Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
Supplement: Dear Gary, now I see your point: What i had called categorial inversions, are the permutations by the different vectors. So, in my example my way of assignment was the order vector, and Stephens was the reflection vector. When i first had joined the biosemiotics list, there was a long discussion, whether the star model or the triangle model would be better. Later Edwina had convinced me of the star model. But the triangle model shows the vectors. Now I wonder, how the contradictions between these two models might be solved. Best, Helmut Dear Gary, List, I also have to have a closer look at the Trikonic vector theory. Now (sorry) I exceed my observer-relativeness in an even more annoying way: Putting myself in a position of observing from the world of signs (events, happenings, being a semiotist), the categories are nominalia (though they 3 of them together are a universal, an irreducible three-pack, but which is which, changes observer relatively). From an ontologist point of view (world of entities, systems theory), the categories are universalia: Cat. 1 is what is happening, cat. 2 is what is there, and cat.3 is the combining structure. Best, Helmut Gesendet:Samstag, 14. Juni 2014 um 00:06 Uhr Von:Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com An:Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com Cc:Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de, Peirce-L peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Betreff:Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction Gary M., list, I agree that Aufheben can also mean sublimation, but this does not seem to be the word to describe what Peirce thinks Hegel is doing. I have several Peircean sources for this opinion, but as Im about to head off to dinner and the theater, so citing them will have to wait. Gary M. wrote:You did an excellent delineation of reality is continuity Thanks, but I dont think Id exactly say that reality is continuity, but, as I wrote today, pragmatism involves the recognition that continuity is an indispensable element of reality CSP (emphasis added). Im glad the idea of vectors has given you much to think about. I think about them a lot, and wonder why they havent been taken up much in the Peircean secondary literature. Best, Gary R. PS I still imagine that its a pretty good idea to identify ourselves as Gary R, M, or F, although, admittedly, I dont always do that myself. Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com wrote: Aufheben can also mean sublimation. -x- You did an excellent delineation of reality is continuity and have given me much to think about regarding the vectors. On Friday, June 13, 2014 4:12 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: Helmut, Stephen, list, Helmut wrotethat assignment of elements of a triad to the categories depends on the observer position. andthat assignment of categories to triads seem to underly an inversion due to observer position change. I would, rather, suggest that the putative inversion is the result not of observer position change but of not considering vectorial movement through the categories (which Ill briefly comment on below). First, in the matter of the categorial placement of reality, assigning it to firstness (1ns) as Stephen does, seems to me just wrong, at least from the Peircean perspective. Peirce holds that there are real possibles (bold enough thought that it was when he first introduced it), but actuality (2ns) is clearly also real enough that some, nominalists, have stopped there. Finally, Peirce argues repeated and persuasively that there are real generals. So, using the trikonic form some here are familiar with, Peirces position is: Reality: real possibles (1ns) real generals (3ns) real actuals (2ns) In classifying the normative sciences and, the third grand division of philosophy, viz., metaphysics, he writes: CP 5.121 . . . Normative Science, which investigates the universal and necessary laws of the relation of Phenomena to Ends, that is, perhaps, to Truth, Right, and Beauty [categorially 3ns, 2ns, 1ns GR]. The third grand division is Metaphysics . . endeavors to comprehend the Reality of Phenomena. Now Reality is an affair of Thirdness as Thirdness, that is, in its mediation between Secondness and Firstness. Most, if not all of you, are, I doubt not, Nominalists; . . . To be a nominalist consists in the undeveloped state in ones mind of the apprehension of Thirdness as Thirdness. The remedy for it consists in allowing ideas of human life to play a greater part in ones philosophy. Metaphysics is the science of Reality. Reality consists in regularity. Real regularity is active law. Active law is efficient reasonableness, or in other words is truly reasonable reasonableness. Reasonable reasonableness is Thirdness as Thirdness. (emphasis added) Now, again, to say
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
Thanks Jerry. Here goes: We in my writing generally refers to all people. Since I do not believe anyone should do anything that is not his or her choice, my statement that we do think in threes is an assumption not an instruction. My reasons for coming to this are frankly the fruit of my relatively recent encounter with Peirce. Although I would describe my thinking over time as pragmaticist, I never thought about how we think until I was exposed to the triadic thinking of Peirce. Quite simply it seemed utterly obvious that it made a difference if you think in twos or in threes. If you think in twos you see one side or another. Binary. If you think in threes you have always a third possibility and triangles can be iterated infinitely. Now at what point did I also come to think that we do think in threes? I have been at this for only a short time, perhaps three years. I inferred that this is the case from a look at history. It is those who have found a third way that have made progress. That is certainly one element on the contention. You could call it as Niebuhr did our capacity for transcendence. As to logic - I believe that triadic thinking is conscious thinking and that everyone should think in threes, but that the number who consistently do is at present small and difficult to determine. I certainly do not think that everyone should be made to think thus. I do not think, incidentally, that logic is about what we must do. I think logic is about what makes the most sense. Triadic thinking is entirely an optional process and it involves, for me at least, thinking about more than three particular matters or terms. What makes the method triadic is that it encloses its stages in three related terms which I call the root triad - reality, ethics, aesthetics. To get through a conscious process using this triad, I would consider a sign and the word that expresses it and then an index of values of which there are four and then an action or expression which I relate to a linked term truth-beauty or beauty-truth. The whole process is a meditational or musement-like exercise grounded in the assumed efficacy of its elements to produce positive results. Finally, it seems to me that what I am trying to do is not to specify what constitutes the optimal means of resolving philosophical questions or indeed any other question that depends on an extended articulation of categories. My effort is the modest one of seeking to provide to the ordinary person a viaticum on a journey to truth and beauty, to borrow a phrase from Kenneth Burke. Is this pragmatic? I would not dare claim it since as I have indicated I am not seeking to abide by the pragmatic maxim's limitations. I am trying to arrive at a measureable means of proving out the power of memorial maxims to positively affect the course of history. *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose* On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote: Stephen, List: On Jun 13, 2014, at 12:06 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: The first premise I start with is that we do think in threes, First, I observe the fact that this phrase is expressed in English grammar, a form of communication rooted in expressing meaning as sounds. As stated, it asserts that thinking is somehow or other related to counting and mathematics. Could you parse this first premise, that is, tell us what you mean? The assertion of we do think is a assertion with the plural term, we. That is, is this intended to be a logical premise? Are you asserting that everyone must think in threes? For example, if I choose, in my thought, to interweave five concepts, am I not thinking? or merely not thinking is threes? If a logic term is defined in terms of these five concepts, does it have meaning within your concept of thinking in terms of three? What is your meaning of think as a representation of what, such that the concept of three is generated? Could you generate a personal belief such that includes the phrase we do think in fives? If you can do this extension, what would the difference between the threer philosophy and the fiver philosophy? Would the fiver philosophy be more intelligent in the sense that if a conundrum a-rose in the threer philosophy, it could be resolved in the fiver philosophy because of the larger choice of pathways (icons) to resolve the source of the tensions? In my view, one of the deepest conundrums of philosophy is the ineffability to express my thoughts. Have you considered the possibility the assertion of the threer philosophy refers to expressions in at least three different symbol systems? In the pragmatic world of thought, it appears to me that at least five clear and distinctly different symbol systems are essential to a philosophy of thought. The question emerges: Is your first premise pragmatic? Cheers jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or
Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
Dear Gary, List, Reflection was wrong, I have looked at Trikonic at Wikipedia, and kept in wrongly in mind: it was representation (3-1-2). What i never had understood from Peirce, was A sign is a first, or, that categrory 1 has no other-reference. I think, I saw it like Gary C. Moore: A cognition is based on a previous cognition. Regarding icon, index, symbol, I understand it, but not with the assignment representamen=1, object=2, because both of them require each other. Then i thought, that a main property of an object is its permanence, while a representamen is something short in time, like an impulse. So, regarding the elements of a system, i make the proposal, that cat.1 is what happens (behaviour), cat.2 what is there (forms), and cat.3 what combines 1 and 2 (structure). Now I hope, that this assignment can make the categories and the difference between representamen and object easier to understand, and is not in contradiction to Peirce. Is that so? Best, Helmut Gesendet:Samstag, 14. Juni 2014 um 19:39 Uhr Von:Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com An:Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de Cc:Peirce-L peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Betreff:Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction Helmut, list, Helmut wrote:now I see your point: What i had called categorial inversions, are the permutations by the different vectors. Im gratified that you see my vectorial point as I dont think it is an easy one to grasp. HR: So, in my example my way of assignment was the order vector, and Stephens was the reflection vector. Im not sure what the reflection vector is, and for me the vector of (dialectical) order is precisely Hegels 1ns - 2ns - 3ns (thesis/antithesis/synthesis; or, in Peirce, something/other/medium). The reverse order which I discussed in my earlier post I term vector of involution, 3ns - 2ns 1ns. As Ive noted occasionally in this forum, Peirce takes these two orders up in The Mathematics of Logic paper. [While theres no particular reason to get into categorial vector analysis in this thread now, at least more than I have already, I will, however, remark parenthetically, just because the names of the vectors are suggestive, that, after Parmentier, I term the first vector commencing at secondness, 2ns - 1ns - 3ns, vector of determination since it is employed by Peirce to show that in semiosis the object determines the representamen for the interpretant. The reverse order of this was also named by Parmentier as vector of representation. The other vector commencing at category firstness, 1ns - 3ns - 2ns, I term vector of process (my most frequent examples of it as employed by Peirce are the evolutionary process and the process of inquiry), and its reversal, 2ns - 3ns - 1ns, I term the vector of aspiration.] HR: When i first had joined the biosemiotics list, there was a long discussion, whether the star model or the triangle model would be better. Later Edwina had convinced me of the star model. But the triangle model shows the vectors. Now I wonder, how the contradictions between these two models might be solved. This has been taken up on several occasions over the past decade or so on this list with more passion, at times, then I think it deserves. In fact I see it as a non-issue. For one thing, Peirce used both forms. For another, if you draw three lines from the center of an equilateral triangle (or, trikon, as I employ it in trikonic) to the three vertices you have the star. So the two are in one sense equivalent, but they are used for different purposes. For example, in Peirce, the triangular chart of 10 classes of signs uses the triangle model, and in conjunction with that chart Peirce names the 10 sign types involutionally from interpretant through object to the sign itself, for example, the first sign being rhematic iconic qualisign (i.e., the interpretant element of the sign is a rheme, the object element an icon, and the sign itself is a qualisign). Hope enough of this is clear enough. Best, Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote: Supplement: Dear Gary, now I see your point: What i had called categorial inversions, are the permutations by the different vectors. So, in my example my way of assignment was the order vector, and Stephens was the reflection vector. When i first had joined the biosemiotics list, there was a long discussion, whether the star model or the triangle model would be better. Later Edwina had convinced me of the star model. But the triangle model shows the vectors. Now I wonder, how the contradictions between these two models might be solved. Best, Helmut Dear Gary, List, I also have to have a closer look at the Trikonic vector theory. Now (sorry) I exceed my observer-relativeness in an even more annoying way: Putting myself in a position of observing
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
Can I assume that everyone agrees? Doubtful. Certainly the contention that there are universal values is noit settled. Likewise is there is a such a thing as conscious (intentional) thought? And is there an inherent value in thinking threes? What is a reasonable root triad for such? Lots of questions including the direction implied in the remarks on pragmaticism. As indicated Triadic Philosophy is hardly developed theoretically, though I am working on it. I have tended to validate its premises on the basis of experience somewhat in the matter I infer from reading the NA many times. *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose* On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to Gary R for noting Triadic Philosophy. Insofar as it is a theory it is nascent. As a method of conscious thinking in line with Peirce's NA it is more developed. I have written some short books on the subject and all are available on Kindle. For this thread I will simply post excerpts with a reference to the book from which they are drawn. From Triadic Philosophy - 100 Aphorisms Introduction Triadic Philosophy is based on what is already within every person on the planet. Conscience. A sense of right and wrong. And knowledge of values that stand above all others. Triadic Philosophy uses aphorisms and maxims to generate conduct. Triadic Philosophy relies on its own adaptation of the pragmatic maxim developed by Charles Sanders Peirce in the 19th century. The pragmatic maxim stated: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. Triadic Philosophy is not concerned with narrowing our conception and limiting it to the result. It is concerned with arriving at specific acts and expressions which are intrinsically ameliorative, that make life better, less harmful, more true, more beautiful. Triadic Philosophy honors Peirce by claiming that it is a tiny offshoot of what he came to mean by the term pragmaticism. This term was his evolution of pragmatism. Pragmaticism is a bastion against the dominant notion that we are all reality is. We are not all of reality. Our individual perceptions are not all reality. Before we are, reality is. After we are, reality remains. Pragmaticism opens the door to a metaphysics based precisely on the premise that by our fruits we shall be known. It is a now metaphysics. It proves out. It is not supposition. We are inevitably social. We are capable of achieving a sense of universality. This universal sense distinguishes Triadic Philosophy. Triadic Philosophy seeks a world based on universal acceptance of universal values. The battle to overcome harm, bullying and war is dependent on a move to nonviolent understandings. This is the signature achievement underlying Triadic Philosophy. From the Introduction to Triadic Philosophy 100 Aphorisms Kindle Store http://buff.ly/1ioYQoA. *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose* - 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 .
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
Stephen, can you say a bit more about what a reasonable root triad for your philosophy would look like? I assume it's not Object-Sign-Interpretant, or Firstness-Secondness-Thirdness, otherwise you would have said so instead of asking the question. Does it have to be a triad of values (rather than a semiotic or phaneroscopic triad as in Peirce?) gary f. From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] Sent: 13-Jun-14 9:57 AM To: Peirce List Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction Can I assume that everyone agrees? Doubtful. Certainly the contention that there are universal values is noit settled. Likewise is there is a such a thing as conscious (intentional) thought? And is there an inherent value in thinking threes? What is a reasonable root triad for such? Lots of questions including the direction implied in the remarks on pragmaticism. As indicated Triadic Philosophy is hardly developed theoretically, though I am working on it. I have tended to validate its premises on the basis of experience somewhat in the matter I infer from reading the NA many times. @stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to Gary R for noting Triadic Philosophy. Insofar as it is a theory it is nascent. As a method of conscious thinking in line with Peirce's NA it is more developed. I have written some short books on the subject and all are available on Kindle. For this thread I will simply post excerpts with a reference to the book from which they are drawn. From Triadic Philosophy - 100 Aphorisms Introduction Triadic Philosophy is based on what is already within every person on the planet. Conscience. A sense of right and wrong. And knowledge of values that stand above all others. Triadic Philosophy uses aphorisms and maxims to generate conduct. Triadic Philosophy relies on its own adaptation of the pragmatic maxim developed by Charles Sanders Peirce in the 19th century. The pragmatic maxim stated: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. Triadic Philosophy is not concerned with narrowing our conception and limiting it to the result. It is concerned with arriving at specific acts and expressions which are intrinsically ameliorative, that make life better, less harmful, more true, more beautiful. Triadic Philosophy honors Peirce by claiming that it is a tiny offshoot of what he came to mean by the term pragmaticism. This term was his evolution of pragmatism. Pragmaticism is a bastion against the dominant notion that we are all reality is. We are not all of reality. Our individual perceptions are not all reality. Before we are, reality is. After we are, reality remains. Pragmaticism opens the door to a metaphysics based precisely on the premise that by our fruits we shall be known. It is a now metaphysics. It proves out. It is not supposition. We are inevitably social. We are capable of achieving a sense of universality. This universal sense distinguishes Triadic Philosophy. Triadic Philosophy seeks a world based on universal acceptance of universal values. The battle to overcome harm, bullying and war is dependent on a move to nonviolent understandings. This is the signature achievement underlying Triadic Philosophy. From the Introduction to Triadic Philosophy 100 Aphorisms Kindle Storehttp://buff.ly/1ioYQoA. @stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
Gary M. Thanks for your response. I assume there will be little agreement though there may well be much said that can contribute to the goal of Triadic Philosophy which is to propound a universally applicable mode of thinking that leads to good expressions and actions. The premise of Triadic Philosohy is indeed that we are in continual dialogue with ourselves and that we can refine and even direct such dialog via conscious decisions we can make. The urge to live and to do what we will and to share with others - reflect values but are not what I mean by universal values. I contend that there are four basic values that have operated to create progress over time. Tolerance, democracy, helpfulness and non-idolatry. These are complementary and interactive with non-idolatry, essentially the first commandment, functioning as a brake on our assumptions of infallibility. In my view conscious thought begins with and is demonstrated by the fact that we choose values. We value, therefore we are. History is the sum and aggregate of every human act and is influenced by the choice of values. There is indeed truth in the notion that we think in threes and that binary thinking is inherently stunted, as it applies to life generally. I will continue to defend reality, ethics and aesthetics as a root template for conscious thinking. *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose* On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com wrote: PARTIAL PROVIONAL ANSWERS SR: Can I assume that everyone agrees? Doubtful. -x- GCM: Everyone agrees that we can carry on a dialogue (except for those who do not respond) which at least sets up a dialectical schema. -x- SR: Certainly the contention that there are universal values is not settled. -x- GCM: Some universal values are absolute just as we EACH want to live, we want to do what we desire to do and do not want to do what we do NOT desire, we enjoy communicating if we learn something new that is definite and therefore potentially useful, and we pursue all this for the purpose of defining each one's life. -x- SR: Likewise is there is such a thing as conscious (intentional) thought? -x- GCM: Yes. Intention is the reason for thinking at all. But it is based on a search for something formulated targeted as unknown (not, as Peirce's says, the uncognizable per se) and derives from a source that is unconscious though that unknown as such is projected into the formulation of intent and grammar. We think from and in PARTIALS but partials of what? The only what recognized so far is one's mortal life leading to Aristotle's universal generation and corruption, ergo another incomplete partial. -x- SR: And is there an inherent value in thinking threes? -X- Gcm: Yes, but that is the only way to think at all and therefore a tool, not a value as if we had a choice. -x- SR: What is a reasonable root triad? -X- GCM: The thrust and necessity to live, the end (goal/destination) of life, and the schema for one's whole life (Count no man happy until he is dead conundrum, from Aristotle/Solon. But that is just a wild guess. -x- SR: Lots of questions including the direction implied in the remarks on pragmaticism. As indicated Triadic Philosophy is hardly developed theoretically, though I am working on it. I have tended to validate its premises on the basis of experience somewhat in the matter I infer from reading the NA many times. On Friday, June 13, 2014 8:56 AM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote: Can I assume that everyone agrees? Doubtful. Certainly the contention that there are universal values is noit settled. Likewise is there is a such a thing as conscious (intentional) thought? And is there an inherent value in thinking threes? What is a reasonable root triad for such? Lots of questions including the direction implied in the remarks on pragmaticism. As indicated Triadic Philosophy is hardly developed theoretically, though I am working on it. I have tended to validate its premises on the basis of experience somewhat in the matter I infer from reading the NA many times. *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose* On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to Gary R for noting Triadic Philosophy. Insofar as it is a theory it is nascent. As a method of conscious thinking in line with Peirce's NA it is more developed. I have written some short books on the subject and all are available on Kindle. For this thread I will simply post excerpts with a reference to the book from which they are drawn. From Triadic Philosophy - 100 Aphorisms Introduction Triadic Philosophy is based on what is already within every person on the planet. Conscience. A sense of right and wrong. And knowledge of values that stand above all others. Triadic Philosophy uses aphorisms and maxims to generate conduct. Triadic Philosophy relies on its own adaptation of the pragmatic
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
brief description of universes of experience in NA. *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose* On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote: S. I'm still not sure you saw this post by Gary F. You responded to *my* questions (btw, without noting that they* were* my questions), but not to Gary F's. He will be an important interlocutor if you get him interested in discussing TP--so, I'd encourage you to answer his post. Best. G *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* -- Forwarded message -- From: Gary Fuhrman g...@gnusystems.ca Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction To: Peirce List Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu Stephen, can you say a bit more about what a reasonable root triad for your philosophy would look like? I assume it's not Object-Sign-Interpretant, or Firstness-Secondness-Thirdness, otherwise you would have said so instead of asking the question. Does it have to be a triad of *values* (rather than a semiotic or phaneroscopic triad as in Peirce?) gary f. *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] *Sent:* 13-Jun-14 9:57 AM *To:* Peirce List *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction Can I assume that everyone agrees? Doubtful. Certainly the contention that there are universal values is noit settled. Likewise is there is a such a thing as conscious (intentional) thought? And is there an inherent value in thinking threes? What is a reasonable root triad for such? Lots of questions including the direction implied in the remarks on pragmaticism. As indicated Triadic Philosophy is hardly developed theoretically, though I am working on it. I have tended to validate its premises on the basis of experience somewhat in the matter I infer from reading the NA many times. *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose* On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to Gary R for noting Triadic Philosophy. Insofar as it is a theory it is nascent. As a method of conscious thinking in line with Peirce's NA it is more developed. I have written some short books on the subject and all are available on Kindle. For this thread I will simply post excerpts with a reference to the book from which they are drawn. From Triadic Philosophy - 100 Aphorisms Introduction Triadic Philosophy is based on what is already within every person on the planet. Conscience. A sense of right and wrong. And knowledge of values that stand above all others. Triadic Philosophy uses aphorisms and maxims to generate conduct. Triadic Philosophy relies on its own adaptation of the pragmatic maxim developed by Charles Sanders Peirce in the 19th century. The pragmatic maxim stated: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. Triadic Philosophy is not concerned with narrowing our conception and limiting it to the result. It is concerned with arriving at specific acts and expressions which are intrinsically ameliorative, that make life better, less harmful, more true, more beautiful. Triadic Philosophy honors Peirce by claiming that it is a tiny offshoot of what he came to mean by the term pragmaticism. This term was his evolution of pragmatism. Pragmaticism is a bastion against the dominant notion that we are all reality is. We are not all of reality. Our individual perceptions are not all reality. Before we are, reality is. After we are, reality remains. Pragmaticism opens the door to a metaphysics based precisely on the premise that by our fruits we shall be known. It is a now metaphysics. It proves out. It is not supposition. We are inevitably social. We are capable of achieving a sense of universality. This universal sense distinguishes Triadic Philosophy. Triadic Philosophy seeks a world based on universal acceptance of universal values. The battle to overcome harm, bullying and war is dependent on a move to nonviolent understandings. This is the signature achievement underlying Triadic Philosophy. From the Introduction to Triadic Philosophy 100 Aphorisms Kindle Store http://buff.ly/1ioYQoA. *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose* - 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
Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction
Dear Stephen, List, Gary Richmond wrote, that your triad differs from Peirces. when I first read about your assignment of the triad reality-ethics-esthetics to the categories, I had the impression that it is different from my understanding. But now I think, that assignment of elements of a triad to the categories depends on the observer position. Your triad is a good example, I think. I refer to the rating qualia, like good and bad in their categorial development: Observer in the position of sign recipient (this was the assignment I was thinking of first): -Esthetics: Rating qualia are beautiful and ugly, pure qualities, iconical, category 1. -Reality: Rating qualia have developed towards technically good and technically bad, that, what gives one a beautiful or ugly feeling, indexical, category 2. -Ethics: moralically good and moralically bad, the reasons for technical good- and badness, symbolical, category 3. Observer in the position of sign sender (here the assignment is yours): -Reality: I am sending an ugly or beautiful representamen out into reality, dont know what will happen, possibility, category 1 -Ethics: I am confronted with the technically good or bad consequences my action implies: actuality, category 2 -Esthetics: Before I have sent out the representamen, I have moralically reasoned, whether it will appear beautiful or ugly, be technically good or bad, by having regarded the past and the future: Continuity, reasoning, category 3. So, what I want to say is that your assignment is in accord with Peirce, I think, and that assignment of categories to triads seem to underly an inversion due to observer position change. Best, Helmut Gesendet:Freitag, 13. Juni 2014 um 19:06 Uhr Von:Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com An:Peirce List Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu, Gary Fuhrman g...@gnusystems.ca Betreff:Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Philosophy Introduction Dear Gary F. For some reason my reply to your post did not find its way to the list. Here it is again. My apologies. The first premise I start with is that we do think in threes, at least when we are conscious and certainly when we will to do so. The second premise is that if this is so the initial starting point would be the realm from which all signs emerge. To me this came up as Reality so that was and remains my notion of Firstness. (I am NOT trying to preempt Peirce, merely to acknowledge a linkage.) I conceived of Triadic Philosophy as a conscious process and of the triad as deriving from icon (reality) to index to symbol. Rather spontaneously, I chose Ethics as the second (index) and Aesthetics as the third. Actually I have for four decades relied on an ethical index derived from my work in music and with teaching kids to sing the gospel of Mark. When this is done, at least in my declension, the values that pop up are tolerance, helpfulness, democracy and non-idolatry. If that is not an index, what is? Then it followed (to me) that in terms of my elaboration of the pragmatic maxim the purpose of thought should be an action or _expression_, something that can be known and measured for impact. By making aesthetic my third in the triad, it opened up a world to me in which we move past an ineffective ethics and a terribly confined notion of aesthetics to something closer to reality. I should mention that my laboratory is Twitter and that premises such as those discussed here are regularly honed to and submitted to a l;arge group of folk who may or may not respond, but whose reactions are of inestimable value in determining the effectiveness of communications. I should note also that I have taken with great seriousness Peirces suggestions regarding memorial maxims. What is a tweet if not at least a stab at such? As to what this looks like, I do contend that Reality Ethics Aesthetics is a workable triad for the conscious method of doing triadic philosophy and that it corresponds (possibly even theoretically) to Peircean notions of firstness, secondness and thirdness, first second third and 1 2 3. I do have some questions about Peirces brief description of universes of experience in NA. @stephencrose On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote: I am confused at this point. I answered the following: Stephen, can you say a bit more about what a reasonable root triad for your philosophy would look like? I assume its not Object-Sign-Interpretant, or Firstness-Secondness-Thirdness, otherwise you would have said so instead of asking the question. Does it have to be a triad ofvalues(rather than a semiotic or phaneroscopic triad as in Peirce?) But I do not find it in the thread. I am going to copy it here and see of you saw it: The first premise I start with is that we do think in threes, at least when we are conscious and certainly when we will to do so. The second premise is that if this is so the initial starting point would be the realm
