reference from grammar would lead to so many broad > philosophical generalizations. > > To me, your post illustrates a clear example of a relation between > Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness, within the mindset of philosophers. > Firstness is the personal pronoun "I", Secondness is the brute action of > personality/belief and Thirdness is the relation between the two. :-) > :-) :-) > > We disagree on some issues. > Most notably, the following > > We have to choose between these three philosophies: idealism, where > everything is mental; materialism, where everything is material; and > pluralism, > > I am not aware of any imperatives in choosing a philosophy. Perhaps you > could explain what/ where/ how/ and why such imperatives exist. > > If you admit the importance of simplicity, in Ockham's Razor, then you > should admit that is everything is continuous, > > > 1. The simple is for simpletons. I admit the critical importance of > perplexity in all of nature. > 2. The natural sciences of which I am a student of, electricity, > chemistry, biology and medicine, are all based on the concept of the > discrete identity of the individual parts of the whole. The identity of > every human being is discrete and unique. Space and time are continuous. > > Our differences are so profound that I will read your response and then > drop the tread. > > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:33 PM, Matt Faunce 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 > . > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
