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
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 Peirce's 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 Peirce's brief description of universes of experience in NA.
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 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?)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 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 Peirce's 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 Peirce's brief description of universes of experience in NA.
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. GGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia 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.
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.
-----------------------------
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 .
