OK, an ethical index. Do we agree a proper Peirce triad is Icon Index Symbol? If so, do we agree that Peirce did not really flesh out his thoughts about ethics and aesthetics though he valued both highly? If so, do we agree that those who know such things will remind us that if Peirce attached an order to ethics and aesthetics he placed aesthetics before ethics? I think this is the case. Now I will say how I see it and explain. I see ethics as the second in a progression that goes from icon-reality through index-ethics through symbol-aesthetics (expression and or action). The pragmatic maxim rendered understandable and sensible! The explanation is everything I have written on Peirce since I found out anything about him. It includes seeing ethics as an index of values and seeing consideration of ethics as an inherent blunt truth aspect of considering what one will say and do. I think to place aesthetics as the third, in opposition to Peirce if that order was important to him, has to do with the central problem of aesthetics which is its captivity by the art world, made possible by the late Professor Danto and others. For me, aesthetcs is the whole thing, life here and now from its ugliest to the most beautiful. We are all artists. Now to top this off, ask yourself why Mao's cultural revolution was a miserable failure? I say it was because of its ethics. An ethics that does not see the binary as the problem, conflict and violence the outcome, is no ethic at all. The CR of Mao could only have succeeded as an explicitly nonviolent movement. So too our future as well. That is a little window on my placement of an ethical index in the central blunt truth position that "his glassy essence" may not have seen.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon A.: Thanks for your comments. > > Stephen: Ditto. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "an > ethical index" in this context? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> A sequential triadic means of actual practical life requires a step past >> Peirce although all the elements of this sequential means are implicit in >> his writings. I believe it is the need for an ethical index that must be >> argued, along with the obvious point that only conscious action that is >> considered can be said to count as a documentable indication of practical >> results. >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Jon, >>> >>> Thanks for the link. >>> >>> The duality or complementarity between Thought and Action (Dewey) >>> or Information and Control (as later generations came to cast it >>> within cybernetics, computer science, and the systems sciences) >>> has always been an integral feature of Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim. >>> Many of my early days on the Peirce List were exhausted in the >>> effort to communicate the implications of that integration. >>> But the pull toward Spectator Philosophies (James) is very >>> persistent and it will no doubt take the exertion of many >>> wills to overcome their one-sighted bias. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
