No, I'm not saying that at all.
What I am saying is that many of us, either often or sometimes, are
'informationally frozen'. Our 'reasoning' functions within a 'bad
reasoning', i.e., within degenerate Thirdness, as evinced in the
types of 'reasoning' found in that derived within Tenacity, A Priori,
Authority. These types of 'reasoning' reject information.
My definition of 'relativism' refers to more than the
'cultural/social sets of beliefs' to which you refer. And indeed, in
that case, societal relativism does say that there are no universal
societal values - a point of view with which I disagree.
But I also use the term relativism to refer to individual beliefs,
which are ungrounded in objective reality and are instead, 'grounded'
in fiction, in degenerate Thirdness; in Tenacity, A Priori and
Authority. In that sense, relativism refers to beliefs which also
have no universal values - if we understand 'universal values' to
refer, not to a universal morality but to the hard facts of objective
reality.
Edwina
On Sat 30/09/17 6:28 PM , [email protected] sent:
Edwina, are you really saying that individual humans are so
“informationally closed” that they are incapable of reasoning? Or
that the ‘reasoning’ of an individual human cannot involve genuine
“Thirdness”? If so, your analysis based on “modal categories”
would appear to be very much at odds with Peirce's phenomenological
analysis as presented in these Lowell lectures, especially this first
one. Not to mention his dictum that all thinking is dialogic.
Concerning “relativism,” one common form of it argues that the
moral standards of one community cannot be judged as good or bad by
another community. “Relativism” then is not a matter of
individual vs. community; it's a matter of whether it's possible for
some ethical ideals to be really better than others. “Relativism”
says no, there are no universal ethical standards. Stephen Rose's
“triadic thinking” says yes, there are. Peirce's argument
concerning logic is that a reasoning process, whether carried out by
an individual or by a community, can be good or bad, and the validity
of the judgment depends (ideally at least) on the real nature of
reasoning itself, and not on the feelings or beliefs of any
individual or community. This would be analogous to an argument for
universal ethical standards (though it's not yet clear to me whether
Peirce would carry the analogy that far).
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 30-Sep-17 17:44
To: Edwina Taborsky ; Stephen C. Rose
Cc: Peirce List
; John F Sowa
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.4
The communal might be present but in degenerate form. Remember,
there are three modes of Thirdness - and three types of irrational
'Fixation of Belief'; i.e., deriving one's beliefs via Tenacity, A
Priori or Authority.
Edwina
On Sat 30/09/17 5:39 PM , "Stephen C. Rose" [email protected] [1]
sent:
Everything does move past the individual to social or community or
whatever name we give the living. Because triadic thinking inevitably
moves to expression and action there is no way the social element
cannot be present in some form.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose [2]
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <
[email protected] [3]> wrote:
John, list,
I acknowledge your point, but even that rock's reaction involves
Thirdness; i.e., the material composition of the rock that defines
how it will react to an external force.
I think my possibly irrelevant point was/is that Thirdness
necessarily involves the community - either past or present community
- but, something beyond the informational isolation of the individual.
I agree with your comment that relativism "seems to be a more
intellectual process (reasoning)
than an immediate feeling or reaction. " What I'm trying to include
is its closure to information.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[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 .
