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
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
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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.
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
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 4:40
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
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
On 9/30/2017 10:54 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Firstness and Secondness [Feeling and Reaction] exist within
the individual and, if the process of forming conclusions is
confined to these two modes - it is indeed a relativist opinion.
It is only within the action of Thirdness that the
I was referring to the modal categories as operative within the
'reasoning' process. Firstness and Secondness [Feeling and Reaction]
exist within the individual and, if the process of forming
conclusions is confined to these two modes - it is indeed a
relativist opinion.
It is only
Gary,
Is it truly possible to just by defining to make oneself into strictly
separate parts?
An interesting question.
Nevertheless, this discussion does not deserve continuation. All your
points have become quite clear. With the undertones.
Kirsti
Gary Richmond kirjoitti 25.9.2017 05:00:
List,
I'm puzzled by Edwina's remarks about "relativism" and Helmut's about
"machismo," as I don't see how those comments are related to Peirce's
description of "the typical phenomena of controlled action." His emphasis in
Lowell 1.3 was on the cycles of formulation, resolution, determination,
