I am waiting for the day when values replaces ethics as a base term for discussing morality and, if a hierarchy is pertinent, when ontological values would be right up there wherever thought (musement) begins. I think we have confused virtues and characteristics with values from the gitgo. (See the Bard on honor.) And we have made ethics synonymous with morality and managed to devalue the entire exercise. My cottoning to Peirce relates somewhat to the probability that he might agree which is why I second the sense that Peirce failed in this respect during his lifetime, while leaving a foundation for us to adapt and build on. Best, S
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Frances Kelly <frances.ke...@sympatico.ca>wrote: > 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 > categories. > > > -----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 > To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU > Subject: [peirce-l] The Pragmatic Cosmos > > Peircers, > > I found the figure I used to draw to explain that "pragmatic > ordering of the normative sciences" -- > > Re: The Pragmatic Cosmos > At: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-October/000879.html > > o-------------------------------------------------o > | | > | o | > | / \ | > | / \ | > | / \ | > | o-------o | > | /| Logic |\ | > | / | | \ | > | / | | \ | > | o---------------o | > | /| | Ethic | |\ | > | / | | | | \ | > | / | | | | \ | > | o-----------------------o | > | /| | Aesthetic | |\ | > | / | | | | | | \ | > | / | | | | | | \ | > | o---o---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 > lists...@listserv.iupui.edu 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu 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
