Yes, from au but currently residing in hu (the .au is a giveaway I guess). I've had to look up RAKE on wikipedia to confirm that I have not seen it. I've never been a big fan of tv... not in au, usa and even less so in hu given the language!
Best, sj From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 21 June 2014 5:53 PM To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction I much appreciate your comment that in reference to the subject of this thread. What I gather is a good respect for the utility of threes without feeling the need to be rigid about it. Agree. And something cautionary about any conclusion made by anyone on the basis of an alleged philosophical method of any sort or stripe. Also agree. Which is why fallibility is among the terms that most appeals. You are from AU I either know or infer. I have just been watching RAKE the first two AU seasons. With general pleasure. Cheers, S @stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >" What then is thinking in threes?" Having formulated my own triadic scheme (desire, association, habituation) before I even heard of semiotics, I can tell you that, from my humble perspective, when I was contemplating the limitations of association and habituation on their own, the situation was analogous to a two-legged stool. Another element was required to establish a stable tripod, and that's when the relevance of desire began to crystallize in my mind. From there, things began to snowball, and stumbling across semiotics, I was able to factor all that into the established Peircean narrative with reference to pragmatism, the mind-body unity, etc. So I suppose you could expand that to a FOUR-category system where the fourth category is something like FORM (in the sense of appearance or shape). In this case, you need a physical FORM (body) in order to "define the things that matter." What about a fifth? Or can one of the categories be subdivided into sub-categories? For example... imitation (as a dimension of association)... or recursion (as a dimension of habituation). We could go on, but I think three, from our Euro-linguistic perspective, is about the most economical and provides the most stable tripodic form. That fourth category though, FORM, makes the quadruped (?) even more stable and precise than the tripod, because it crystallizes the principles of pragmatism and how a mind-body establishes the things that matter. Entities with hands and feet can see the world in ways that are very different to how entities with scales and fins can see it. But I digress. Three is the most economical, because these are perhaps the basic dimensions of thought, and the rest follows almost as an inevitability. >" Thinking in threes is what would have transformed our war on terror into a Sherlock Holmes investigation of the reasons for terrorism and apprehension of those responsible instead of killing vast multitudes of innocent bystanders." "Knowing how to be" is important... I would place "knowing how to be" at the centre of Peirce's triadic scheme. Once we do this, we can make further sense of the adventurism of GW Bush. He didn't pull is ideas out of thin air. He was close friends with Australian Prime Minister John Winston Howard. He obtained major insights into "knowing how to be" by keeping good company with JW Howard (books to read - 1) Silencing Dissent by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison and 2) The Partnership by Greg Sheridan). The Iraq invasion has John Howard's breath, if not his fingerprints, all over it. GW Bush learned something from JW Howard about how to be. Either way... knowing how to be... an essential aspect of the infinite... and the path to heaven or hell... or some lumbering, heaving miasma of stoopid in between. The universe is a big place... choose your stoopid carefully, who knows into what variant of heaven or hell your nonlocality will rebirth you. >"And three is the way to infinity" "Knowing how to be" is crucial to the concept of infinity. When you have the infinite to choose from, you need something to distil everything to bite-sized chunks. Hence the triadic scheme and mind-body pragmatism. And when world leaders have the infinite to choose from, they cannot help but be infected by the Being (Dasein) of those that they keep company with... and they go on to infect those (culture) that they rule over. From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 21 June 2014 2:56 PM To: Peirce List Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction 9. What then is thinking in threes? On one level it is a means of preventing conflict from coming to a head. If two objects are busily colliding, it helps to have a third option. It can even be suggested that our minds are triadic, they can spin out conclusions indefinitely. And three is the way to infinity which, by the way, Peirce regarded as real. Thinking in threes is what would have transformed our war on terror into a Sherlock Holmes investigation of the reasons for terrorism and apprehension of those responsible instead of killing vast multitudes of innocent bystanders. In essence, if you cannot resolve anything in a way that will not harm, keep at it until something comes. Tomorrow is always another day. For Peirce there was nothing so felicitous as achieving a bona fide habit. But getting there required try after try until something worked. Triadic Philosophy is a happy move beyond knee-jerk, seat-of-your-pants type thought. It rests on the best thinking that we have. 10. Triadic philosophy sees moral evolution as documentable. Progress results from the conscious spread of democracy, tolerance, helpfulness and non-idolatry. But the frosting on the cake is the placement of aesthetics as the third element in the conscious consideration of reality. @stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Sung, > On Jun 20, 2014, at 6:34 PM, "Sungchul Ji" <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > > Matt wrote: > > "Just like 'standing still' is a special case of (062014-1) > motion, matter is a special case of mind." > > > Do you mean by (062014-1) that "Matter is a necessary condition for mind" ? I didn't mean that. That the special case is a necessary condition for the usual case? Maybe it's true, but I'm not signing my name to that. > Would you agree that > > "Just as 'standing still' is assocaited with a zero (062014-2) > velcoity and motion with non-zero velocities, so matter > is associated with a zero capacity for thinking while > mind has non-zero capacity of thinking ?" I thought of this. I do agree. I used to be a relativist. Back then I would've agreed and further stated that thinking and not thinking are each special states relative to each other-each seeing itself as mind and the other as matter; or if keeping short of the absolutes*, each one thinking he has the superior capacity of mind. But now I tend to think that matter is dormant mind, not completely dead, and that capacity is not relative.** * The pre-quantum physicists must have thought that the special case of absolute zero velocity was nowhere to be found in the physical universe. But now there's a Planck-Wheeler time and space so I guess there's a minimum speed. But that's out of my scope. Is there a similar minimum capacity for thought? I don't think I'd even understand the answer. ** Relativism still nags me. I haven't yet jumped with both feet into 'extreme scholastic realism'. Matt > > It may be that Statement (062014-1) is akin to saying that a glass is half > full, whereas Statement (062014-2) is akin to saying that a glass is half > empty: Both statements are true. > > With all the best. > > Sung > __________________________________________________ > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > > > > >> You're unnecessarily complicating things. Just like 'standing still' is a >> special case of motion, matter is a special case of mind. >> >> Matt ----------------------------- 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 .
