I meant Nietzsche went mad hugging the horse. amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:51 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am very glad you are bringing this down to earth. You are right to flag > evil and injustice. Neither is the strong suit of academic philosophy. > Sadly I could "out" Peirce and Wittgenstein, neither of whom were without > filmclips that would make them worse than Nietzsche who after all went man > hugging an abused equine in Turin. Actual violence toward children and > women come easy in cultures schooled in binary thinking and the exclusion > stratagems that still are endemic. But down to earth ad Dostovesky > suggested all are philosophers and that is not patronizing. It is the case. > And all are focusing on the future which is what science does. And the > world is in a century which as Ingo Swann (late of earth) suggested would > bring more change than the last 1000 centuries. Certainly one will be > toward triadic thought. Holism will not be seen as naive. And good > ontological words will flourish without the need to be identified with > anyone. Let's talk about how to deal with what you are concerned abut. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:37 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> I agree, but before everybody can pursue beauty, truth, and >> enlightenment, everybody should be granted to have a life. Some days ago, a >> participant of the education outfit I work in has been expelled with her >> family from Germany to Montenegro. She neither has a german, nor a >> montenegronian passport, is stateless, though born in Germany (US-laws are >> better). The family now is living on donations alone. Maybe she can come >> back, but not her parents. She also is not a superhuman, otherwise she >> would not have been parcipitant of this handcraft-education outfit for >> not-too-smart juveniles, but have visited a normal school. This situation >> is ugly, not beautiful, Nietzsche would not support her, he preferred >> superhumans and their pursue of power over weak others. So, though I agree >> with all your other points, I do not see Nietzsche as a philosopher of >> beauty, but rather as an angry ugliness-supporter. But with all your other >> points I agree. >> >> 25. November 2018 um 20:20 Uhr >> *Von:* "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> >> >> I am gratified at this understanding which indicates to me the relevance >> of the triadic approach. I am still a babe in the woods regarding this >> thinking though I know how it started. At this point if I had a large >> pedestal I would make room on it for Peirce, Berkeley, Wittgenstein and >> Nietzsche -- to acknowledge fundamental influences. As to a triad I would >> make it Consciousness > Information > Light (Icon. Index. Symbol) I see >> Light as the fusion of Beauty and Truth to which all human action and >> expression should aim. >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >>> I see. In your post you also spoke of information as the basic stuff of >>> the universe. So perhaps "spirit (or mind) - matter - information" might be >>> seen as a triad? >>> To see matter-mind as a dyad brings a bout the hen-and-egg-problem, as >>> realists see matter as primordinal, and mind as its epiphenomenon, and >>> idealists see the two reversely. Both models work somehow, as none can be >>> falsified, we just dont have documentation about which was first. >>> "information", from the word root, might mean: That what puts matter >>> into forms, or that what imposes forms on matter. In thermodynamics it is >>> negative entropy, it may increase in dissipative open systems, while in a >>> bigger closed system (e.g. the universe) it decreases (entropy increases). >>> Anyway, information is a bridge between mind and matter, or at least >>> between "other-than-matter" and matter. >>> Information is just a description of a phenomenon, like >>> "self-organisation of matter" is, though she latter seems to suggest a >>> "self" of matter. But I guess, a materialist would not say, that matter has >>> a self. >>> I guess that it scientifically cannot be said, where information comes >>> from. In triadic philosophy, I think we may say, that spirit or mind is >>> 1ns, matter is 2ns, and information 3ns. But what each of the three is, and >>> why they work together as a triad, I think nobody knows, and nobody can >>> know. Why not feel happy with not-knowing the impossible-to-know? >>> Some people feel unwell about not knowing, and invent schemes that >>> explain. They are afraid of living in the wonderland full of riddles I >>> would prefer to live in. I, in contrast, fear the explainers. >>> Triadic philosophy, I think, does not explain anything, but helps to >>> cope with the riddles and wonders by uncovering some laws of their dynamics. >>> >>> 23. November 2018 um 00:11 Uhr >>> *Von:* "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Realism appears to me to the basis of dominant science -- deriving truth >>> from material. Idealism rejects that. If opposition is conceded they form a >>> binary that triadic thinking questions (perhaps as you do). But my >>> conclusion would be to try to see what unifies them and what if anything >>> would have to be discarded to make progress. I think Idealism cannot give >>> up its sense of spiriit as the fundamental reality and realism cannot give >>> up matter as being its field of reality. Triadic thinking operates but by >>> ignoring the distinction but by seeking to reconcile the two in the sphere >>> of ethics and aesthetics. I have no difficulty seeing both as aspects of >>> reality and seeing reality as consciousness or the oneness that is the >>> foundation of everything.. >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:41 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Stephen, list, >>>> I usually don´t feel that one ideationally should hop to and fro >>>> betweeen physics (Einstein, quantum theory) and philosophy (triadic >>>> thinking), firstly because they are different starting points, and secondly >>>> because Einstein was rather a wave-man, and was quite suspicious about >>>> quantum theory, at least this is my impression as a layman who has not >>>> understood the formulas. >>>> Also, I feel that the distinction between idealism and realism is not a >>>> clear one, due to the unclarity of the terms "idea", and "real": >>>> Is an idea something primordinal, like with Platon, or is it a proposal >>>> intended to solve some problem, that has come to one´s mind? >>>> Is real that what is (existence, being), or is it all that has any >>>> effect, so ideas too (in both kinds of definition)? >>>> I can only speak for myself, and for me I neglect the Platonian "idea", >>>> and would replace them with "potentiality" or "possibility". >>>> Reality for me is something other than being, as possibility or >>>> potentiality (what not yet exists) also works in the way that it does not >>>> deny things from happening or manifesting themselves. Of course everything >>>> that is works too, so reality is being plus potential being. >>>> In my view "not denying" or "possibility" has an effect, because I >>>> guess that everything that is not impossible will happen, and very likely >>>> has happened sometimes before, maybe without somebody remembering, and with >>>> no detectable effect in the present (causality chain having faded out, or >>>> results not backtraced). >>>> Conclusion: I can not see the difference between idealism and realism >>>> any more. >>>> Best, Helmut >>>> >>>> Freitag, 16. November 2018 um 15:31 Uhr >>>> *Von:* "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> My sense of things has changed as I have delved more deep;y into >>>> thinking related to Idealism and quantum matters. I think Peirce was a >>>> realist trapped in a realist's body as it were. I think there is enough >>>> cogency in idealism to require that it be honored as at least worthy of >>>> being unified with realism and subjected to criteria drawn from triadic >>>> thinking -- explicitly thought based on the acknowledgement of the >>>> fundamental place of consciousness. This seems to me consistent with >>>> Einsteins understanding of time and with the premises that underlie quantum >>>> thinking that suggest information as the basic stuff of the universe. I >>>> have no idea whether there is anything in Peirce that suggests he inclined >>>> in these directions, but I do feel that since its inception Triadic >>>> Philosophy whatever it is has been aimed in this way. Best, S >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- 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 .
