Jon and others... 
This overview of mine on your idea is merely a curiosity, yet it
is also a thorn for me, and my overview may be off base, but let
me thrash it out. 

There could be a difference to note in the giving or getting of
the categories in regard to determinacy and dependency. (This
topic was slightly dealt with in messages some months back.) The
gist of the topic was that any lower category is determinant of
its next higher category, and that any higher category is
dependent on its next lower category. For example, objects as a
second determine representamen as a first and interpretants as a
third depend on their objects and representamen. 

The hierarchy of the normative sciences to be consistent with
this take on the categories may therefore be more dependently
regressive than determinately progressive as a matter of fact, in
that ethics seems to be applied aesthetics and logics seems to be
applied ethics. 

Incidentally, the sketch outlining the normative sciences built
up in an architectonic way seems correct, but the higher logics
would likely have the majority of inner compartments with
aesthetics having only one whole compartment and ethics having
just two main compartments. This approach of course implies that
dependent higher categories are more say divided or detailed,
although nonetheless with greater simplicity, if that is not a
contradiction with the assumed complexity of determinant lower

-----Original Message-----
From: C S Peirce discussion list
[mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March, 2012 12:48 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos


I found the figure I used to draw to explain that "pragmatic
ordering of the normative sciences" --

Re: The Pragmatic Cosmos

|                                                 |
|                        o                        |
|                       / \                       |
|                      /   \                      |
|                     /     \                     |
|                    o-------o                    |
|                   /| Logic |\                   |
|                  / |       | \                  |
|                 /  |       |  \                 |
|                o---------------o                |
|               /|   | Ethic |   |\               |
|              / |   |       |   | \              |
|             /  |   |       |   |  \             |
|            o-----------------------o            |
|           /|   |   Aesthetic   |   |\           |
|          / |   |   |       |   |   | \          |
|         /  |   |   |       |   |   |  \         |
|        o---o---o---o-------o---o---o---o        |
|                                                 |
Figure 1.  The Pragmatic Cosmos

Here is the Figure that goes with this description of the
Pragmatic Cosmos, or the pragmatically ordered normative
sciences:  Aesthetics, Ethics, and Logic.  The arrangement is
best viewed as a planar projection of a solid geometric
configuration, as three cylinders on concentric circular bases,
all subtending an overarching cone.  This way of viewing the
situation brings into focus the two independent or orthogonal
order relations that exist among the normative sciences.  In
regard to their bases, logic is a special case of ethics and
aesthetics, and ethics is a special case of aesthetics,
understanding these concepts in their broadest senses.  In
respect of their altitudes, logic exercises a critical
perspective on ethics and aesthetics, and ethics exercises a
critical perspective on aesthetics.

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L 
listserv.  To remove yourself from this list, send a message to with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the 
message.  To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Reply via email to