I agree, but before everybody can pursue beauty, truth, and enlightenment, everybody should be granted to have a life. Some days ago, a participant of the education outfit I work in has been expelled with her family from Germany to Montenegro. She neither has a german, nor a montenegronian passport, is stateless, though born in Germany (US-laws are better). The family now is living on donations alone. Maybe she can come back, but not her parents. She also is not a superhuman, otherwise she would not have been parcipitant of this handcraft-education outfit for not-too-smart juveniles, but have visited a normal school. This situation is ugly, not beautiful, Nietzsche would not support her, he preferred superhumans and their pursue of power over weak others. So, though I agree with all your other points, I do not see Nietzsche as a philosopher of beauty, but rather as an angry ugliness-supporter. But with all your other points I agree.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
25. November 2018 um 20:20 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
Von: "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
I am gratified at this understanding which indicates to me the relevance of the triadic approach. I am still a babe in the woods regarding this thinking though I know how it started. At this point if I had a large pedestal I would make room on it for Peirce, Berkeley, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche -- to acknowledge fundamental influences. As to a triad I would make it Consciousness > Information > Light (Icon. Index. Symbol) I see Light as the fusion of Beauty and Truth to which all human action and _expression_ should aim.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
I see. In your post you also spoke of information as the basic stuff of the universe. So perhaps "spirit (or mind) - matter - information" might be seen as a triad?To see matter-mind as a dyad brings a bout the hen-and-egg-problem, as realists see matter as primordinal, and mind as its epiphenomenon, and idealists see the two reversely. Both models work somehow, as none can be falsified, we just dont have documentation about which was first."information", from the word root, might mean: That what puts matter into forms, or that what imposes forms on matter. In thermodynamics it is negative entropy, it may increase in dissipative open systems, while in a bigger closed system (e.g. the universe) it decreases (entropy increases).Anyway, information is a bridge between mind and matter, or at least between "other-than-matter" and matter.Information is just a description of a phenomenon, like "self-organisation of matter" is, though she latter seems to suggest a "self" of matter. But I guess, a materialist would not say, that matter has a self.I guess that it scientifically cannot be said, where information comes from. In triadic philosophy, I think we may say, that spirit or mind is 1ns, matter is 2ns, and information 3ns. But what each of the three is, and why they work together as a triad, I think nobody knows, and nobody can know. Why not feel happy with not-knowing the impossible-to-know?Some people feel unwell about not knowing, and invent schemes that explain. They are afraid of living in the wonderland full of riddles I would prefer to live in. I, in contrast, fear the explainers.Triadic philosophy, I think, does not explain anything, but helps to cope with the riddles and wonders by uncovering some laws of their dynamics.Realism appears to me to the basis of dominant science -- deriving truth from material. Idealism rejects that. If opposition is conceded they form a binary that triadic thinking questions (perhaps as you do). But my conclusion would be to try to see what unifies them and what if anything would have to be discarded to make progress. I think Idealism cannot give up its sense of spiriit as the fundamental reality and realism cannot give up matter as being its field of reality. Triadic thinking operates but by ignoring the distinction but by seeking to reconcile the two in the sphere of ethics and aesthetics. I have no difficulty seeing both as aspects of reality and seeing reality as consciousness or the oneness that is the foundation of everything..----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:41 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:Stephen, list,I usually don´t feel that one ideationally should hop to and fro betweeen physics (Einstein, quantum theory) and philosophy (triadic thinking), firstly because they are different starting points, and secondly because Einstein was rather a wave-man, and was quite suspicious about quantum theory, at least this is my impression as a layman who has not understood the formulas.Also, I feel that the distinction between idealism and realism is not a clear one, due to the unclarity of the terms "idea", and "real":Is an idea something primordinal, like with Platon, or is it a proposal intended to solve some problem, that has come to one´s mind?Is real that what is (existence, being), or is it all that has any effect, so ideas too (in both kinds of definition)?I can only speak for myself, and for me I neglect the Platonian "idea", and would replace them with "potentiality" or "possibility".Reality for me is something other than being, as possibility or potentiality (what not yet exists) also works in the way that it does not deny things from happening or manifesting themselves. Of course everything that is works too, so reality is being plus potential being.In my view "not denying" or "possibility" has an effect, because I guess that everything that is not impossible will happen, and very likely has happened sometimes before, maybe without somebody remembering, and with no detectable effect in the present (causality chain having faded out, or results not backtraced).Conclusion: I can not see the difference between idealism and realism any more.Best, HelmutMy sense of things has changed as I have delved more deep;y into thinking related to Idealism and quantum matters. I think Peirce was a realist trapped in a realist's body as it were. I think there is enough cogency in idealism to require that it be honored as at least worthy of being unified with realism and subjected to criteria drawn from triadic thinking -- explicitly thought based on the acknowledgement of the fundamental place of consciousness. This seems to me consistent with Einsteins understanding of time and with the premises that underlie quantum thinking that suggest information as the basic stuff of the universe. I have no idea whether there is anything in Peirce that suggests he inclined in these directions, but I do feel that since its inception Triadic Philosophy whatever it is has been aimed in this way. Best, S----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
