Helmut - I'm confused by your comments.
First, a society, as an existential organism, can't operate solely within a
mode of Thirdness because Thirdness, as the laws-of-continuity is a general and
not a specific and thus itself operates only in relation to the modes of
Secondness and Firstness. Otherwise it is a pure abstract Argument - with all
its relations in the mode of Thirdness. That might be fine for Plato's ideal
society in the heady words of the Republic but that's not real life. [Thank god
for that!]
Second, all societies must have an ideological basis against which daily life
is referenced. Ours, for example, include such ideals as freedom of the
individual, the role of reason, the free market, separation of church and state
and so on.
And your statement of 'Who is not for us, is against us' doesn't seem to me to
be an example of active and passive negation. [Do you mean active and passive
voice?]
'Is not for' = 'against'. The two are essentially synonyms.
If by 'active' do you mean 'active voice, where we must assume responsibility
for our actions, as in 'I ordered the attack to take place' versus the passive
which would say 'The attack was ordered to take place'...essentially removing
the Agent from accountability.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Helmut Raulien
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 2:46 PM
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] What's The Use?
Supplement: There is a logical fallacy in my text: If the universe has a
superstructure (logic), it cannot be the biggest possible system. Ok, so it is
not.
Hi Jon, List,
Instead of "embodied in systems", I think, logic is embodied in the biggest
possible system, the universe, as a part of its thirdness (structure,
continuum). Other aspects of this thirdness, I would say, are natural laws and
constants. For subsystems like organisms or social systems, it is also part of
their thirdness, but a part of superstructure, meaning, it influences or
determines them, but cannot be influenced by them (by habit-taking). Maybe for
the universe, logic is a part of superstructure too, but the values of
constants are not (are part of the structure that is changed by habit-taking).
Now, eg. social systems work better, if they obey their superstructures,
because a superstructure, otrher than a structure, is inevitable. Example:
There are social systems, that do not see the difference between active and
passive negation: "Wo is not for us, is against us". These social systems,
instead of obeying logic, obey an ideology. This will sooner or later fail and
likely lead to a catastrophe. So I think, that the use of logic for a system is
to see and follow logic, otherwise something will go wrong. Logic will strike
back. In the bible, logic resp. word(s) ("logos") is associated with God. But
pure defacto inevitability, and the striking-back of logic, is conflated with
Gods wrath, and this conflation has lead to a misunderstanding of God as being
wrathful (my interpretation).
Best,
Helmut
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 01. Oktober 2014 um 15:36 Uhr
Von: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
An: "Peirce List 1" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] What's The Use?
What's the use of getting up in the morning?
Never mind that now, I'm already up.
Be constructive. Try to focus on something positive.
Okay, then, what's the use of logic?
You call that focused? Be more specific!
So what's the use of a logical system,
if you think of logic as embodied in systems?
Or what's the use of a logical organ,
if you think of logic as embodied in bodies?
To be continued …
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
