I find the complexification due to the plurals (universes) not clarifying but I understand why they may exist. To me if we admit everything conceivable from whatever universe into 1 and every possible index of utility, interpretation or itemization into 2 and every possible outcome of encounter that has some aesthetic heft, that might conceivably lead to truth and beauty, even if only possibility, as 3 I am a happy camper for two reasons -- one is what I think may be meant by Occam's Razor and the other is my sense that Peirce held the world of the ordinary in high esteem and would be happy if his relatively complex ideas could be stated in a generally understandable way.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, List: > > Perhaps Gary R.'s vectorial analysis of Peirce's Categories can be helpful > here. I have written an essay--based largely on some List discussions from > over a year ago--that will hopefully be published soon, which includes the > following paragraph. > > God as *Ens necessarium*, eternal pure mind, creative of thought (third > Universe), imagines an inexhaustible continuum of real possibilities and > their combinations (first Universe), and exercises perfect freedom in > choosing which of these to actualize (second Universe). This is the *hierarchy > of Being* in terms of Peirce's three Categories (3ns→1ns→2ns). The *sequence > of events* in each case consists of spontaneity followed by reaction and > then habit-taking (1ns→2ns→3ns). The *evolution of states* within our > existing universe (CP 1.409, EP 1.277; 1887-1888) is from complete chaos in > the infinite past, through this ongoing process at any assignable date, to > complete regularity in the infinite future (1ns→3ns→2ns). > > > It is accompanied by the following footnote. > > Nicholas Lee Guardiano, "The Categorial Logic of Peirce's Metaphysical > Cosmogony," *The Pluralist* 10.3 (2015):313-334, also discerned three > distinct but complementary interpretations of Peirce's cosmological > writings by adopting each individual Category's point of view when > analyzing them. As arranged in this paragraph of the essay, they align with > the perspectives that Guardiano associated with 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns, > respectively. Because of this "trichotomic logic" and other "unique > theoretical merits," he argued that "Peirce's theory amounts to a > reasonable abduction" (313). Gary Richmond, "Outline of trikonic: > Diagrammatic Trichotomic," in Frithjof Dau, Marie-Laure Mugnier, and Gerd > Stumme, ed., *Conceptual Structures: Common Semantics for Sharing > Knowledge *(Berlin: Springer, 2005):453-466, labeled the corresponding > vectors as "representation," "order," and "process," respectively (460). > > > Like evolution, inquiry as retroduction(1ns)→deduction(3ns)→induction(2ns) > follows > the vector of process; but because of our fallibility, the outcome is > always provisional to some degree, hence its cyclical nature within human > experience. Furthermore, as I believe Gary R. has argued elsewhere (I hope > he will correct me if I am misremembering), viable hypotheses (1ns) > generally come only from minds (3ns) well-prepared by experience (2ns) in > accordance with the vector of aspiration (2ns→3ns→1ns). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Gary... I do not see 3 as the end of the process any more than I see >> today as the end of time. If triadic thinking is truly different in sum >> from nominalistic and binary thinking it is because of 2 -- the index is >> the crucial modifying or standardizing or conditional element. The third >> may as you say not be the end. But it is most certainly not merely >> something that goes back into the index - 2. It represents an effort at >> continuity -- it is continuity. It is destined to be fallible of course. >> Nothing is final. It's hypothetical until tested. But the intention of all >> thought is to achieve something. To solve something. To create a habit or >> refine it or alter it. I cannot believe that in all of Peirce there is an >> explicit denial of the notion that some practical conclusion is the aim of >> thought. How else is triadic to be understood? Most certainly not as a >> circle. That is why eternal return is an alluring but ultimately wrong. Or >> at least premature like amor fati. >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:47 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Stephen, >>> >>> This brings out one difference between your triadic thinking and >>> Peirce’s. For him, Thirdness is not the end of the process but the means >>> (as he says in 3.10) or mediation between First and Second, sometimes >>> pictured as the beginning and end of a line (or linear process). That’s why >>> he sometimes even defines Thirdness as “that whose being consists in its >>> bringing about a secondness” (EP2:267). >>> >>> Gary f. >>> >>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* 2-Jan-18 08:12 >>> *To:* Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.10 >>> >>> I think there are myriad ways that things move from 1 to 2 to 3 -- each >>> thought process is one of trillions. Sometimes the primal 1 wrestles with >>> brutal 2 and the willed decision is a no -- all in seconds. Other times the >>> process might emerge as a 1 topic and be amplified by 2 an index and then >>> emerge as 3 a creative solution -- or at least as something to try. Triadic >>> thinking insists that between 1 and 3 there is an index 2 of some sort, >>> enabling a process of refinement, enlargement, or criticism. >>> >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
