Thank Helmut. Nous sommes sur la meme page as Peirce would probably interject. So if you ever get to the exact center of Manhattan which I take to be the intersection of Herald and Greeley Squares, you get your choice of beverage on me exchange for an hour of conversation. That actually goes for anyone who's willing. Yes I am at work on my Triadic Primer which is nothing more than in imagining of how someone can actually use my reality ethics aesthetic triad to foment a global democratic revolution just by messaging people - by the millions and more. My relationship to this list fascinates me. I think of Peirce from time to time and his relationships. We do not share much I am sure but some abrasiveness perhaps and an odd sense that things are more OK for more reasons than many seem t see. Cheers, S
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > I disagree with that what you wrote makes no sense, to me it absolutely > does. I also think, that everybody is a philosopher. But why is not > everybody a semiotician, resp. a triadic thinker? I have the hunch that > this is so, because Peirces writings seem somehow convoluted and esoteric. > I say, they seem so. I dont say, that they are so, or are not logically > clear and correct. But the mainstream way of thinking is different from > Peirces way of thinking. So access is difficult. So my attempt is to reduce > the categories concept to something more trivial, or common senseous, that > is time, space, continuum. Everybody knows, what time is, what space is, > and what continuity is. You have mentioned "Ten of this and so forth": That > a sign can be of a certain class does not mean, that it is reduced to this > class: An iconical object relation eg. means, that category 1 is showing up > at the front of the sign. But a sign is connected with the phaneron in an > irreducible triadic way, that always includes all three categories. > Regarding its iconicity alone, is incompleteness of regard, not reduction. > Another example for the difference between incomplete regard and reduction: > You can regard your moving leg while you are running. The leg would not > move without your heart and your brain being active. So the leg is not > reducible from heart and brain. But an incomplete regard is possible: It is > possible to only look at the leg. And: Regard is always and must be > incomplete. Nobody would be able to see the whole picture. I must pull the > brake, just one more thing: I agree that there are objective standards in > aesthetics and ethics. My example with fashion was just one example of > non-objectivity, that cannot be generalized. So far, > Best, > Helmut > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 um 22:28 Uhr > *Von:* "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> > *An:* "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]> > *Cc:* "Peirce List" <[email protected]> > *Betreff:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy > Hi Helmut - I am afraid that there is much in your emendation with which > I am either at sea (do not grasp) or do not (I think) agree with. The fact > that both reactions intermingle makes it hard to respond. A few general > remarks: I have great difficulty with categories as being much more than > what I call meta - things that are meant to explain or situate or enlarge > on fundamentals. The triad that I have come up with was and remains an > effort to simplify what I am sure is an endlessly complex endeavor when you > get into some of the descriptions I have seen here. Ten of this and so > forth. My aim is always to find a way to say things to the broadest of > audiences. My days are spent on Twitter seeking to create statements that > seek not popularity but resonance. When Dostoevsky says all Russians are > philosophers I say all people are. I will add that I believe there are > objective standards that can be applied to both ethics and aesthetics and > that both in triadic philosophy are a spectrum ranging from the most evil > and ugly to the most beautiful, true and good. I am sure this makes no > sense but it's what I think. > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Dear Stephen, All, >> I agree, that (Esthetics, Ethics, Logic) is a quite fundamental triad, in >> accord with Peirces categories (1,2,3). Now what do you think of this >> thought: Categories are supposed to be something most fundamental. Now, >> what is the most fundamental? The matrix of everything, in which events >> take place, according to Einstein, is the "Space-time-continuum". So my >> proposal of assignment is: Time = category 1. Space = Category 2. Continuum >> = Category 3. Esthetics change with time. Fashion is changing. What was >> beautiful to me yesterday may seem ugly to me today. Ethics tell us what >> space we have to act properly, tell us, how far (in real or virtual space) >> we can go without hurting others or ourselves. Logic is the time- and >> spaceless continuum that combines all. A representamen is a piece of time >> that denotes a piece of space. An object is a piece of space that denotes a >> piece of time. Here I disagree with Peirce. A sign is not a first, an >> object not a second. Categories 1 and 2 are equally fundamental or equally >> unique. Just like one cannot know, whether the hen or the egg is more >> unique, we can never know, whether time or space is the more unique. >> Neither is the continuum either a product of, or the cause for the other >> two, because it is both. So this is triadic irreducibility: No one of the >> sign elements or of the categories can exist without the other two. And no >> one is first, second, or third. (1, 2, 3) are just symbols for >> distinguishment of characters, but not for temporality or essentiality. So >> far my opinion. >> Very best, >> Helmut >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 um 21:37 Uhr >> *Von:* "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> >> *An:* "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* "Peirce List" <[email protected]> >> *Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy >> The text is a quote Jon not my own thinking. To me beauty and truth >> are ultimately one as Keats proposes. Ethics in my triad is a second >> (index) through which a sign passes on its way to being translated into an >> expression or action or both. I reverse CP's order and name the third >> aesthetics. >> >> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Stephen, All, >>> >>> Sorry, on a 1 dot wifi so hard to chase links, but I always thought >>> aesthetics, ethics, logic as normative sciences whose objects are beauty, >>> goodness (arête), truth, respectively, was a classical notion? >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com >>> >>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:02 PM, "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> >>> Charles S. Peirce on Esthetics and Ethics >>> A Bibliography >>> >>> Kelly A. Parker >>> >>> >>> "Value theory is the least developed area of Peirce’s philosophy. At the >>> core of Peircean value theory are the studies of esthetics, ethics and >>> logic that he grouped together under the heading of "normative sciences." >>> What Peirce wrote on esthetics and ethics is indeed fragmentary, but–as the >>> present bibliography indicates–it is not insubstantial. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Sources were identified with the aim of addressing the following two >>> questions concerning Peirce’s value theory: >>> >>> >>> >>> "1) When and how did Peirce come to identify esthetics and ethics as >>> normative sciences, and hence as part of philosophy proper? >>> >>> >>> >>> "2) Which of Peirce’s writings contribute to the development and >>> articulation of his late value theory?" >>> >>> >>> >>> http://buff.ly/XM88XI >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 'via Blog this' >>> <https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk> >>> >>> *@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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message >> not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not > to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
