It is hard for me to know all these distinctions both for lack of knowledge and some unwillingness to concede that we cannot have a commonsense Philosophy that is capable of exerting broad influence It is not hard to imagine that many are shell-shocked by the way reductions of philosophy most probably influenced the last centuries. Binary thinking for the most part I feel. And egregious dualisms that persist. Triadic Philosophy is an attempt to take what was ruined by binary thinking and the formation of violent orthodoxies and universalize the best values and make them the basis for future pedagogy and policy. I have neither the status nor the pedigree to do this but I persist in believing that ideas are more important than personalities. Snow is always cited when we speak of breakdowns of thought. I think this can be said to now be terminal. I feel rather oddly that out of the wilderness of the Web will come the philosophy that for better or worse dominates the way things get done from now on. Also that Peirce is the author of it. Or should be.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > Dear John and Stephen > > > > I think there is an ontological difference between your views as Deacon > and to a certain degree Stjernfelt’ s views are based on ,to me unclear > “scientific worldviews”, which in the end means physicalism. None of them > has taken a clear opposition to physicalism. They are not mechanical > materialist but believe in thermodynamic self-organization through > Prigogine’s non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Deacon is close to general > system theory but does not accept it openly probably because Bertalanffy > was an organicist and therefore not compatible with the physicalist > scientific worldview. Never the less he endorse a developmental theory > combined with evolution theory from matter, over objective information to > icons. Stuart Kaufmann seems also to attempt to make signs emerge from a > physicalist worldview. Stjernfelt seem to run a standard scientific > ontology parallel with a Peircean semiotic as far as I can read, never > going into self-organization and theories of emergence. But in my view a > Peircean icon does not work without his whole pragmaticist philosophy with > its foundation in his hylozoist, thycistic ontology, combined with his > aesthetics, ethics and semiotic logic as the base of his phaneroscopic > epistemology. There are a lot of attempts to use Peirce’s semiotics and > pragmaticism on other philosophical foundations than the one he > painstakingly developed over his life. One of the more obvious is > Barbieri’s codebiology, but he is so honest and explicit in his > argumentation that it is possible to discuss it, as I have done in the > attached article from *Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology*. Am > I wrong? > > > > Best > > Søren > > > > > > *Fra:* John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] > *Sendt:* 29. december 2015 04:13 > *Til:* Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List > *Emne:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign > > > > Stephen, List, > > > > That is similar to Terry Deacon’s view in *The Symbolic Species* (1997), > and also later in *Incomplete Nature* (2012). He argues that the > evolution of symbols starts with icons, icons combine to form indexes, and > we end up with, in humans, full symbols. Frederick Stjernflelt takes issue > with this (*Diagrammatology*, chapter 11, 2007; *Natural Propositions*, > chapter 6, 2014), arguing that dicisigns can be found, and are needed, > right back to the beginning of signs in biology, so that (proto)symbolic > symbols and arguments as well are original, both factually and as a > requirement for understanding how signs evolved. I am currently inclined to > agree with Stjernfelt (Collier, 2014, *Signs without minds*. V. Romanini, > E. Fernández (eds.), Peirce and Biosemiotics, Biosemiotics 11), though I > didn’t know about his work at the time. > > > > John Collier > > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com <stever...@gmail.com>] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 December 2015 3:47 AM > *To:* Peirce List > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign > > > > I see a sign as something that emerges in the vague penumbra called First > or by me Reality. It is named and acquires identity rising from its primal > being. It naturally encounters a blunt index of truths which I call Ethics > (Second) and is composed of Values (not virtues) and from there it passes > through a the doorway to the Third which I call Aesthetics and understand > to be the point at which the consideration, which this is, evolves into > expression and action. In terms of Peirce's maxim this Third is the the > substance of the matter. When I see folk discussing signs and firsts and > seconds and thirds in highly complex ways I do not think I am thereby > missing the possibilities of Triadic thought. I feel its possibilities lie > in a little leap from the point at which Peirce implies that logic might > lead to good results to a point at which Triadic thinking actually does > lead to such results. I am coming to feel that Peirce's thought is a mite > confused at the point of getting grounded and that categories became for > him a sort of detour from a a more frontal effort to state the implications > of his thought. Fortunately he left a good deal to go on. > > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU >
----------------------------- 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 .
