Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List...
I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two
authors that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for
the understanding of the /triadic relation/.
Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce in a Seminar by
Farnçois Recanati in Paris, France, during the 50's...??? if somebody
knows a good reference, I would be glad to know more about...
Lacan was interested in the unconscious from a psychoanalytic point of
view, and he learned that besides his "the imaginary" (1ness) and "the
symbolic" (3ness, both derived from Ferdinand de Sussure's linguistic
sign) he had to add "the real" (2ness) that he defined as "the
impossible", « la grimace du réel »... or better (or in a more perverse
way): "what never ceases to not join the symbolic" (the translation from
the Spanish version is mine...) apparently, the French (original
version) is. « ce qui/ne cesse/de/ne pas/s'écrire »...
I think that it is a good conceptual approach to the Dynamic Object by
Peirce. For that and else... he was expelled from the IPA
(/International Psychoanalytic Association).../
Althusser (even if considered a Stalinist by a dear fellow of the
Peirce-L) wrote about the "Social Practice"... and (following Peirce) he
proposed: a /Theoretical Practice/ (1ness), an /Economical Practice/
(2ness) and a /Political Practice/ (3ness).
He did not give a synthetic or unique word to 'baptize' the /Theoretical
Practice/ which I consider 'possibilitant' (following Peirce of course),
but he stated that the /Political Practice /is always 'decisive' and
that the Economical Practice is 'determinant only in last instance' (I
say, because it is the 'real impossible'... and if you don't believe it,
follow what will happen with Argentina after the 10th of December...).
Pitifully, because of his statements, he was expelled form the PCF
(Parti Communiste Français)...
But Althusser also added a good explanation (for the Peircean definition
of sign): normally, one aspect of the sign will be 'dominant'.
Did Peirce say something like that? somewhere?
Taking account of what happened to those two scholars... perhaps the
'triadic relation' can be a very dangerous subject...!!!???
All the best
Claudio
Stephen C. Rose escribió el 30/11/2015 a las 03:26 p.m.:
Triadic Philosophy as I have evolved it over its lifetime tends to
agree in with what you have said Clark about the triad. With the
following exception which I take to be at least somewhat related to
Peirce and perhaps to agree with something I have seen in Edwina's
posts. The triadic progression is the progression of a sign which
originates in the spontanaity of firstness and proceeds through the
obstacles set up in secondness and arrives at the expressions and
actions made possible by the encounter of 1 and 2.
I understand that the premise of Triadic Philosophy, that Reality is
all, is hardly consistent with Peirce.
Bookshttp://buff.ly/15GfdqUArt:http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts:http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
*f**g*
*Real Rose* ---------------->*Rose* ----------->*Mental Rose*
(Firstness) (Secondness) (Thirdness)
[World of Structures] [Physical World]
[Mental World]
| ^
| |
|____________________________________|
*h*
Peirce’s ontology doesn’t quite follow that. Firstness is the
world of raw experience, ideas or possibility, secondness the
world of reactions, brute force & actuality and thirdness the
world of signs, connections and power (not necessarily mental
unless one is careful what one means by that). So depending upon
what one means by structure you’d have that in the third universe.
Again though one has to be careful with terminology and Peirce’s
shifts around a bit over time.
-----------------------------
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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected] <mailto:[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 .
<mailto:[email protected]>
-----------------------------
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 .
