Thanks very much. If your answer is correct then I guess the question (for me) is where freedom kicks in. Triadic Philosophy, infant though it is, senses that conscious thought is real and that it is the only arena within a small band of freedom holds sway, and that that is in the capacity to choose among the values that make for progress or regression according to the ways that we think. Unless this is the case I would assume that the entire house of cards falls and that there can be little hope for humankind. Perhaps if language can be called metaphor, one might surmise that something like conscious surmising of signs might take place. I think thought is conscious and that good (at least) is real. And that without the freedom to choose there is little or nothing that we can call freedom.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Jack Curtis <jack.cur...@g.austincc.edu> wrote: > > Whitehead's dismissal of Peirce's notion that we think in symbols as > 'absurd' suggests to me that the answer is 'no'. Peirce seemed to think > that meaning was conveyed subconciously as "forms" which served as elements > in the semi-conscious process of creating & manipulating metaphores which, > in turn, serve as the main constituents of conscious thought. I'm > wondering if anybody has done a semiotic analysis of Brown's "Laws of > Form", to see if they might help to elucidate the process of symbols > morphing into conscious thought? > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Discussions of signs, semiosis and triadic thinking leave me pondering >> questions like this: >> >> Is the articulation of semiosis conscious? It would seem the answer is >> yes. Semiosis is something we infer even though what we are inferring has >> reality in itself. >> >> Is triadic thinking conscious? Again I would suggest yes. More so, I >> would suggest, than binary thinking, which could respond to a trigger, as >> it were, and arrive at a conclusion without reflection. >> >> And finally: >> >> Why does it not make sense to articulate semiosis verbally in a >> descriptive way, assigning to stages or categories words, descriptions, a >> narrative? Thus if Peirce suggests a categorical progression, what are the >> descriptive words that make such a progression tangible? >> >> Now I am sure that I am ignoring some obvious examples of how triadic >> thinking is described in narrative form. If so, I shall go back to the >> drawing board. But if there is indeed a tendency to dwell on what I would >> call meta, and to avoid content, which I would call the unfolding of >> everyday life, then that might be an issue worth some attention. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
