(If Figure 1 is distorted, please search for an undistorted version under
the RPM model in these lists.)
Stephen, lists,
In agreement with Spinoza, I believe that REALITY is Infinite. As such it
could be "modeled" in more than one way --- e.g., as a triad of Reality (a
sign of REALITY), Ethics, and Aesthetics as you have done, just as it can
be modeled as a triad of God, Father and Son, or as a triad of Positive,
Negative and Zero (as some mathematicians claim under rubric of the
Zero-Totality Hypothesis [1]). Common to all these models of REALITY may
be the logic of the irreversible triad of the category:
f g
REALITY ----- > Phenomenon ------ > Model
| ^
| |
|___________________________________|
h
Figure 1. A triadic model of REALITY. f = natural process; g = mental
process; h = information flow, or the inverse of belief, -h, (also called
'credition' [2, 3]).
With all the best.
Sung
___________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
References:
[1]http://naturescode.org.uk/userfiles/images/file/ReviewCynthiaWhitney.pdf
[2] Angel. H. F. (2012). Credition, the Process of Belief. In:
Encuyclopedia of Sciences and Relitions. N. P. Azari, A. Runehov and
L. Olviedo, eds. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 536-539.Volume 1.
[3] Seitz, R. J. and Angel, H. F. (2012). Process of believing - a
review and conceptual account. Re. Neurosci. 23 (3):303-309.
> Continuity in Triadic Philosophy makes no effort to establish itself as a
> mathematical certainty. In reality which is all everything is a mite
> unsettled simply because of the plethora of different ways we have of
> looking at things and the difficulty we have in seeing things in the first
> place. Triadic Philosophy sees reality as all and that reality contains a
> spectrum. That is a spectrum of good and evil. It is impossible to have a
> working philosophy that does not define and place within it good and evil.
> I mention this because I came late in my development of the outline that
> TP
> is to a recognition of the need for this. What does it have to do with
> continuity? Nothing directly. But it does relate profoundly to the
> unacceptable suggestion that reality is all. I say unacceptable since I
> have found no assent to this notion here (on the Peirce List. I submit
> that
> one reason reality is hamstrung in dyadic notions of it (real-unreal) is
> that the inherited view uses this to suggest that it is somehow dealing
> with good and evil without saying so. And with other binary opposites such
> as perfect and imperfect. When we see reality as embracing all known and
> unknown and we posit a spectrum of good and evil we liberate reality to be
> everything and leap past the author of Genesis to a willingness to "be as
> us" and assume responsibility (Heimert) for taking the sacrificial steps
> needed to improve things on the planet. Continuity in non-mathematical
> terms is, whatever else it might be, a way of accepting that we are moving
> forward, that we inhabit a largely chronological existence and that we are
> perfectly aware of what is good and what not. (A spectrum from truth and
> beauty to abuse and murder). More and more the proof of the pudding should
> emerge in the scopes of big data combined with a bit pr progress in the
> realm of perception, enabled by our emerging connectivity. I posit
> ontological realities - among them the values in the index of the main
> triad Reality Ethics and Aesthetics. I am inclined to think that
> continuity
> is among the patterns that we are becoming ever more aware of as the
> common
> stuff that makes the universe operate as it appears to do. Continuity is
> the inexorable reality of unfolding time and its teleological significance
> as part of the way we are on. In a word, progress (not stasis, not eternal
> return). In TP mathematics is seen as a utility along with reason and
> other aids to thought. Continuity has a somewhat more equal position in
> this description, since it is a character or quality of reality rather
> than
> an essential tool for thinking about reality.
>
-----------------------------
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 .
