[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

These are recent things that are all comments on CP references.

WHY C. S. PEIRCE  REPLACES ARISTOTLE: GROUNDS OF THE CURRENT REVOLUTION
(TRIA...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RSSZLWP/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_lMW2CbYQFR005
via @amazon
WHY C. S. PEIRCE MATTERS: TRIADIC THINKING AND THE SEMIOTIC AGE (TRIADICS)
by...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RKYNGBF/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_IKW2CbRTE6WG3
via @amazon

THE WISDOM OF C. S. PEIRCE: A PROTEST AGAINST OBSCURANTISM by Stephen C.
Rose
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07QDFQFTT/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_kHW2CbYA6DFVJ
via @amazon

Buy 99 cent Kindle books at http://buff.ly/1ulPHlK
 Join KIVA https://buff.ly/2ZSAv83


-
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 .

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Realism and Idealism

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

I meant Nietzsche went mad hugging the horse.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:51 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose 
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  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" 
>>
>> 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  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" 
>>>
>>> Realism appears to me to the basis of dominant science -- 

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Realism and Idealism

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

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  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" 
>
> 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  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" 
>>
>> 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
>> 

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Realism and Idealism

[Helmut Raulien]

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" 
 


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  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" 
 


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  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 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Realism and Idealism

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

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  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" 
>
> 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  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 

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Realism and Idealism

[Helmut Raulien]

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" 
 


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  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" 
 


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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Realism and Idealism

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

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  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" 
>
> 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 .

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Realism and Idealism

[Helmut Raulien]

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" 
 


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] Triadic Philosophy -- Realism and Idealism

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

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] Triadic Philosophy Evolved – A Universal Way

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

1.

Triadic philosophy is a universal way of living consciously. It boils down
to 25 keywords that forms the basis for DIY spirituality. It starts with
the person and fans out to all there is.

Triadic philosophy assumes we can choose the values we live by. It centers
on life as we live it as spirits who exist in bodily and mental form. The
power to choose is our most precious attribute.

Triadic philosophy assumes that we are masters of our lives. It does not
assume we have attained the syntropy that is universally intended. We are
given the freedom to make our own decisions in the hope we will evolve over
the tie we live in.



2

 Triadic philosophy celebrates the power of free thinking. Freedom to
choose is enabled by the gift of mind which is within us all. Mind is not
consciousness but is its host while we exist in body and mentality.

 Triadic philosophy believes progress rises from our free decisions.
Choosing the good, what does not harm and hurt, is the foundation of love
on this planet. This ethic is inherent and universal.

Triadic philosophy moves beyond existing binary understandings. Among the
revolutionary aspects of Triadic Philosophy is its rejection of most
accepted dualisms. Either because they are merely half of what might be
twue if seen whole or because they arbitrarily divide and sow confusion and
conflict.

3

Triadic Philosophy accepts the premises of continuity. It is influenced by
Charles Sanders Peirce for whom continuity was the basic law of existence.
It includes insights related to continuity from all philosophies and
traditions.

Triadic philosophy accepts the implications of quantum understanding. The
observer has emerged as the link between ourselves and the universe.
Quantum understanding evolves and is incomplete but it seems in accord with
basic triadic understanding.

Triadic philosophy accepts semiotics and signs as the best description of
the universe that is accessible to us. Semiotics, like quantum thinking,
rises up to suggest the underpinnings of a new basis for thinking and doing
on our planet. Triadic philosophy is based on thinking that depends on
nothing but the iconoclastic premises that form the subtext and implicit
truth of the prophetic heritage of religions which are presently giving way
to a necessary move toward universal spirituality.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose

-
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] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

 https://twitter.com/stephencrose/status/1011282261528936449

This will get you to a just posted video that basically suggests that
science's current project of reducing quantum understanding to the limits
of the Copenhagen understanding is doomed longterm.

It seems to me Peirce long ago perceived quantum along with a lot of other
things. All with practical outcomes.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy and Pragmaticism

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Stephen, List:

Thanks for the reminder.  Was there something specific that prompted you to
post it at this time?  Do you think that some of us are guilty of failing
to maintain that distinction in some of our own posts?

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen C. Rose  wrote:

> The following is from the valuable CP an online PDF that contains eight
> sections of the voluminous writings of Charles Sanders Peirce. In these
> very words you will find the germ of a philosophy that I found more than
> helpful for us all as we face the future.
>
> First the Pragmatic Maxim:
>
> 'The exact wording of the English enunciation, (changing only the first
> person into the second,) was: "Consider what effects that might conceivably
> have practical bearings you conceive the object of your conception to
> have. Then your conception of those effects is the WHOLE of your conception
> of the object." '
>
> Then the reasoning: "It will serve to show that almost every proposition
> of ontological metaphysics is either meaningless gibberish,—one word being
> defined by other words, and they by still others, without any real
> conception ever being reached,—or else is downright absurd; so that all
> such rubbish being swept away, what will remain of philosophy will be a
> series of problems capable of investigation by the observational methods of
> the true sciences,—the truth about which can be reached without those
> interminable misunderstandings and disputes which have made the highest of
> the positive sciences a mere amusement for idle intellects, a sort of
> chess,—idle pleasure its purpose, and reading out of a book its method. In
> this regard, pragmaticism is a species of prope-positivism. But what
> distinguishes it from other species is, first, its retention of a purified
> philosophy; secondly, its full acceptance of the main body of our
> instinctive beliefs; and thirdly, its strenuous insistence upon the truth
> of scholastic realism, (or a close approximation to that, wellstated by the
> late Dr. Francis Ellingwood Abbot in the Introduction to his Scientific
> Theism). So, instead of merely jeering at metaphysics, like other
> prope-positivists, whether by long drawn-out parodies or otherwise, the
> pragmaticist extracts from it a precious essence, which will serve to give
> life and light to cosmology and physics. At the same time, the moral
> applications of the doctrine are positive and potent; and there are many
> other uses of it not easily classed. On another occasion, instances may be
> given to show that it really has these effects."
>
> This is a Peirce salvo at those who fail to note that he is no friend of
> pragmatism, but rather the originator of what he came to call pragmaticism
> and that distinction is explicit in the words you have just read.
> 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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy and Pragmaticism

[Stephen C. Rose]

The following is from the valuable CP an online PDF that contains eight
sections of the voluminous writings of Charles Sanders Peirce. In these
very words you will find the germ of a philosophy that I found more than
helpful for us all as we face the future.

First the Pragmatic Maxim:

'The exact wording of the English enunciation, (changing only the first
person into the second,) was: "Consider what effects that might conceivably
have practical bearings you conceive the object of your conception to have.
Then your conception of those effects is the WHOLE of your conception of
the object." '

Then the reasoning: "It will serve to show that almost every proposition of
ontological metaphysics is either meaningless gibberish,—one word being
defined by other words, and they by still others, without any real
conception ever being reached,—or else is downright absurd; so that all
such rubbish being swept away, what will remain of philosophy will be a
series of problems capable of investigation by the observational methods of
the true sciences,—the truth about which can be reached without those
interminable misunderstandings and disputes which have made the highest of
the positive sciences a mere amusement for idle intellects, a sort of
chess,—idle pleasure its purpose, and reading out of a book its method. In
this regard, pragmaticism is a species of prope-positivism. But what
distinguishes it from other species is, first, its retention of a purified
philosophy; secondly, its full acceptance of the main body of our
instinctive beliefs; and thirdly, its strenuous insistence upon the truth
of scholastic realism, (or a close approximation to that, wellstated by the
late Dr. Francis Ellingwood Abbot in the Introduction to his Scientific
Theism). So, instead of merely jeering at metaphysics, like other
prope-positivists, whether by long drawn-out parodies or otherwise, the
pragmaticist extracts from it a precious essence, which will serve to give
life and light to cosmology and physics. At the same time, the moral
applications of the doctrine are positive and potent; and there are many
other uses of it not easily classed. On another occasion, instances may be
given to show that it really has these effects."

This is a Peirce salvo at those who fail to note that he is no friend of
pragmatism, but rather the originator of what he came to call pragmaticism
and that distinction is explicit in the words you have just read.
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

From BOUQUET.

Forgiveness is daisies uncountable. Forgiveness only
comes forth when you ask. We are forgiven as we do
forgive.  Daisies abound at last.

2

Forgiveness is petals so gentle you will cry.
Forgiveness is a view to grace your eye.
Forgiveness freedom falling from the sky.

3

Cancel my debts. I cancel all owed me.
These words once spoken by the sea.
Repeated they can serve to set us free.

4

Forgive the wrongs that we have done.
As we forgive those who do wrong.
That is the way freedom is won.

5

The first flower in the first bouquet!
It bodes universal way. It takes some
practice to forgive. But by this
practice all should live.

6

I picked a daisy as a child. I built a
marvelous bouquet. My days have been both
calm and wild. Still I live in that flower’s sway.

7

And I know one thing, one thing more.
If you desire to reach that shore.
Minus forgiveness, there’s no way.

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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Anny Ballardini]

I think this is a wonderful bouquet. Hopefully also the others will appreciate 
it.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose  wrote:
> 
> This is the intro to an attempt to articulate what I have been working on. It 
> is clearly not germane but Gary kindly offered me a nest in this forum where 
> what I did would a place to be.
> 
> BOUQUET
> 
> My Philosophy
> 
> INTRODUCTION
> 
> This bouquet is just a cluster among many. Most of those who have life have 
> good will. We all make our bouquets. I offer this to you as my philosophy, by 
> which I mean the sharing of a discipline you might like. I style it as 
> growing things. We are all meant to grow. From free but callow to free and 
> wise. From lost in self to found in Abba. Yes, Abba’s my companion. Just as 
> Jesus had him also as a friend. Someone to talk to day by day. You can as 
> well. It’s in the Prayer that Jesus taught. I give you this bouquet. Be 
> gentle with its flowers. They’re alive.
> 
> +
> 
> If a philosophy that seeks to be universal does not include the terms below, 
> I deem it incomplete. The hard truth underlying these contents:
> 
> One FORGIVENESS Daisies. Two LOGIC Wheat.  Three Triadic Snowdrop. Four Will 
> Sweet Violet. Five Reason Five Spot. Six Conscience Celandine. Seven Values 
> Sage. Eight Consciousness Wild Rose. Nine Heart Golden Yarrow. Ten Mind 
> Gorse. 11 Thought   Ground Ivy. 12 Reality Rose Angel.  13 Ethics Witch 
> Hazel. 14 Tolerance Foxglove. 15 Helpfulness Elm.   16 Democracy Hazel 
> Catkins. 17 Non-idolatry Bluebells. 18 Aesthetics Jacob’s Ladder. 19 TRUTH 
> Drummond Phlox. 20 BEAUTY Coltsfoot. 21 Evil Clasping Cone. 22 Action Morning 
> Glory. 23 Expression Corn Flowers.  24 JUSTICE Baby Blue Eyes. 25 LOVE 
> Butterbur. 26 FREEDOM Iceland Poppy. 27 GOOD Alder.   
> 
> CAPS = Ontological U = Triad (Also Ontological) The rest are essential terms 
> and utilities. 
>  
> 
> -
> 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] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

*This is the intro to an attempt to articulate what I have been working on.
It is clearly not germane but Gary kindly offered me a nest in this forum
where what I did would a place to be.*

*BOUQUET*

*My Philosophy*

*INTRODUCTION*

*This bouquet is just a cluster among many. Most of those who have life
have good will. We all make our bouquets. I offer this to you as my
philosophy, by which I mean the sharing of a discipline you might like. I
style it as growing things. We are all meant to grow. From free but callow
to free and wise. From lost in self to found in Abba. Yes, Abba’s my
companion. Just as Jesus had him also as a friend. Someone to talk to day
by day. You can as well. It’s in the Prayer that Jesus taught. I give you
this bouquet. Be gentle with its flowers. They’re alive.*

*+*

*If a philosophy that seeks to be universal does not include the terms
below, I deem it incomplete. The hard truth underlying these contents:*

*One FORGIVENESS Daisies. Two LOGIC Wheat.  Three Triadic Snowdrop. Four
Will Sweet Violet. Five Reason Five Spot. Six Conscience Celandine. Seven
Values Sage. Eight Consciousness Wild Rose. Nine Heart Golden Yarrow. Ten
Mind Gorse. 11 Thought   Ground Ivy. 12 Reality Rose Angel.  13 Ethics
Witch Hazel. 14 Tolerance Foxglove. 15 Helpfulness Elm.   16 Democracy
Hazel Catkins. 17 Non-idolatry Bluebells. 18 Aesthetics Jacob’s Ladder. 19
TRUTH Drummond Phlox. 20 BEAUTY Coltsfoot. 21 Evil Clasping Cone. 22 Action
Morning Glory. 23 Expression Corn Flowers.  24 JUSTICE Baby Blue Eyes. 25
LOVE Butterbur. 26 FREEDOM Iceland Poppy. 27 GOOD Alder.   *
*CAPS = Ontological U = Triad (Also Ontological) The rest are essential
terms and utilities. *

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Works in All Contexts

[kirstima]

Stephen,

I very good & most relevant quote you provided.
Kirsti

Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 3.7.2016 15:00:

The reasoning of Triadic Philosophy works in all contexts. This is a
remarkable claim in a world where the barriers between disciplines
grow higher and it is hard to have discussions because their languages
and usages differ.

But the power of Triadic Philosophy is precisely due to the
universality of its basic terminology. Reality. Ethics. Aesthetics.
Tolerance. Helpfulness, Democracy, Non-idolatry. Truth, Beauty,
Expression. Action. There is no way that these terms with their
definitions cannot vault over any barrier on the planet. And there is
every reason to accept the argument that they work together to achieve
progress.

Reality is whatever comes up. Ethics is the universal values
Tolerance, Helpfulness and Democracy and the root value Non-idolatry.
Truth and Beauty are the aims of the exercise. And what you decide to
say and do are the Expression and Action that may emerge from this
triadic exercise. Reality is the issue or matter. Ethics is what rises
up to challenge it. The result is what leads to some
determination — a statement or act or both.

This will not lead you to a cure for cancer or a budget for your bus
company but it is a context for advancing you as you wish through life
and through your life work.

If you are spiritual there is a counsel to engage in a daily exercise
that centers on forgiveness and being forgiven.

This is a simple, universal mode that can revolutionize life on the
planet in the direction of security for all. There is no context in
which it is not relevant.

PEIRCE: CP 2.4 CROSS-REF:††

_4. … Such help _[a theory of reasoning]_ is rather to be expected
in extraordinary and unusual problems — especially in those of a
speculative character, where conclusions are not readily checked by
experience, and where our instinctive reasoning power begins to lose
its self-confidence; as when we question what we ought to think about
psychical research,†3 about the Gospels, about difficult questions
of political economy,†4 about the constitution of matter;†5 or
when we inquire by what methods we can most speedily advance our
knowledge of such matters._



-
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] Triadic Philosophy Works in All Contexts

[Stephen C. Rose]

The reasoning of Triadic Philosophy works in all contexts. This is a
remarkable claim in a world where the barriers between disciplines grow
higher and it is hard to have discussions because their languages and
usages differ.

But the power of Triadic Philosophy is precisely due to the universality of
its basic terminology. Reality. Ethics. Aesthetics. Tolerance. Helpfulness,
Democracy, Non-idolatry. Truth, Beauty, Expression. Action. There is no way
that these terms with their definitions cannot vault over any barrier on
the planet. And there is every reason to accept the argument that they work
together to achieve progress.

Reality is whatever comes up. Ethics is the universal values Tolerance,
Helpfulness and Democracy and the root value Non-idolatry. Truth and Beauty
are the aims of the exercise. And what you decide to say and do are the
Expression and Action that may emerge from this triadic exercise. Reality
is the issue or matter. Ethics is what rises up to challenge it. The result
is what leads to some determination — a statement or act or both.

This will not lead you to a cure for cancer or a budget for your bus
company but it is a context for advancing you as you wish through life and
through your life work.

If you are spiritual there is a counsel to engage in a daily exercise that
centers on forgiveness and being forgiven.

This is a simple, universal mode that can revolutionize life on the planet
in the direction of security for all. There is no context in which it is
not relevant.
Peirce: CP 2.4 Cross-Ref:††

*4. … Such help *[a theory of reasoning]* is rather to be expected in
extraordinary and unusual problems — especially in those of a speculative
character, where conclusions are not readily checked by experience, and
where our instinctive reasoning power begins to lose its self-confidence;
as when we question what we ought to think about psychical research,†3
about the Gospels, about difficult questions of political economy,†4 about
the constitution of matter;†5 or when we inquire by what methods we can
most speedily advance our knowledge of such matters.*

-
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] Triadic Philosophy -- Thinking is an Adventure

[Stephen C. Rose]

Well with the happy advent of a trickle of light on the matter of the
academic captivity of philosophy I thought I would add this note from my
continuing Medium series Logic is Good

I have images of Peirce derived mainly from my own memories. Oh yes, there
is the Brent biography, useful to me because it is really the ONLY
biography we have. We have innumerable papers and scholarly works, some of
which reveal sparks of brilliance. But of the man, well we have Joseph
Brent and that is that.

Now Brent wanted us to wrestle with the dandy in Peirce. Dandy is an
unfortunate word because it makes light of immaturity. Immaturity is an
unwillingness to sacrifice at the altars of growth and adulthood. It is a
resolution to remain who who one was. It is a seed of freedom. It is also
predictable doom. It’s a choice we make.

Like the choice to avoid cliques.

Or not to fight.

Like ambivalence regarding words like money, sex and success.

Or a lifetime following one’s own ambient lights.

Peirce ended up substantially homeless at times, trolling the streets of
Manhattan with scraps to eat stolen from the Century Club.

He was inclined when he could to spend money with massive prodigality. His
logic was not always very good.

There were external reasons.

Harvard, Peirce’s very bosom, rejected him. Treated him as anathema.

Peirce spent a lifetime in a government agency measuring things and no more
than a few years of seven decades actually teaching and mentoring. His
students and auditors included Dewey, Veblen and Royce. He almost copped a
spot at Johns Hopkins. But got deep-sixed.

He married a woman who turned feminist immediately and rightly had no
interest in being tied forever to someone who was in many respects
unavailable. And incorrigible. Tact was not a strong suit and he may have
done things that would skewer him in today’s social media court.

He ended up happily wed to a gypsy lady no-one knew about.

I say these things not to defend Peirce but to explain how fortunate we are
that things turned out as they did.

Veblen and Dewey and Royce did everything (mostly) right, evidencing
maturity. (Veblen maybe not so much.)

All of them have left us a body of work that nobody reads.

Dewey has a scintilla of influence.

Veblen is the most comic writer since the Bard but is rarely remembered.

And Royce?

Peirce’s successors spend their lives trying to make sense of the massive
and messy trove that he left. Peirce smiles. There is now a Peirce echo
chamber. There are now forums, societies, and other meta factories.

The following reminds us of what Peirce knew as a practitioner of
immaturity.
Thinking is an adventure.Peirce: CP 2.80 Cross-Ref:††

*80. That a reader should deliberately seek instruction from a treatise on
logic is a proof that he has already made certain observations and
reflections, and has acquired certain conceptions. I propose, at the
outset, to invite the reader to give one more reconsideration, perhaps a
little more deliberate than he has hitherto given, to these Pre-logical
Ideas, in order to see how far they are well grounded, and in order to
develope them perhaps a little more and penetrate to their real
significance, as far as this can be done at this stage of the inquiry.*

-
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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[John Collier]

Yes. We’ve discussed this before here. We disagree on the usefulness of 
phenomenology and hermeneutics for dealing with the problem. I also think that 
he informational approach by itself is insufficient. I think we need to 
understand the dynamics involved as well as using a semiotic perspective to 
explain why the problem seems intractable. Nut I don’t have the time to go into 
this here and now.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Rsearcch Associate, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 December 2015 4:33 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Dear John

I agree on the irreducibility of the sign triad. My main point is that we do 
not from the material, energetic or the informational ontology worldview have 
any idea of how it could emerge from that foundation. It only works from 
Peirce’s foundation. That is the geniality of what he created – in my view. 
Everyone who wants to use his concepts has to use his philosophical foundation 
or create a better one. And the so called scientific ones that does not 
integrate phenomenological and hermeneutic views are not able to do the job. 
The informational and the info-computational do not.

   Søren

Fra: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sendt: 30. december 2015 11:01
Til: Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Emne: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Søren,

I have argued for some time that if Peircean thirds are irreducible they must 
be emergent. I see no reason to doubt that. I think that Deacon’s views are 
reductionist in some respects, though he is changing that slowly (he quotes me 
on information in his second book, for example, but I don’t think he absorbed 
the significance of the quote). I believe that information is fundamental, and 
that it is physical, but that is not a materialist view.

I don’t see Stjernfelt the same way as you do. He doesn’t talk about 
self-organization or emergence directly, but he does think that thirds are 
irreducible. His arguments about the centrality of dicisigns don’t make a lot 
of sense otherwise. But perhaps he is a more cryptic version of Marcello 
Barbieri. I doubt that, though.

Marcello is indeed very much upfront that he doesn’t see Piece as scientific. I 
have argued that his views imply anti-reductionism, however, in spite of 
himself. He denies that. Howard Pattee disappointed Marcello when he said he 
took a basically antireductionist view on meaning. My views are similar to 
Howard’s but I don’t like his epistemic and other cuts. I see the problem they 
are supposed to address; I don’t think they are a solution. Even if you take a 
non-materialist view (idealist or neutral) there is still a problem of how 
local consciousness emerges. But I think that from our previous discussions we 
might disagree about that last point.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:50 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

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

SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[Søren Brier]

Dear John

That is a pity, because for me this is such a central question, which so many 
with a background in the science or logic and mathematical philosophy avoids to 
deal with. That maybe why I have so few suggestions to improve my attempt in 
Cybersemiotics.  I would really like to have papers on this to Cybernetics & 
Human Knowing. A special issue if there are several that want to attempt this 
difficult area.

Best
Søren

Fra: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sendt: 30. december 2015 19:09
Til: Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Emne: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Yes. We’ve discussed this before here. We disagree on the usefulness of 
phenomenology and hermeneutics for dealing with the problem. I also think that 
he informational approach by itself is insufficient. I think we need to 
understand the dynamics involved as well as using a semiotic perspective to 
explain why the problem seems intractable. Nut I don’t have the time to go into 
this here and now.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Rsearcch Associate, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 December 2015 4:33 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Dear John

I agree on the irreducibility of the sign triad. My main point is that we do 
not from the material, energetic or the informational ontology worldview have 
any idea of how it could emerge from that foundation. It only works from 
Peirce’s foundation. That is the geniality of what he created – in my view. 
Everyone who wants to use his concepts has to use his philosophical foundation 
or create a better one. And the so called scientific ones that does not 
integrate phenomenological and hermeneutic views are not able to do the job. 
The informational and the info-computational do not.

   Søren

Fra: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sendt: 30. december 2015 11:01
Til: Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Emne: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Søren,

I have argued for some time that if Peircean thirds are irreducible they must 
be emergent. I see no reason to doubt that. I think that Deacon’s views are 
reductionist in some respects, though he is changing that slowly (he quotes me 
on information in his second book, for example, but I don’t think he absorbed 
the significance of the quote). I believe that information is fundamental, and 
that it is physical, but that is not a materialist view.

I don’t see Stjernfelt the same way as you do. He doesn’t talk about 
self-organization or emergence directly, but he does think that thirds are 
irreducible. His arguments about the centrality of dicisigns don’t make a lot 
of sense otherwise. But perhaps he is a more cryptic version of Marcello 
Barbieri. I doubt that, though.

Marcello is indeed very much upfront that he doesn’t see Piece as scientific. I 
have argued that his views imply anti-reductionism, however, in spite of 
himself. He denies that. Howard Pattee disappointed Marcello when he said he 
took a basically antireductionist view on meaning. My views are similar to 
Howard’s but I don’t like his epistemic and other cuts. I see the problem they 
are supposed to address; I don’t think they are a solution. Even if you take a 
non-materialist view (idealist or neutral) there is still a problem of how 
local consciousness emerges. But I think that from our previous discussions we 
might disagree about that last point.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:50 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

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, comb

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[John Collier]

That would be a good focus for an issue. I do think that Peirce has a lot to 
say about it. I have argued this with David Chalmers, and he was somewhat 
sympathetic. But I think my approach is rather different from yours. Perhaps a 
focussed issue on consciousness and the failings of reductionist and 
information based approaches as a starting point might be a very good idea.  I 
do think we have significant areas of agreement. Disagreements trend to get 
amplified in this sort of exchange. Peirce himself seems ot have thought that 
idealism is the answer. Again, I don’t think it really helps, but there are 
eleemtns of Peirce that I htrink are promising.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 December 2015 8:23 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Dear John

That is a pity, because for me this is such a central question, which so many 
with a background in the science or logic and mathematical philosophy avoids to 
deal with. That maybe why I have so few suggestions to improve my attempt in 
Cybersemiotics.  I would really like to have papers on this to Cybernetics & 
Human Knowing. A special issue if there are several that want to attempt this 
difficult area.

Best
Søren

Fra: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sendt: 30. december 2015 19:09
Til: Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Emne: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Yes. We’ve discussed this before here. We disagree on the usefulness of 
phenomenology and hermeneutics for dealing with the problem. I also think that 
he informational approach by itself is insufficient. I think we need to 
understand the dynamics involved as well as using a semiotic perspective to 
explain why the problem seems intractable. Nut I don’t have the time to go into 
this here and now.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Rsearcch Associate, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 December 2015 4:33 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Dear John

I agree on the irreducibility of the sign triad. My main point is that we do 
not from the material, energetic or the informational ontology worldview have 
any idea of how it could emerge from that foundation. It only works from 
Peirce’s foundation. That is the geniality of what he created – in my view. 
Everyone who wants to use his concepts has to use his philosophical foundation 
or create a better one. And the so called scientific ones that does not 
integrate phenomenological and hermeneutic views are not able to do the job. 
The informational and the info-computational do not.

   Søren

Fra: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sendt: 30. december 2015 11:01
Til: Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Emne: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Søren,

I have argued for some time that if Peircean thirds are irreducible they must 
be emergent. I see no reason to doubt that. I think that Deacon’s views are 
reductionist in some respects, though he is changing that slowly (he quotes me 
on information in his second book, for example, but I don’t think he absorbed 
the significance of the quote). I believe that information is fundamental, and 
that it is physical, but that is not a materialist view.

I don’t see Stjernfelt the same way as you do. He doesn’t talk about 
self-organization or emergence directly, but he does think that thirds are 
irreducible. His arguments about the centrality of dicisigns don’t make a lot 
of sense otherwise. But perhaps he is a more cryptic version of Marcello 
Barbieri. I doubt that, though.

Marcello is indeed very much upfront that he doesn’t see Piece as scientific. I 
have argued that his views imply anti-reductionism, however, in spite of 
himself. He denies that. Howard Pattee disappointed Marcello when he said he 
took a basically antireductionist view on meaning. My views are similar to 
Howard’s but I don’t like his epistemic and other cuts. I see the problem they 
are supposed to address; I don’t think they are a solution. Even if you take a 
non-materialist view (idealist or neutral) there is still a problem of how 
local consciousness emerges. But I think that from our previous discussions we 
might disagree about that last point.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:50 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

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 c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[Stephen C. Rose]

One of my reasons for more or less backing off from the list is because it
is exclusively concerned with Peirce. I see him as a great fountain of
wisdom which is actually fueling a triadic revolution which happens because
it reflects truth which he perceived. But that is well beyond the precincts
of Peirce scholarship I sense. I merrily note Peirce is a mentor to this
millennium and vigorously deny that my appropriations can in the least be
tied to his intense concerns with categories and  and scientific matters,
and so forth. If I do any hermeneutics at all it is with Biblical matters
with which I have some familiarity. But it is a losing game. I must assume
that even if one has a proper hermeneutic he or she is toast in the world
we live in. So the alternative is to say what you think any way it makes
sense and hope that you connect some way some how.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:43 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

> That would be a good focus for an issue. I do think that Peirce has a lot
> to say about it. I have argued this with David Chalmers, and he was
> somewhat sympathetic. But I think my approach is rather different from
> yours. Perhaps a focussed issue on consciousness and the failings of
> reductionist and information based approaches as a starting point might be
> a very good idea.  I do think we have significant areas of agreement.
> Disagreements trend to get amplified in this sort of exchange. Peirce
> himself seems ot have thought that idealism is the answer. Again, I don’t
> think it really helps, but there are eleemtns of Peirce that I htrink are
> promising.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus, UKZN
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 30 December 2015 8:23 PM
>
> *To:* John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
> *Subject:* SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign
>
>
>
> Dear John
>
>
>
> That is a pity, because for me this is such a central question, which so
> many with a background in the science or logic and mathematical philosophy
> avoids to deal with. That maybe why I have so few suggestions to improve my
> attempt in Cybersemiotics.  I would really like to have papers on this to
> Cybernetics & Human Knowing. A special issue if there are several that want
> to attempt this difficult area.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Søren
>
>
>
> *Fra:* John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>]
> *Sendt:* 30. december 2015 19:09
> *Til:* Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
> *Emne:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign
>
>
>
> Yes. We’ve discussed this before here. We disagree on the usefulness of
> phenomenology and hermeneutics for dealing with the problem. I also think
> that he informational approach by itself is insufficient. I think we need
> to understand the dynamics involved as well as using a semiotic perspective
> to explain why the problem seems intractable. Nut I don’t have the time to
> go into this here and now.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Rsearcch Associate, UKZN
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk <sb@cbs.dk>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 30 December 2015 4:33 PM
> *To:* John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
> *Subject:* SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign
>
>
>
> Dear John
>
>
>
> I agree on the irreducibility of the sign triad. My main point is that we
> do not from the material, energetic or the informational ontology worldview
> have any idea of how it could emerge from that foundation. It only works
> from Peirce’s foundation. That is the geniality of what he created – in my
> view. Everyone who wants to use his concepts has to use his philosophical
> foundation or create a better one. And the so called scientific ones that
> does not integrate phenomenological and hermeneutic views are not able to
> do the job. The informational and the info-computational do not.
>
>
>
>Søren
>
>
>
> *Fra:* John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>]
> *Sendt:* 30. december 2015 11:01
> *Til:* Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
> *Emne:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign
>
>
>
> Søren,
>
>
>
> I have argued for some time that if Peircean thirds are irreducible they
> must be emergent. I see no reason to doubt that. I think that Deacon’s
> views are reductionist in some respects, though he is changing that slowly
> (he quotes me on information in his second book, for ex

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[John Collier]

Søren,

I have argued for some time that if Peircean thirds are irreducible they must 
be emergent. I see no reason to doubt that. I think that Deacon’s views are 
reductionist in some respects, though he is changing that slowly (he quotes me 
on information in his second book, for example, but I don’t think he absorbed 
the significance of the quote). I believe that information is fundamental, and 
that it is physical, but that is not a materialist view.

I don’t see Stjernfelt the same way as you do. He doesn’t talk about 
self-organization or emergence directly, but he does think that thirds are 
irreducible. His arguments about the centrality of dicisigns don’t make a lot 
of sense otherwise. But perhaps he is a more cryptic version of Marcello 
Barbieri. I doubt that, though.

Marcello is indeed very much upfront that he doesn’t see Piece as scientific. I 
have argued that his views imply anti-reductionism, however, in spite of 
himself. He denies that. Howard Pattee disappointed Marcello when he said he 
took a basically antireductionist view on meaning. My views are similar to 
Howard’s but I don’t like his epistemic and other cuts. I see the problem they 
are supposed to address; I don’t think they are a solution. Even if you take a 
non-materialist view (idealist or neutral) there is still a problem of how 
local consciousness emerges. But I think that from our previous discussions we 
might disagree about that last point.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:50 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

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]
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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[Stephen C. Rose]

Just a side note. In the evolving thought of Triadic Philosophy there has
always been a designation of the Third as action or expression. Action we
can easily see as whatever we do physically or otherwise that we could call
a true act. Expression reflects my sense that there is little difference
between a statement, a writing a bit of information and an act. You make an
expression. It involves intent and movement. It is obvious that the growing
power of social movements is somewhat related to this line of thought. Even
the consumption of the news which are signs that certainly produce action
in on the five or six SM nodes that dominate is related. In my view words
and the information they convey are the means by which we can more toward a
democratic revolution worldwide  based to some extent on the power of
messaging. Of course Peirce mentioned memorial maxims which might be
synonymized as a remembered tweet. This is possibly why I have sent most of
the last three years building slowly on Twitter.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:01 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

> Søren,
>
>
>
> I have argued for some time that if Peircean thirds are irreducible they
> must be emergent. I see no reason to doubt that. I think that Deacon’s
> views are reductionist in some respects, though he is changing that slowly
> (he quotes me on information in his second book, for example, but I don’t
> think he absorbed the significance of the quote). I believe that
> information is fundamental, and that it is physical, but that is not a
> materialist view.
>
>
>
> I don’t see Stjernfelt the same way as you do. He doesn’t talk about
> self-organization or emergence directly, but he does think that thirds are
> irreducible. His arguments about the centrality of dicisigns don’t make a
> lot of sense otherwise. But perhaps he is a more cryptic version of
> Marcello Barbieri. I doubt that, though.
>
>
>
> Marcello is indeed very much upfront that he doesn’t see Piece as
> scientific. I have argued that his views imply anti-reductionism, however,
> in spite of himself. He denies that. Howard Pattee disappointed Marcello
> when he said he took a basically antireductionist view on meaning. My views
> are similar to Howard’s but I don’t like his epistemic and other cuts. I
> see the problem they are supposed to address; I don’t think they are a
> solution. Even if you take a non-materialist view (idealist or neutral)
> there is still a problem of how local consciousness emerges. But I think
> that from our previous discussions we might disagree about that last point.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus, UKZN
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Søren Brier [mailto:sb....@cbs.dk]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:50 PM
> *To:* John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
> *Subject:* SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
&g

SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[Søren Brier]

Dear John

I agree on the irreducibility of the sign triad. My main point is that we do 
not from the material, energetic or the informational ontology worldview have 
any idea of how it could emerge from that foundation. It only works from 
Peirce’s foundation. That is the geniality of what he created – in my view. 
Everyone who wants to use his concepts has to use his philosophical foundation 
or create a better one. And the so called scientific ones that does not 
integrate phenomenological and hermeneutic views are not able to do the job. 
The informational and the info-computational do not.

   Søren

Fra: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sendt: 30. december 2015 11:01
Til: Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Emne: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

Søren,

I have argued for some time that if Peircean thirds are irreducible they must 
be emergent. I see no reason to doubt that. I think that Deacon’s views are 
reductionist in some respects, though he is changing that slowly (he quotes me 
on information in his second book, for example, but I don’t think he absorbed 
the significance of the quote). I believe that information is fundamental, and 
that it is physical, but that is not a materialist view.

I don’t see Stjernfelt the same way as you do. He doesn’t talk about 
self-organization or emergence directly, but he does think that thirds are 
irreducible. His arguments about the centrality of dicisigns don’t make a lot 
of sense otherwise. But perhaps he is a more cryptic version of Marcello 
Barbieri. I doubt that, though.

Marcello is indeed very much upfront that he doesn’t see Piece as scientific. I 
have argued that his views imply anti-reductionism, however, in spite of 
himself. He denies that. Howard Pattee disappointed Marcello when he said he 
took a basically antireductionist view on meaning. My views are similar to 
Howard’s but I don’t like his epistemic and other cuts. I see the problem they 
are supposed to address; I don’t think they are a solution. Even if you take a 
non-materialist view (idealist or neutral) there is still a problem of how 
local consciousness emerges. But I think that from our previous discussions we 
might disagree about that last point.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:50 PM
To: John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
Subject: SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[Stephen C. Rose]

My notion of how it emerges is to integrate Peirce's thought about musement
and maxims into the mix and to infer that it would indeed lead to a form of
living and discipline that actually enabled conscious triadic thought. The
triad would be sign-icon-first; index second; and symbol aka expression or
action third. Ultimately the geniality of Peirce lies in his frequent
asides that somewhat coyly suggest that should reality actually be this way
so and so might be accepted. He dances at the edge of his greatest
discovery.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Søren Brier <sb@cbs.dk> wrote:

> Dear John
>
>
>
> I agree on the irreducibility of the sign triad. My main point is that we
> do not from the material, energetic or the informational ontology worldview
> have any idea of how it could emerge from that foundation. It only works
> from Peirce’s foundation. That is the geniality of what he created – in my
> view. Everyone who wants to use his concepts has to use his philosophical
> foundation or create a better one. And the so called scientific ones that
> does not integrate phenomenological and hermeneutic views are not able to
> do the job. The informational and the info-computational do not.
>
>
>
>Søren
>
>
>
> *Fra:* John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
> *Sendt:* 30. december 2015 11:01
> *Til:* Søren Brier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
>
> *Emne:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign
>
>
>
> Søren,
>
>
>
> I have argued for some time that if Peircean thirds are irreducible they
> must be emergent. I see no reason to doubt that. I think that Deacon’s
> views are reductionist in some respects, though he is changing that slowly
> (he quotes me on information in his second book, for example, but I don’t
> think he absorbed the significance of the quote). I believe that
> information is fundamental, and that it is physical, but that is not a
> materialist view.
>
>
>
> I don’t see Stjernfelt the same way as you do. He doesn’t talk about
> self-organization or emergence directly, but he does think that thirds are
> irreducible. His arguments about the centrality of dicisigns don’t make a
> lot of sense otherwise. But perhaps he is a more cryptic version of
> Marcello Barbieri. I doubt that, though.
>
>
>
> Marcello is indeed very much upfront that he doesn’t see Piece as
> scientific. I have argued that his views imply anti-reductionism, however,
> in spite of himself. He denies that. Howard Pattee disappointed Marcello
> when he said he took a basically antireductionist view on meaning. My views
> are similar to Howard’s but I don’t like his epistemic and other cuts. I
> see the problem they are supposed to address; I don’t think they are a
> solution. Even if you take a non-materialist view (idealist or neutral)
> there is still a problem of how local consciousness emerges. But I think
> that from our previous discussions we might disagree about that last point.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus, UKZN
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Søren Brier [mailto:sb@cbs.dk <sb@cbs.dk>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:50 PM
> *To:* John Collier; Stephen C. Rose; Peirce List
> *Subject:* SV: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign
>
>
>
> 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 semi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[Stephen C. Rose]

Thanks John. Your mention of Deacon is pleasing because I have admired his
work. The dicsign business I see as a sort of look under the hood and
saying hey this works and what makes it work is this thingy over here. My
work with Peirce suggests that he too agonized over the entirety of what he
was thinking but never fleshed out the most general and seismic
implications, probably for fear of being skewered even more than he was.
Reality is all is an immense affirmation which if true creates a triadic
world.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:13 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

> 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]
> *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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Sign

[Stephen C. Rose]

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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim

[Anny Ballardini]

Very interesting explorations by Stephen Rose and Stephen Jarosek.

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
wrote:

  [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview Stephen Jarosek (
 sjaro...@iinet.net.au) is not on your Guest List
 https://www.boxbe.com/approved-list?tc_serial=21175933371tc_rand=1505606490utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_MWTPutm_content=001token=bY0uJowjEdW1m69l84ongrr5uGk4rUiaxbmbwwBESTsJa1hO58qzjj6rb7fSkfsekey=eN5gwYo5a5%2FJYwwmlfDafVfnqfE2EPHn7rpFZrij8zA%3D
 | Approve sender
 https://www.boxbe.com/anno?tc_serial=21175933371tc_rand=1505606490utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_MWTPutm_content=001token=bY0uJowjEdW1m69l84ongrr5uGk4rUiaxbmbwwBESTsJa1hO58qzjj6rb7fSkfsekey=eN5gwYo5a5%2FJYwwmlfDafVfnqfE2EPHn7rpFZrij8zA%3D
 | Approve domain
 https://www.boxbe.com/anno?tc_serial=21175933371tc_rand=1505606490utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_MWTPutm_content=001domtoken=bY0uJowjEdW1m69l84ongrr5uGk4rUiaxbmbwwBESTsJa1hO58qzjj6rb7fSkfsekey=eN5gwYo5a5%2FJYwwmlfDafVfnqfE2EPHn7rpFZrij8zA%3D

 Stephen, I have been doing some research recently on Buddhism... while I
 have always respected Buddhism as rational and sensible, as I review it
 from a Peircean angle, it occurs to me that we would do well to try to
 reframe Peirce’s semiotics from a Buddhist perspective or explore Buddhism
 from a Peircean perspective. Consider the implications for pragmatism and
 the relationship between personality and culture... for example, karma as
 an embodiment of that relationship... or “dukkha” with respect to
 “unsatisfactoriness”, neediness, grasping, etc. Desire, association and
 habituation, it’s all there, the three Peircean categories play out in
 Buddhist teachings. In Buddhism, there is so much to feast on for
 semioticians. Consider further, that where traditional Christianity is
 anthropocentric, Buddhism is consistent with biosemiotic principles. In
 Buddhism, there is no anthropocentric devil... but there is karma (culture)
 as nature’s way of exacting reward or punishment, heaven or hell. sj



 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 April 2015 11:48 AM
 *To:* Peirce List
 *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim



 Jesus was 2000 years ahead of Peirce



 What is the pragmatic maxim but

 the statement that by our fruits

 we are known



 Jesus was 2000 years ahead of what

 Peirce insisted was the means of

 knowing things

 called scientific method



 How so



 By showing the utility of sharing

 and measuring the results

 down to the last scrap



 By synching his will to the

 will of the sick

 and achieving measurable results



 But Jesus went beyond

 straight to the heart

 for he knew that

 for change to come

 the heart must be made new

 as his was on the mountain

 when he refused

 the wiles of Satan

 and thereby abolished Satan's rule



 The heart is new when

 it rejects authority



 The heart is new when

 it rejects religious show

 and mumbo jumbo



 The heart is new when

 it can see past hypocrisy



 The heart is new when

 it can say

 no matter what I do

 I shall fail



 Because the contract

 involves all hearts



 And too many hearts

 remain unchanged



 +



 The game is not yet over



 But at least it was defined

 more than 2000 years ago




 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
 .








-- 
Dott.ssa Anny Ballardini, MFA, PhD.

http://annyballardini.blogspot.com/
http://www.fieralingue.it/modules.php?name=poetshome
http://www.lulu.com/content/5806078
http://www.moriapoetry.com/ebooks.html

I Tell You: One must still have chaos in one to give birth to a dancing
star!
Friedrich Nietzsche

« Stulta est clementia, cum tot ubique
vatibus occurras, periturae parcere chartae »
Giovenale

Professionista di cui alla Legge n. 4 del 14 gennaio 2013, pubblicata nella
GU n. 22 del 26/01/2013

Freiberuflerin laut Gesetz Nr. 4 vom 14. Jänner 2013, veröffentlicht im
Amtsblatt Nr. 22 vom 26.1.2013

-
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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim

[Stephen Jarosek]

Stephen, I have been doing some research recently on Buddhism... while I
have always respected Buddhism as rational and sensible, as I review it from
a Peircean angle, it occurs to me that we would do well to try to reframe
Peirce's semiotics from a Buddhist perspective or explore Buddhism from a
Peircean perspective. Consider the implications for pragmatism and the
relationship between personality and culture... for example, karma as an
embodiment of that relationship... or dukkha with respect to
unsatisfactoriness, neediness, grasping, etc. Desire, association and
habituation, it's all there, the three Peircean categories play out in
Buddhist teachings. In Buddhism, there is so much to feast on for
semioticians. Consider further, that where traditional Christianity is
anthropocentric, Buddhism is consistent with biosemiotic principles. In
Buddhism, there is no anthropocentric devil... but there is karma (culture)
as nature's way of exacting reward or punishment, heaven or hell. sj

 

From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 11:48 AM
To: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim

 

Jesus was 2000 years ahead of Peirce

 

What is the pragmatic maxim but

the statement that by our fruits

we are known

 

Jesus was 2000 years ahead of what

Peirce insisted was the means of

knowing things

called scientific method

 

How so

 

By showing the utility of sharing

and measuring the results

down to the last scrap

 

By synching his will to the

will of the sick

and achieving measurable results

 

But Jesus went beyond

straight to the heart

for he knew that

for change to come

the heart must be made new

as his was on the mountain

when he refused

the wiles of Satan

and thereby abolished Satan's rule

 

The heart is new when

it rejects authority

 

The heart is new when 

it rejects religious show

and mumbo jumbo

 

The heart is new when

it can see past hypocrisy

 

The heart is new when

it can say

no matter what I do 

I shall fail

 

Because the contract

involves all hearts

 

And too many hearts

remain unchanged

 

+

 

The game is not yet over

 

But at least it was defined

more than 2000 years ago

 




Books  http://buff.ly/15GfdqU 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim

[Stephen C. Rose]

Hi Stephen...I think you're better schooled than I on these connections. I
think Peirce is relevant universally without being explicitly tied to
anything. When he gets tied it seems folk get involved in telling others
what Peirce meant by this and that. I can imagine what this might be like
to him. I suspect that for all his desire for recognition he saw a downside
to it. Claiming Peirce or even claiming to represent his thought -- well
claiming anyone is a problem. I go by his own skepticism about the
durability of the individual when assumed to be the be and end all. I like
the notions of the East but at the same time I like the lost elements of
Christianity, the ones that got wrung out when creeds became necessary to
regulate gnostic misbehavior and such. The future lies I think with
nonviolence, continuity and fallibility. Peirce got two out of three. As
far as semiotics goes I do not have understanding of it. I think it has to
do with the fact that more than language is involved with communication
which is obvious. I think maybe your perspective is a good pretension
buster. Cheers, S

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
wrote:

 Stephen, I have been doing some research recently on Buddhism... while I
 have always respected Buddhism as rational and sensible, as I review it
 from a Peircean angle, it occurs to me that we would do well to try to
 reframe Peirce's semiotics from a Buddhist perspective or explore Buddhism
 from a Peircean perspective. Consider the implications for pragmatism and
 the relationship between personality and culture... for example, karma as
 an embodiment of that relationship... or dukkha with respect to
 unsatisfactoriness, neediness, grasping, etc. Desire, association and
 habituation, it's all there, the three Peircean categories play out in
 Buddhist teachings. In Buddhism, there is so much to feast on for
 semioticians. Consider further, that where traditional Christianity is
 anthropocentric, Buddhism is consistent with biosemiotic principles. In
 Buddhism, there is no anthropocentric devil... but there is karma (culture)
 as nature's way of exacting reward or punishment, heaven or hell. sj



 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 April 2015 11:48 AM
 *To:* Peirce List
 *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim



 Jesus was 2000 years ahead of Peirce



 What is the pragmatic maxim but

 the statement that by our fruits

 we are known



 Jesus was 2000 years ahead of what

 Peirce insisted was the means of

 knowing things

 called scientific method



 How so



 By showing the utility of sharing

 and measuring the results

 down to the last scrap



 By synching his will to the

 will of the sick

 and achieving measurable results



 But Jesus went beyond

 straight to the heart

 for he knew that

 for change to come

 the heart must be made new

 as his was on the mountain

 when he refused

 the wiles of Satan

 and thereby abolished Satan's rule



 The heart is new when

 it rejects authority



 The heart is new when

 it rejects religious show

 and mumbo jumbo



 The heart is new when

 it can see past hypocrisy



 The heart is new when

 it can say

 no matter what I do

 I shall fail



 Because the contract

 involves all hearts



 And too many hearts

 remain unchanged



 +



 The game is not yet over



 But at least it was defined

 more than 2000 years ago




 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 .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim

[Helmut Raulien]

Dear Stephen, Stephen, List,

Stephen C. Rose, I like your poem very much. I think, that The heart is new means, that it is reconnected to something very old, namely to a universal principle, like the term religion means reconnection. It is also new, because it (the new heart) newly is letting go of some cultural rules or habits- which may be old too, but not as old as the universal principles. These universal principles, eg. justness, may be classified as divine, if and because it is not possible to identify them as habits (like cultural habits), so they seem to be installed (or have been a priori for some other reason) from the very beginning. I tentatively identify them with (mathematical) axioms, such as transitivity, symmetry, and so on. Stephen Jarosek, I think, that karma is based on universal principles too, in this case derived from the axiom transitivity, because karma is often explained as law of cause and effect in Buddhism. And I think, that deduction and efficient cause is based on transitivity. So I do not completely agree to your identification of karma with culture, because culture is mostly meant like habits, and not like something universal- though of course, I think, that there must be some universal principle too in culture, eg. in the nature of communication. Well, the term culture in this context is difficult, because it is more often used to distinguish, not to find similarities between ways of communication in groups of people.

Cheers, Helmut



Gesendet:Mittwoch, 29. April 2015 um 17:47 Uhr
Von:Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
An:Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc:Peirce List Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
Betreff:Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim


Hi Stephen...I think youre better schooled than I on these connections. I think Peirce is relevant universally without being explicitly tied to anything. When he gets tied it seems folk get involved in telling others what Peirce meant by this and that. I can imagine what this might be like to him. I suspect that for all his desire for recognition he saw a downside to it. Claiming Peirce or even claiming to represent his thought -- well claiming anyone is a problem. I go by his own skepticism about the durability of the individual when assumed to be the be and end all. I like the notions of the East but at the same time I like the lost elements of Christianity, the ones that got wrung out when creeds became necessary to regulate gnostic misbehavior and such. The future lies I think with nonviolence, continuity and fallibility. Peirce got two out of three. As far as semiotics goes I do not have understanding of it. I think it has to do with the fact that more than language is involved with communication which is obvious. I think maybe your perspective is a good pretension buster. Cheers, S








Bookshttp://buff.ly/15GfdqUArt:http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl

Gifts:http://buff.ly/1wXADj3








On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote:




Stephen, I have been doing some research recently on Buddhism... while I have always respected Buddhism as rational and sensible, as I review it from a Peircean angle, it occurs to me that we would do well to try to reframe Peirces semiotics from a Buddhist perspective or explore Buddhism from a Peircean perspective. Consider the implications for pragmatism and the relationship between personality and culture... for example, karma as an embodiment of that relationship... or dukkha with respect to unsatisfactoriness, neediness, grasping, etc. Desire, association and habituation, its all there, the three Peircean categories play out in Buddhist teachings. In Buddhism, there is so much to feast on for semioticians. Consider further, that where traditional Christianity is anthropocentric, Buddhism is consistent with biosemiotic principles. In Buddhism, there is no anthropocentric devil... but there is karma (culture) as natures way of exacting reward or punishment, heaven or hell. sj




From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 11:48 AM
To: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim







Jesus was 2000 years ahead of Peirce






What is the pragmatic maxim but



the statement that by our fruits



we are known







Jesus was 2000 years ahead of what



Peirce insisted was the means of



knowing things



called scientific method







How so







By showing the utility of sharing



and measuring the results



down to the last scrap







By synching his will to the



will of the sick



and achieving measurable results







But Jesus went beyond



straight to the heart



for he knew that



for change to come



the heart must be made new



as his was on the mountain



when he refused



the wiles of Satan



and thereby abolished Satans rule







The heart is new when



it rejects authority







The heart is new when



it rejects religious

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

Everything is dynamic
in its own way

(Ray Stevens was wrong)


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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Open Source Individuals

[Stephen C. Rose]

From Open Source Individuals Look inside Kindle http://buff.ly/1EC2Z95
http://t.co/3Zcmje4Cvi #ffrq https://twitter.com/hashtag/ffrq?src=hash
KU/KOLL
 [image: Embedded image permalink]
https://twitter.com/stephencrose/status/591929160085467136/photo/1

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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

I miss the posts of some who have been here but are evidently sitting out
current conversations. I think I sense why. Both here and in Peirce
himself. There are two forces at work. One is the self-described bohemian
who would be more of an iconoclast save for his heritage which may have
influenced him to reject what he might otherwise have been drawn to. In any
case, I am still hammering away at one of the very things that no one here
liked when I said it at the outset. I feel it more now.

Reality is all. Truth lies always in the future. Fallibliity is pervasive
and renders all that we conclude provisional.

I also hammer away at this.

That from Peirce and Pragmaticism can be derived as I have sought to do, a
triad that leads directly to a first second and third far removed from the
recondite nuances discussed here. The third in Triadic Philosophy is an
actual expression or action or both. The second is an actual index of
progressive values. The first is reality as Peirce sometimes describes it
-- the place from which the feelings he calls signs arise.

I plow away at this on Twitter where I find some response. One cannot
function without it. Cheers, S

PS The other side of Peirce is the Peirce who is pored over here, his
endless categorizing and formula-enunciation. Since this also has to do
with first, second and third, it is little wonder that what I have to say,
even though it is the only thing I know which actually eventuates in
actions with a practical consequence, falls not on deaf ears perhaps  but
somewhere where response is not forthcoming.




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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

Ontology consists of what is necessary for the achievement of the fusion of
truth and beauty.

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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Barbara

[Stephen C. Rose]

Barbara is the stone-deaf heroine of  my novella

Aesthetics is All: Almost A Murder Mystery http://buff.ly/1CojWMH

Since my philosophical efforts have not met with a groundswell of interest,
I thought a novella whose heroine is named for a syllogism might be a
welcome respite.

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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Jesus and the Pragmatic Maxim

[Stephen C. Rose]

Jesus was 2000 years ahead of Peirce

What is the pragmatic maxim but
the statement that by our fruits
we are known

Jesus was 2000 years ahead of what
Peirce insisted was the means of
knowing things
called scientific method

How so

By showing the utility of sharing
and measuring the results
down to the last scrap

By synching his will to the
will of the sick
and achieving measurable results

But Jesus went beyond
straight to the heart
for he knew that
for change to come
the heart must be made new
as his was on the mountain
when he refused
the wiles of Satan
and thereby abolished Satan's rule

The heart is new when
it rejects authority

The heart is new when
it rejects religious show
and mumbo jumbo

The heart is new when
it can see past hypocrisy

The heart is new when
it can say
no matter what I do
I shall fail

Because the contract
involves all hearts

And too many hearts
remain unchanged

+

The game is not yet over

But at least it was defined
more than 2000 years ago


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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - The Answer to Ex Nihilo

[Stephen C. Rose]

The answer to ex nihilo
is not that hard to find
First scuttle all our disciplines
Yes leave them all behind
Next think about it for a while
you're bound to think of something
Wait I just did it esto style!
There never was a nothing

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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - The Answer to Ex Nihilo

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Nice :-)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
wrote:

 The answer to ex nihilo
 is not that hard to find
 First scuttle all our disciplines
 Yes leave them all behind
 Next think about it for a while
 you're bound to think of something
 Wait I just did it esto style!
 There never was a nothing

 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
 .







-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Accepting Mystery

[Stephen C. Rose]

Accepting mystery is saying I don't know when it comes to questions about
prime movers and such. It is not saying there was nothing before the
cosmos. Or there is no edge to the cosmos. Or there is no other cosmos. All
statements that could be imagined or surmised without denying the mystery.
We should be aware that if we take these statements as proved, we are more
than likely veering in the direction of nominalism. To which triadic
philosophy says, Thinking does not make it so.

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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Behind Freedom

[Stephen C. Rose]

Behind freedom
there lies thought
when we consider matter
a move that's free
is still provided for

Someone or something
has set rules just now
beyond our ken

All we can do is bow to them
not knowing why or when

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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Before Matter, Mind and Time

[Stephen C. Rose]

What existed before matter, mind and time is mystery and most probably will
remain so. It is what existed, perhaps, behind the flames of the Burning
Bush, which is the way Old Testament writers described the mystery that
Moses perceived. To one who asks why, remember: I am who I am and I will
be who I will be.

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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy There Is No Future for Religion

[Stephen C. Rose]

There is no future for religion not merely because it cannot be
scientifically validated but because religions are by definition a
plurality of separate faiths most of whom claim universality, an
impossibility in itself.

There is a scientifically validated future for spirituality which can and
does draw on core elements of religious tradition. Triadic Philosophy is an
example. Benson and others at Harvard and elsewhere have begun the sort of
research that will eventually validate beyond contesting that what we have
hitherto regarded as transcendance is in fact a documentable reality within
the immanent frame,

An example is not failsafe healing, but clear demonstration of the role of
will in mitigating physical ills. Death is not overcome by spirituality but
life is given a positive context based on such ideas as fallibility,
continuity and triadic thinking.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

-
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] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

Universal Good and Evil: Parsing The Twenty Values We All Live By
http://buff.ly/1zCFmnA

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - What's Universal?

[Stephen C. Rose]

Any pattern that is repeated everywhere
Anything ontological I would hazard universal values and anything
teleological
That about does it

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Sham Reasoning

[Stephen C. Rose]

Peeking ahead breaks the rules, Peirce says, in the quotation below. The
person of true reason experiments in real time. Nowness rules. The result
emerges. It is not known in advance. How does this relate to Triadic
meditation which is generally an inquiry into a particular matter.


The most salient answer may well be that the actions and expressions to
which such meditation leads make no pretense of being reasonable, save that
the context of the entire meditation IS deemed reasonable.


For example, if the meditation has to do with how to deal with a criticism,
it may, after examining the matter under the index of tolerance, democracy,
helpfulness and non-idolatry, move to an aesthetic outcome (evoking truth
and beauty) that intends a written response and results in the same. The
character of that response is regulated by the consideration. In the case
of the process referred to, the result could not have been anticipated. It
was in fact that after writing this response the criticism was removed by
its author. A surprise, but completely reasonable because the removal of
the criticism also removed the response. This is but one example of results
that emerge daily from Triadic Meditation. I would argue that this is the
product of nowness, that it presupposes a context that is finally
experimental and that its results are not known in advance. No interactive
or social process can be known until it IS known.


This leaves Peirce's reasonable person faced with a question. Is there any
form of inquiry which is not in some respect or another a quest for an
anticipated result? Is there any pure science? Or: Is it ever fully
 possible to predict any (social) result?


QUOTE


Men, then, continue to tell themselves they regulate their conduct by
reason; but they learn to look forward and see what conclusions a given
method will lead to before they give their adhesion to it. In short, it is
no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but
it is the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be. This is
sham reasoning. In short, as morality supposes self-control, men learn that
they must not surrender themselves unreservedly to any method, without
considering to what conclusions it will lead them. But this is utterly
contrary to the single-mindedness that is requisite in science. In order
that science may be successful, its votaries must hasten to surrender
themselves at discretion to experimental inquiry, in advance of knowing
what its decisions may be. There must be no reservations.


Peirce: CP 1.58 Cross-Ref:††


END QUOTE

-
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] Triadic Philosophy How Many Generals Are There?

[Stephen C. Rose]

I see this question raised
and I have raised it too
How many things of which we speak
are universal and binding
within reality
Reality understood as what we know
and do not know but which we infer to be knowable
The more I have thought of this
the more I have come to sense that
tables and chairs and other things
evoke common understandings
But understandings are not generals
in the sense I mean
Generals or universals
suggest that there
is some meaning or purpose to things
If so a general
has more heft that a table or chair
A general has applicability
A general has reach
A general is powerful
What I am getting at is the thought
that generals are in fact values
If we wish to speak of universals
we speak most universally
when we speak of values
Values denote choices that
describe all human actions

Almost inevitably
as I puzzled my way
through the thinking
that results in Triadic Philosophy
I had to tell myself that what was missing was
a hierarchy of values
A hierarchy or spectrum
of good and evil
that could be proposed and defended as
a pragmatic look at what
constitutes universal reality
as far as we know it
I was beyond the virtues
proposed by Aristotle
which sound fine but which
on examination  are dependent
on values for their merit
So I propounded quite spontaneously
the scale of values I include
in the graphic below
Value is the merit or demerit
we ascribe to anything
Values are what we live by
If we wish to speak of things that
are universal
we should speak of values.
The number of generals is the
number of values that describe the
spectrum of actions
that we engage in
all of us
all the time
everywhere




-
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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Getting There

[paul eduardo]

Is possible. I am working un it un three ways: history un general, art history 
and lógic of discovery engineering. The last topic was the subject of muy paper 
at the centenial congresos.

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 14:52:18 -0500
From: stever...@gmail.com
To: Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Getting There

Does Peircean thought lead to conclusions that result in practical expressions 
and actions? Even if it could not be shown in a particular way, isn't that the 
acknowledged end of pragmaticism? Isn't it possible to evolve triadic means of 
arriving at expressions and actions?
  
-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Getting There

[Stephen C. Rose]

Does Peircean thought lead to conclusions that result in practical
expressions and actions? Even if it could not be shown in a particular way,
isn't that the acknowledged end of pragmaticism? Isn't it possible to
evolve triadic means of arriving at expressions and actions?

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Related Kindle Works

[Stephen C. Rose]

As Triadic Philosophy Develops it becomes easier to share and to teach.
This book can be read with profit by anyone, but if you wish to edge into
the subject here is the order you should explore:

Triadic Values Starter Kit http://buff.ly/15tUoou

Changing Your Heart and Mind: Triadic Philosophy in A Nut Shell
http://buff.ly/1CcdkoI

Three Helpful Habits: DIY to Get Your Life on Track (Triadic Philosophy
Book 2) http://buff.ly/1CcdWdP

Triadic Philosophy 100 Aphorisms http://buff.ly/1CPSb1C

There is a tributary to this stream that is what I see as an evolution of
the Christian religion from its enclosed institutional forms into the basis
for a universal spirituality. This spirituality infuses Triadic Philosophy.
It takes its place in this iteration under the heading of Abba's Way. This
is because it employs the name Abba rather than God and because it takes as
its basic text The Lord's Prayer which is, on the basis of Jesus' advice,
addressed to Abba. It rejects Christian messianism which is the premise
upon which the religion is based. It affirms the universal values of Jesus
and the essential nature of Reality as a creation which is continuous and
which has a goal.

Here are some of the works that represent this emphasis, again in an order
that moves from a beginning perspective to more advanced material.

Hymns and Songs (Abba's Way Book 1) http://buff.ly/1xyLg9r

The Lord's Prayer: Twelve Lines to Make A Revolution (Abba's Way Book 2)
http://buff.ly/1xyLAVG

Jesus Speak: An urgent message for now  http://buff.ly/1xyLWvB

The Jesus Interview: Including Abba's Way - A Universal Spirituality

http://buff.ly/1BFPl2i

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - What Mathematics Is and What It is Not

[Stephen C. Rose]

I have committed to remaining within this thread so as not to muddy
anything up with tangent statements. What I say here is aimed at
stimulating talk about what I intend as Triadic Philosophy. But it seems to
me that when I find lines that express what I believe, they should be
placed here from time to time. The following from Ben squares with my
understanding.

QUOTE

My sense of it is that Peirce does not push the idea that mathematicals are
real. His discussions of math and reality tend to involve a variation of
sense of word 'real' into the concretely real, the actual, the existent,
etc. He says that mathematicians (of whom he of course was one) don't care
about the real and that their ideal forms are the truly real to them a la
Plato. I do recall Peirce somewhere saying that the question of whether
mathematicals are real is a question for the metaphysician, not the
mathematician, and I recall him not answering the question at that point.
Peirce always says that mathematical objects are purely hypothetical.

END QUOTE

I have suggested that math is finite as all reality is save that part of it
which seems impossible to understand and that it like reason and logic are
utilities accessible to consciousness. I do not attribute this sense to
anyone else but I find it consistent with, or at least relates to, what I
have quoted above.

-
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] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

We've batted this around and I have been roundly criticized for this
position but I still maintain that reality is all known and not known. We
live within it. It is from our POV a state of finitude. It renders
everything within it subject to finite means of dealing with it. I do not
see how we can speak of good and evil without being able to see the values
of both as operating within all reality. The seismic implication of
accepting this is that we can then move to a genuine and real pragmaticism
that replaces Aristotelian ethics with a values based one built on a triad
that has as its first basic element 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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Good and Evil

[Stephen C. Rose]

Because I finally see the major stream of this list moving in the direction
of good and evil I want to share the following chapter from


Changing Your Heart and Mind: Triadic Philosophy in A Nut Shell
http://buff.ly/1B22XBV


I assume no one has read this book which is available for about one third
of a reasonably priced work and written to appeal to an educated but not
academic audience. But to my reckoning this is an original indication of a
seismic shift now underway - why because it is true and truth and beauty
lead continuity toward agapeic completion. All we do is seek fallibly to
limn stuff.




Know what good

and evil are



There is a huge tell in the story of Adam and Eve. It comes when God says
that if Adam and Eve know what good and evil are, they will become like
him! The writer is clearly telling us that we *do* know what good and evil
is. And that we are not without the qualities that would - and could - make
us at least somewhat better than we are. What the writer does not mention
is that we would ignore this knowledge for centuries in deference to forces
that have in fact been evil.



Good and evil are simple enough. But it makes sense to clear up one huge
misconception. Good is values not virtues. The word virtue crops up 253
times in Aristotle's Ethics. Values are barely mentioned.



The highest goods and the most egregious evils are related to the
achievement of freedom, truth and beauty at the top and the avoidance of
the ascending levels of harm at the bottom. We human beings are a spectrum
of good and evil. Just look at the following hierarchies to become aware of
the incredible mix of good and evil we are.



Hierarchy of Good



1. Being loving and free



2. Acting and expressing for truth and beauty



3. Valuing Non-idolatry



4. Valuing Democracy



5. Valuing Helpfulness



6. Valuing Tolerance



7. Contributing to the community



8. Being responsible



9. Critical thinking



10. Self-respect





Hierarchy of Evil



10. Thoughtlessness



9. Selfishness



8. Judging others



7. Ganging Up



6. Excluding



5. Intolerance



4. Opposing democracy


3. Unhelpfulness



2. Causing injury



1. Killing



Whatever adjustments you might make in these hierarchies, I trust you would
agree that they evoke the actual values that lead to the actual behavior
indicated. Some gang up and exclude, some oppose democracy. Some kill. Some
pay taxes whose effects cause harm.  Some support businesses that do the
same.  Some accept practices that are proved to be harmful. That's merely a
fraction of the downside. On the upside, positive values have been
instrumental in generating historical progress over the centuries.
Particularly those which form the ethical index of triadic philosophy:
tolerance, helpfulness, democracy and non-idolatry.



How much more progress there would be if these positive values were
accepted universally. They are a true and apt measure of what does good.

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Back to The Drawing Board

[Stephen C. Rose]

My little thread on Meta and Index had the supreme irony of being diverted
into exactly the sort of thing I was trying to suggest was not what Triadic
Philosophy is about.

It can be summed up with a few words - the quote that I give to my
hero(ine) in my novella The Last Drop.

I puzzle, therefore I am. - Dusty Harkness

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Meta and Index

[Sungchul Ji]

Edwina, lists,


Ew:  3) Your assertion that Peirce is 'not the only scholar of signs'
is yet another empty and specious argument,

Sung: So am I right to assume then that you think Peirce is the only
important scholar of signs and hence reading him is all you need to
understand what a sign is ?

EW: . . . because you, yourself, insist that your analysis is based on
Peirce.

Sung: No. My analysis of signs is based not only on Peirce but also on
other sources as well that Peirce's semiotic writings do not deal with,
e.g., the molecular sign processes in living cells.

EW:  4) First, let's get the quarks out of the way. You wrote:
You have missed the key point of the quark model of the Peircean sign
expressed in (011515-4) where no hadrons appears. Mesons are baryons
consisting of 2 quarks. That is why the quark model was constructed in
terms of baryons and not hadrons.

Sung:  Pardon me.  Mesons are not baryons but hadrons.

*EW:  Now wait a minute. *You are now denying what you wrote on Jan 13:

According to the quark model of the Peircean sign (which may or many not
turn out to be valid), there are two kinds of signs -- elementary signs
(analogous to quarks) and composite signs (analogous to hadrons).

Sung:  Sorry. I meant to say baryons not hadrons.

EW:  5) No, a sign is NOT, as you write::  a sign is something that stands
for something else.

Sung:  Yes.  The definition that a sign is something that stands for
something else is correct and has been known since the ancient times when
the word first appeared, long before Peirce, Saussure, or any other
semioticians.  The important point is that this primitive definition of a
sign is all you need to realize that all of the 9 types of signs that
Peirce defined on the basis of his trichotomy of trichotomies are SIGNS.
If you still think they are not, I can only conclude that you do not
understand what a sign is.

EW:  That's Saussure and you constantly confuse the two (Saussure and
Peirce). That's a dyad and Peircean semiosis is triadic.

Sung:  No.  That is not Saussure or nor Peirce.  Rather that is a common
sense that Saussure and Peirce elaboratated on further in their respective
theories of signs, which has noting to do with recognizing icon as a sign
constituting an aspect of rhematic iconic sinsign, for example.

EW:  In consequence of every representamen being thus connected with three
things, the ground, the object and the interpretant (2.229)

A sign, or *representamen*, is something which stands to somebody for
something in some respect or capacityThat sign which it creates I call
the *interpretant* of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its
*object*. It stand for that object, not in all respects, but in reference
to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the *ground* of the
representamen (2.228).

Sung:  I am aware of these definitions which I too cited in my posts on
many occasions.

EW:  If you would, for example, read Peirce (On a new list of categories)
and in particular, sections 1.551 and on, you would see an extensive
analysis of these three parts of the Sign: object, ground and interpretant.

And, 1.541, A Representamen is the subject of a triadic relation to a
second, called its Object, for a third, called its Interpretant...

Sung:  Peirce clearly  means here that a triadic relation is ONE relation
connecting THREE relata, not a set of THREE dyadic relations (that do not
form a mathematical category).

EW:  And, of course, I've frequently referred you to the actual diagramme
of Peirce, in 1.347, where he writes about 'genuine triadic relations' that
can never be built of dyadic relations...where he draws a 'graph with
three tails' or 'lines of identity'.

Sung:  To me, a genuine triadic relation can be built from three dyadic
relations, f, g and h, if and only if they obey the commutativity
condition, f x g = h. There are many triads of dyadic relations that do not
form  mathematical categories and hence do not form a genuine triadic
relation because they do not obey the commutativity condition.

EW:  Also, as a minor note, Sung, your insistence that my three relations
or 'tails' or 'lines of identity' are dyads is getting tiresome. I've
explained many times that a dyad is only possible between entities in
existential Secondness, i.e., actual 'things', and these relations (tails,
lines of identity) are not interactions between two 'things' and thus, my
analysis is not dyadic.  You totally ignore this. Why? Hmm.

Oh, and I've also referred to you, Peirce's analysis of these 'tails', in,
eg, 'In respect to their *relations* to their dynamic objects, I divide
signs into Icons, Indices and Symbols (8.335) and In regard to its
* relation* to a signified interpretant, a sign is either a Rheme, a
Dicent, or an Argument (my emphasis: 8.337).  Got that? Peirce himself
uses the term 'relations'.

Sung:  As I indicated above, three dyadic relations CAN constitute a
genuine triadic relation as long as they satisfy the 

Re: [biosemiotics:7906] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Meta and Index

[Gary Richmond]

Sung,

One thing I think you have to keep in mind, besides the fact that the nine
sign parameters (a term I've used for them since Ben suggested it to me
many years ago) are only that, not signs in themselves, is that Peirce
sometimes uses short hand expressions for triadic signs.

[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote:

 Edwina,

 I agree with Peirce that we think in signs.

 Since I am now, at this very moment, thinking about icon, rheme and
 legisign as components or aspects of the triadic sign, rhematic iconic
 legisign,  icon, rheme and legisign are (must be)  signs.  It is
 that simple.

 Also, you have not yet answered my simple question:

 Since Peirce used qualisign, sinsign, legisign and dicisign in the
 3x3 table of his 9 types of signs, did Peirce make a mistake ?  According
 to your theory of signs, none of these 9 types of signs should be called
 signs at all.

 If your answer is YES, I would conclude that your theory of sign (not
 Peirces') is wrong.  If your answer is NO, then your theory of sign must be
 judged wrong.  In either case your theory of signs seems to be wrong.  Is
 this perhaps one reason that you have not been able to answer my simple
 question ?


 With all the best.

 Sung

 On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca
 wrote:

  I'll reply briefly - and that's it.

 Yes, I consider that Peirce is the only important scholar of signs and
 semiosis. But when you, Sung, tell us that your analysis is based on Peirce
 - and don't refer to these other unnamed semiosic scholars (apart from
 Saussure) - then, I think we have every right to critique your misuse and
 misunderstanding of Peirce. Furthermore, your claim that you use other
 sources such as 'molecular sign processes in living cells' - has
 absolutely nothing to do with your claim that your analysis is,
 semiotically, based on Peirce. After all, there are on these lists, many
 biologists, molecular biologists, bioengineers, physicists, chemists, AI
 people etc, who are exploring  Peircean semiosis within their fields.

 Your assertion that the definition of a sign as 'something that stands
 for something else' may be ancient but it's not Peircean. And it's
 certainly not common sense. Yet, you constantly inform us that your
 analysis is based on Peirce.

 No, repeating, endlessly, that the nine 'tails, lines of identity,
 correlates' are each, in themselves, 'signs' is incorrect. They are NOT
 'nine types of signs'. See Peirce's discussion in Division of Signs' and
 Division of Triadic Relations, 2.233-and on.  Note the ff. where it
 says 'the representamen in itself, in relation to its object, and as
 interpreted'which are the first, second and third correlates
 respectively. These are NOT signs. A sign is a triad, and your 'elementary
 signs' are not triads. Trying to justify your assertion as 'common sense'
 is unscientific and irrational. [Note: Are you switching your terms and now
 no longer using the term 'elementary signs' and instead call them 'aspects'
 of a compound sign???  ]

 Remember: 1.541, A Representamen is the subject of a triadic relation to
 a second, called its Object, for a third, called its Interpretant...

 Who the heck is calling these 'tails, lines of identity, correlates,
 relations' (all of these are Peircean terms for the same thing)...as 'three
 dyadic relations'? You, Sung, are the only person I know who calls them
 'dyads'.

 Your introduction of 'commutativity' has nothing to do with Peirce, for
 his semiosis is, unlike the 'necessary' results of the commutative
 triangle, open, flexible and adaptive. That's why there is both the Dynamic
 Object (DO) AND the Immediate Object - which already means that the data
 from the DO has been transformed within the ground of the Representamen.
 And that's why there are THREE Interpretants (Immediate, Dynamic and
 Final). And that's why the Representamen - and all the other nodes - have
 three modalities. A commutative triangle doesn't have the flexible adaptive
 and networking capacities of the Peircean Sign.

 No, I do NOT denote the 'tails, lines of identity, correlates, relations'
 as signs (lower case). Never. I told you instead that Peirce, in his
 writings, often referred to the above (tails, lines of identity,
 correlates, relations) as such, but *he did not mean that term as a
 semiosic Sign, which is always a triad and never, ever, singular. *

 Edwina

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu
 *To:* biosemiotics biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; PEIRCE-L
 peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
 *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:40 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Meta and Index

Edwina, lists,


 Ew:  3) Your assertion that Peirce is 'not the only scholar of signs

Re: [biosemiotics:7906] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Meta and Index

[Gary Richmond]

 been transformed within the ground of the Representamen.
 And that's why there are THREE Interpretants (Immediate, Dynamic and
 Final). And that's why the Representamen - and all the other nodes - have
 three modalities. A commutative triangle doesn't have the flexible adaptive
 and networking capacities of the Peircean Sign.

 No, I do NOT denote the 'tails, lines of identity, correlates,
 relations' as signs (lower case). Never. I told you instead that Peirce, in
 his writings, often referred to the above (tails, lines of identity,
 correlates, relations) as such, but *he did not mean that term as a
 semiosic Sign, which is always a triad and never, ever, singular. *

 Edwina

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu
 *To:* biosemiotics biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; PEIRCE-L
 peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
 *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:40 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Meta and Index

Edwina, lists,


 Ew:  3) Your assertion that Peirce is 'not the only scholar of signs'
 is yet another empty and specious argument,

 Sung: So am I right to assume then that you think Peirce is the only
 important scholar of signs and hence reading him is all you need to
 understand what a sign is ?

 EW: . . . because you, yourself, insist that your analysis is based on
 Peirce.

 Sung: No. My analysis of signs is based not only on Peirce but also on
 other sources as well that Peirce's semiotic writings do not deal with,
 e.g., the molecular sign processes in living cells.

 EW:  4) First, let's get the quarks out of the way. You wrote:
 You have missed the key point of the quark model of the Peircean sign
 expressed in (011515-4) where no hadrons appears. Mesons are baryons
 consisting of 2 quarks. That is why the quark model was constructed in
 terms of baryons and not hadrons.

 Sung:  Pardon me.  Mesons are not baryons but hadrons.

 *EW:  Now wait a minute. *You are now denying what you wrote on Jan 13:

 According to the quark model of the Peircean sign (which may or many
 not turn out to be valid), there are two kinds of signs -- elementary
 signs (analogous to quarks) and composite signs (analogous to hadrons).

 Sung:  Sorry. I meant to say baryons not hadrons.

 EW:  5) No, a sign is NOT, as you write::  a sign is something that
 stands for something else.

 Sung:  Yes.  The definition that a sign is something that stands for
 something else is correct and has been known since the ancient times when
 the word first appeared, long before Peirce, Saussure, or any other
 semioticians.  The important point is that this primitive definition of a
 sign is all you need to realize that all of the 9 types of signs that
 Peirce defined on the basis of his trichotomy of trichotomies are SIGNS.
 If you still think they are not, I can only conclude that you do not
 understand what a sign is.

 EW:  That's Saussure and you constantly confuse the two (Saussure and
 Peirce). That's a dyad and Peircean semiosis is triadic.

 Sung:  No.  That is not Saussure or nor Peirce.  Rather that is a common
 sense that Saussure and Peirce elaboratated on further in their respective
 theories of signs, which has noting to do with recognizing icon as a sign
 constituting an aspect of rhematic iconic sinsign, for example.

 EW:  In consequence of every representamen being thus connected with
 three things, the ground, the object and the interpretant (2.229)

 A sign, or *representamen*, is something which stands to somebody for
 something in some respect or capacityThat sign which it creates I call
 the *interpretant* of the first sign. The sign stands for something,
 its *object*. It stand for that object, not in all respects, but in
 reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the *ground* of
 the representamen (2.228).

 Sung:  I am aware of these definitions which I too cited in my posts on
 many occasions.

 EW:  If you would, for example, read Peirce (On a new list of
 categories) and in particular, sections 1.551 and on, you would see an
 extensive analysis of these three parts of the Sign: object, ground and
 interpretant.

 And, 1.541, A Representamen is the subject of a triadic relation to a
 second, called its Object, for a third, called its Interpretant...

 Sung:  Peirce clearly  means here that a triadic relation is ONE
 relation connecting THREE relata, not a set of THREE dyadic relations (that
 do not form a mathematical category).

 EW:  And, of course, I've frequently referred you to the actual
 diagramme of Peirce, in 1.347, where he writes about 'genuine triadic
 relations' that can never be built of dyadic relations...where he draws a
 'graph with three tails' or 'lines of identity'.

 Sung:  To me, a genuine triadic relation can be built from three dyadic
 relations, f, g and h, if and only if they obey the commutativity
 condition, f x g = h. There are many triads of dyadic relations that do not
 form  mathematical categories and hence do not form

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Meta and Index

[Stephen C. Rose]

I send posts here. I assume when nothing shows up in my inbox it is because
there has been no response. Which is not a problem. I mention it merely to
ascertain that this is why I do not see responses. This would be as it
should be as this is a tiny stream next to what has been a veritable river
of consideration and attention to serious matters. There is also the matter
of veering from Peirce.I can only infer that some veers are respectable and
others not so much though the not so much seem to receive the bulk of
content in the main discussion.

One thing that strikes me is the notion that a sign embraces an entire
triad. To this I say fine. But for purposes of conscious consideration I
find myself operating on the premise that a sign is a foundational reality
that is in fact the trigger or first element in thought. This is followed
by an index which may be seen as an opposition or at  least a barrier or as
I sometimes suggest a colander through which the original consideration
(sign)  passes, en route to becoming the third step in the process which I
take to be an expression, an action, or both. In other words, index is
something that is either spontaneously present as a barrier or which is the
product of decision, a voluntary interposition of conditions which may
modify and influence signs as they pass through the triadic process.

It seems to me also that the tendency of the present discussion is to flirt
with the possibility that there might be, to this thinking process, a
practical result. I have always assumed so, or why have pragmatism in the
first place? But apparently, to get the sign Peirce through the colander of
philosophy, it may be apposite to marshal resources, what Kenneth Burke
called a viaticum, for the journey to acts that manifest beauty and truth
as unity itself. That I take to be the subject of the book under discussion.

Now if any of this is puzzling, I am in receipt of a clarification made
possible via the Socratic operation of Twitter. It leads to my confession
that puzzling is what I do. I never admitted that before, because I never
heard it in such candid terms. I would not dare to suggest what it means,
though I have an idea whose key word is, as has been suggested, fallibility.

-
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 .

Re: [biosemiotics:7906] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Meta and Index

[Edwina Taborsky]

I've answered your inane question many times, Sung. I've repeatedly said that 
the Peircean sign is a triad; therefore, the 'correlates, relations, lines of 
identity, tails' (all 9 of them) are NOT Peircean signs. Got it? Finally got 
it? Do you know why? Because they aren't within a TRIADIC RELATION. 

That's it. I agree with Gary Shank's description of you - a nominalist 
materialist Cartesian reductionist' (I've used several of these same terms 
previously to you in my critique of your assertions). Such a perspective is 
incompatible with Peircean semiosis. There's no point in further 'discussion'.

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Sungchul Ji 
  To: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L 
  Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 8:22 PM
  Subject: [biosemiotics:7906] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Meta and 
Index


  Edwina,


  I agree with Peirce that we think in signs.


  Since I am now, at this very moment, thinking about icon, rheme and 
legisign as components or aspects of the triadic sign, rhematic iconic 
legisign,  icon, rheme and legisign are (must be)  signs.  It is that 
simple.


  Also, you have not yet answered my simple question:


  Since Peirce used qualisign, sinsign, legisign and dicisign in the 3x3 
table of his 9 types of signs, did Peirce make a mistake ?  According to your 
theory of signs, none of these 9 types of signs should be called signs at 
all.  


  If your answer is YES, I would conclude that your theory of sign (not 
Peirces') is wrong.  If your answer is NO, then your theory of sign must be 
judged wrong.  In either case your theory of signs seems to be wrong.  Is this 
perhaps one reason that you have not been able to answer my simple question ?




  With all the best.


  Sung


  On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote:

I'll reply briefly - and that's it.

Yes, I consider that Peirce is the only important scholar of signs and 
semiosis. But when you, Sung, tell us that your analysis is based on Peirce - 
and don't refer to these other unnamed semiosic scholars (apart from Saussure) 
- then, I think we have every right to critique your misuse and 
misunderstanding of Peirce. Furthermore, your claim that you use other sources 
such as 'molecular sign processes in living cells' - has absolutely nothing to 
do with your claim that your analysis is, semiotically, based on Peirce. After 
all, there are on these lists, many biologists, molecular biologists, 
bioengineers, physicists, chemists, AI people etc, who are exploring  Peircean 
semiosis within their fields. 

Your assertion that the definition of a sign as 'something that stands for 
something else' may be ancient but it's not Peircean. And it's certainly not 
common sense. Yet, you constantly inform us that your analysis is based on 
Peirce.

No, repeating, endlessly, that the nine 'tails, lines of identity, 
correlates' are each, in themselves, 'signs' is incorrect. They are NOT 'nine 
types of signs'. See Peirce's discussion in Division of Signs' and Division of 
Triadic Relations, 2.233-and on.  Note the ff. where it says 'the representamen 
in itself, in relation to its object, and as interpreted'which are the 
first, second and third correlates respectively. These are NOT signs. A sign 
is a triad, and your 'elementary signs' are not triads. Trying to justify your 
assertion as 'common sense' is unscientific and irrational. [Note: Are you 
switching your terms and now no longer using the term 'elementary signs' and 
instead call them 'aspects' of a compound sign???  ]

Remember: 1.541, A Representamen is the subject of a triadic relation to a 
second, called its Object, for a third, called its Interpretant...

Who the heck is calling these 'tails, lines of identity, correlates, 
relations' (all of these are Peircean terms for the same thing)...as 'three 
dyadic relations'? You, Sung, are the only person I know who calls them 'dyads'.

Your introduction of 'commutativity' has nothing to do with Peirce, for his 
semiosis is, unlike the 'necessary' results of the commutative triangle, open, 
flexible and adaptive. That's why there is both the Dynamic Object (DO) AND the 
Immediate Object - which already means that the data from the DO has been 
transformed within the ground of the Representamen. And that's why there are 
THREE Interpretants (Immediate, Dynamic and Final). And that's why the 
Representamen - and all the other nodes - have three modalities. A commutative 
triangle doesn't have the flexible adaptive and networking capacities of the 
Peircean Sign.

No, I do NOT denote the 'tails, lines of identity, correlates, relations' 
as signs (lower case). Never. I told you instead that Peirce, in his writings, 
often referred to the above (tails, lines of identity, correlates, relations) 
as such, but he did not mean that term as a semiosic Sign, which is always a 
triad and never, ever, singular. 

Edwina
  - Original

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Conveyance Within Triads

[Stephen C. Rose]

I suppose the best thing about Pierce was that he thought in threes. When
it comes to how this actually takes place in the real world I have a sense
of a line in the sand between the sorts of abstract thinking that take
place beyond the ordinary world of this and that. In the latter world
Triadic Philosophy believes that triads are real and, yes, they do contain
and convey and process information. For example. If what Pierce calls the
Icon or First is those two reflected lights, no wait four, that I see in my
window, as visible as the desk lamp they reflect, they are indeed real.
Just as the sound of me scratching my head is real. Now if I have decreed
to myself that the Index or second consists of four terms that make sense
to me as ethical benchmarks, it shows (me) that a Second or Index can and
does contain information. It is interposed between Reality and the Third in
the triad which is Aesthetics (the conclusive element which will soon
contain information derived from the incipient meeting of the Sign Icon
First (those lamp reflections) and the Second Index (information) which
consists of the terms Tolerance, Helpfulness, Democracy and Non-idolatry.

Now to put that colander to work. From where I sit these reflections are
real and I have no idea why they remain so ineffably stable. The cords
which hang from the building across the Broadway blow in the light wind.
But these lights are as stable as the objects between me and the window.

I surmise that I can tolerate this miracle. My flexibility is such that I
can regard it as real. It is part of vision and perception.

It helps to be able to take what one actually sees as part of reality. It
would make me better able to empathize with any account of anyone else's
perception. Even to honor it.

Democracy? All have a right to their visions without regard to their
sophistication or even their truth. Acceptance is, in this sense, all.

Non-idolatry. We have been given the capacity to see things in ways unique
to us but at the same time by sharing what we see we unearth commonalities
and can arrive at the joy that the Holy One takes in recounting to Job the
wonders of creation.

I then arrive at the threshold of the Third Aesthetic and I say to myself
what Keats said - Truth is beauty. Beauty is truth. And I am impelled to
EXPRESS this with the sentence Reality is beautiful.

And my action is to send this along in response to the notion that  the
first contains all the information, for it seems that the Second contains
essential information. And that it is the Third - the aesthetic action -
that contains the fruit of the entire consideration which is Triadic
Philosophy.

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Is Triadic Thinking Conscious?

[Jack Curtis]

I think Peirce felt we feel our way to the truth, all the way from the tiny
metaphors of symbolic process thru the big metaphors we construct
conciously.  Freedom of choice comes in thru imagination, which I don't
think Peirce addressed much, but we can still feel our various imaginings,
 pick the one that feels best, w probably will be the one that's closest
to the truth.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
wrote:

 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Is Triadic Thinking Conscious?

[Stephen C. Rose]

I will ponder that. My own sense is that whatever Peirce may have meant his
triadic structure functions consciously to generate expressions and actions
that would not exist were the process binary, allowing only for an either
or and or. It seems to me that however a sign is generated it is not a
functioning sign until we identify it as such - consciously. We can then
submit it or allow it or see it bump up against what he sometimes calls a
brute force but which I tend to call a colander through which the sign
passes, transformed in the process. It then has been grasped by will or
intention and generates an expression or an action or both. In Triadic
Philosophy this progression is explicit - a sort of guided musement. The
triad is Reality Ethics Aesthetics. I suspect Peirce avoided in depts
aesthetics and ethics for the same reason Nietzsche avoided completing a
five volume revaluation of values. He got stopped or diverted, I would
argue, by the same force.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Jack Curtis jack.cur...@g.austincc.edu
wrote:

 I think Peirce felt we feel our way to the truth, all the way from the
 tiny metaphors of symbolic process thru the big metaphors we construct
 conciously.  Freedom of choice comes in thru imagination, which I don't
 think Peirce addressed much, but we can still feel our various imaginings,
  pick the one that feels best, w probably will be the one that's closest
 to the truth.

 On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 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 

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Binary Discourse

[Stephen C. Rose]

One of the practices of Triadic Philosophy is to be sensitive to binary
discourse. It crops up all over and academic venues are hardly immune to
it. In fact we are all guilty, if you count it harmful to judge someone
wrong and yourself right, with no qualification, no admission of
fallibility and no betrayal of the possibility that it is pure enjoyment of
the binary conflict that underlies much such discourse. Is it harmful
really? I would say that when it becomes characterization, particularly
negative characterization, it does carry with it a measure of harm. As I
see Peirce - and I regard him as foundational as Harold Bloom regards
Shakespeare - this is Peirce's world - it seems to me that he would have
delighted in a triadic cast to discourse springing from his thought and
that this cast would give a wide berth to the presence not only of
fallibility but of mystery as what we do not yet know. When discourse
becomes triadic that will be a cultural shift we can welcome as a product
of CSP's influence.


Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Binary Discourse

[Edwina Taborsky]

Stephen - 'binary discourse', as differentiated from 'binary logic', which is 
quite valid, eg, either-or modesdoes indeed have its problems. I find that 
some people find it difficult to argue about the issue, and instead, resort to 
fallacious argumentation tactics (ad hominem, ad populum, ad...etc and etc). 
These have nothing to do with the issue and are mere attempts at forcing 
acceptance of one point of view, not by analytic persuasion, or, acceptance of 
disagreement - but by an actual insistence that the other person accept your 
view...or else. It's actually, as you point out, very common. 

Edwina
  - Original Message - 
  From: Stephen C. Rose 
  To: Peirce List 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:21 PM
  Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Binary Discourse


  One of the practices of Triadic Philosophy is to be sensitive to binary 
discourse. It crops up all over and academic venues are hardly immune to it. In 
fact we are all guilty, if you count it harmful to judge someone wrong and 
yourself right, with no qualification, no admission of fallibility and no 
betrayal of the possibility that it is pure enjoyment of the binary conflict 
that underlies much such discourse. Is it harmful really? I would say that when 
it becomes characterization, particularly negative characterization, it does 
carry with it a measure of harm. As I see Peirce - and I regard him as 
foundational as Harold Bloom regards Shakespeare - this is Peirce's world - it 
seems to me that he would have delighted in a triadic cast to discourse 
springing from his thought and that this cast would give a wide berth to the 
presence not only of fallibility but of mystery as what we do not yet know. 
When discourse becomes triadic that will be a cultural shift we can welcome as 
a product of CSP's influence.




  Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl 
  Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3



--



  -
  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] Triadic Philosophy - Is Triadic Thinking Conscious?

[Stephen C. Rose]

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] Triadic Philosophy - Tangental Image

[Stephen C. Rose]

SETTING 1 Pouring out my soul into the void never knowing what will come of
it

a strange light rises up and takes ahold of me and I can almost reach the
fabled edge


[image: Embedded image permalink]
https://twitter.com/stephencrose/status/541730061511307265/photo/1

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Sorting Us Out

[Stephen C. Rose]

Thus Peirce:


If we endeavor to form our conceptions upon history and life, we remark
three classes of men. The first consists of those for whom the chief thing
is the qualities of feelings. These men create art. The second consists of
the practical men, who carry on the business of the world. They respect
nothing but power, and respect power only so far as it [is] exercized. The
third class consists of men to whom nothing seems great but reason. If
force interests them, it is not in its exertion, but in that it has a
reason and a law. For men of the first class, nature is a picture; for men
of the second class, it is an opportunity; for men of the third class, it
is a cosmos, so admirable, that to penetrate to its ways seems to them the
only thing that makes life worth living. These are the men whom we see
possessed by a passion to learn, just as other men have a passion to teach
and to disseminate their influence. If they do not give themselves over
completely to their passion to learn, it is because they exercise
self-control. Those are the natural scientific men; and they are the only
men that have any real success in scientific research.

Peirce: CP 1.44 Cross-Ref:††


END QUOTE


It seems to me that Brent explicitly and Peirce implicitly does suggest
that an icon is first, an index second and a symbol third. It also seems to
me that there is no area of Peirce that remains as much subject to
subjectivity as discussion around the many permutations of 1, 2 and 3.


Triadic Philosophy sees Signs as what initiates thought, what gets
translated into something explicit in the mind. Firsts. Indices are a
second step - a challenging set of explicit barriers or modifiers or
protections. Seconds. Symbols are expressions and actions on the way to
becoming reality (the fruits by which we are known). Thirds.


Since Triadic Philosophy at this point is merely my musings, not the
subject of serious interest or discussion, it might be said to be ephemeral
 But it grows nonetheless. At the moment it is concerned to wrest from
Aristotle his odd grip on ethics which he persists in presenting as a list
of virtues, to the detriment of the measurability of actions and
expressions, among other things.



Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Sorting Us Out

[Michael Shapiro]

Stephen, List:Peirce says somewhere else that the poet and the physicist have much in common. This quote seems to sever those who create art from those who strive to penetrate the cosmos. But that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what art is (including music and poetry), and what what might be called artistic consciousness is. Peirce is never very penetrating when talking about art and poetry (just as he is seriously deficient when it comes to ethics).-Original Message-
From: "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
Sent: Dec 3, 2014 10:07 AM
To: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Sorting Us Out

Thus Peirce:If we endeavor to form our conceptions upon history and
life, we remark three classes of men. The first consists of those for whom the
chief thing is the qualities of feelings. These men create art. The second
consists of the practical men, who carry on the business of the world. They
respect nothing but power, and respect power only so far as it [is] exercized.
The third class consists of men to whom nothing seems great but reason. If
force interests them, it is not in its exertion, but in that it has a reason
and a law. For men of the first class, nature is a picture; for men of the
second class, it is an opportunity; for men of the third class, it is a cosmos,
so admirable, that to penetrate to its ways seems to them the only thing that
makes life worth living. These are the men whom we see possessed by a passion
to learn, just as other men have a passion to teach and to disseminate their
influence. If they do not give themselves over completely to their passion to
learn, it is because they exercise self-control. Those are the natural
scientific men; and they are the only men that have any real success in
scientific research.

Peirce: CP 1.44 Cross-Ref:††END QUOTEIt seems to me that Brent explicitly and Peirce implicitly does suggest that an icon is first, an index second and a symbol third. It also seems to me that there is no area of Peirce that remains as much subject to subjectivity as discussion around the many permutations of 1, 2 and 3.Triadic Philosophy sees Signs as what initiates thought, what gets translated into something explicit in the mind. Firsts. Indices are a second step - a challenging set of explicit barriers or modifiers or protections. Seconds. Symbols are expressions and actions on the way to becoming reality (the fruits by which we are known). Thirds.Since Triadic Philosophy at this point is merely my musings, not the subject of serious interest or discussion, it might be said to be ephemeral But it grows nonetheless. At the moment it is concerned to wrest from Aristotle his odd grip on ethics which he persists in presenting as a list of virtues, to the detriment of the measurability of actions and expressions, among other things.Bookshttp://buff.ly/15GfdqUArt:http://buff.ly/1wXAxblGifts:http://buff.ly/1wXADj3



-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Practice

[Stephen C. Rose]

Like it or not, Peirce was an iconoclastic and acerbic Christian. Had he
delved into theology and church history more than he did, he would
doubtless have arrived at ample bases for what is implicit in his own
understanding. He is agnostic about supposition and a stickler for proofs.
The problem he presents to those who ignore his spirituality is that it not
only remains central, it also purports to be self-evident. But only to
those willing to engage in a fairly explicit mode of practice. Between
fairly explicit and free choice there is some leeway but it seems to me
that a Peirce-derivative practice would involve at a minimum an openness to
a discipline of thinking based on a mode we could call triadic and a form
of musement that might correspond to an effort to achieve some harmonious
relationship with another. I do not capitalize another. But it seems
obvious to me that Peirce thought we talked within ourselves to what might
be considered one's higher self or to one beyond that. To condense this
into a question, is it the case, or is it not, that Peirce, to be
understood, requires a practice based on his premises?

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Life Boundaries

[Stephen C. Rose]

Triadic Philosophy has  at present no knowledge enabling it to assume a
boundary to life itself or in fact to the life of any entity to whom life
might be attributed such as ourselves or other beings that have mass and
movement. It does however recognize the likelihood that we (living
creatures) reach a point at which our bodies cannot sustain themselves and
are naturally subject to decay and other signs of nonexistence. I wonder if
this fact does not influence Peirce in his remarks which suppose the folly
of dwelling too much on our individuality. The difficulty in assuming a
sort of add on to life as we know it is that it is complete supposition.
One might suppose a soul or even the capacity of the imagination to exert
influence through the creation of a character. Hamlet is clearly
influential, for example. Triadic Philosophy assumes because thought of
immortality or life after death is still about that it falls under
supposition and that anything that can be supposed is real precisely
because it is supposed. We will doubtless suppose such things until they
can graduate to the level of hypotheses capable of being deemed true or
not. More of reality is doubtless mystery than not, though we have no way
of knowing the ratio.

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Continuity Continued

[Stephen C. Rose]

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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Continuity Continued

[Stephen C. Rose]

The main reason I prefer my triad is that I believe philosophy has given
short shrift to ethics and aesthetics in addition to closeting itself in
academe - hardly its fault but the result is a disaster given the present
low estate of public discourse. Also it avoids binary oppositions.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote:

 (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 

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Reality and Mystery

[Stephen C. Rose]

If as Triadic Philosophy holds, reality is all, then that part of reality
which is not yet known or understood may be called mystery. And the
progression of thought facing mystery runs first to supposition and moves
to inference and then to hypothesis. Such as plants can hear or plants have
feelings. One assumes that we will compile more and more data and that the
borders of mystery will recede.

And we assume you need ears to hear. But researchers, says Pollan, have
played a recording of a caterpillar munching on a leaf to plants -- and the
plants react. They begin to secrete defensive chemicals -- even though the
plant isn't really threatened, Pollan says. It is somehow hearing what is,
to it, a terrifying sound of a caterpillar munching on its leaves.
http://buff.ly/1xxcwcN

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Don't Triangles Move Forward?

[Stephen C. Rose]

We think sequentially by necessity. Whoops. Thought gone. But seriously, I
wonder if triangles do not move. In other words they cannot be fixed. Does
that mean that no product of triadic thinking can be fixed. Probably so.
Generals are fixed. Maybe in the CSP way of communal consensus and whatever
other confomatory evidences there may be. Values are generals. Good
generals are ontological. Bad generals are just bad. Triadic philosophy by
advocating triadic thinking espouses triangles over monadic or binary
shapes but the reason is they can nest so as things move they can bring
along what works such as the ethical index or the name of the root triad
reality, ethics, aesthetics. But each nanosecond and each time that
consciousness believes itself to be operative life itself unfolds so that
expressions and actions are impossible to see as the same from time to
time. Maybe a triangle is like a wave so its form remains the same and even
its location could be said not to substantially change, but its content
always changes. That would suggest that the question remains.


Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Arisbe

[Stephen C. Rose]

(Arisbe) Charles Sanders Peirce: ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY: Home Page of
the International Peirce Community http://buff.ly/1BG3CMM

I do what I can to alert Twitter folk to Peirce. I remember an excellent
introductory statement listing all of his impacts. But when I took a look
just now I could not find it. If I was a novice, well maybe I am, I would
want to see this in order to get a sense of the person.

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Arisbe

[Benjamin Udell]

Maybe you're talking about Joe Ransdell's FAQ Who Is Charles Peirce? 
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/faqs/whoiscsp.HTM 
http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/faqs/whoiscsp.HTM


Best, Ben

On 11/16/2014 8:59 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:

(Arisbe) Charles Sanders Peirce: ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY: Home Page 
of the International Peirce Community http://buff.ly/1BG3CMM


I do what I can to alert Twitter folk to Peirce. I remember an 
excellent introductory statement listing all of his impacts. But when 
I took a look just now I could not find it. If I was a novice, well 
maybe I am, I would want to see this in order to get a sense of the 
person.



-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy - Continuity

[Kirsti Määttänen]

Stephen,

I agree.

Best,

Kirsti
Stephen C. Rose [stever...@gmail.com] kirjoitti: 

Seeing continuity non-mathematically, is it not the sense of the universal
motion itself - of chronology taking place in a way that we can say, Yes,
we are part of that. A continuum might relate to something within the realm
we call finite. Real but an element or creation.  Continuity would be an
aspect of Reality itself.


-
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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[paul eduardo]

List
I think fallibilism, triadic logic (although I prefer  call it Trinitary logic) 
and the doctrine of continuity,  represents the foundation of Peircean 
doctrine. With these concepts we can write a story so that the past is 
understandable without recourse to metaphysical concepts encadenantes or 
capricious basis.
 I think that the three concepts preform a structure that exceeds the Hegelian 
structure because the latter has the defect of necessity, default inherited by 
the materialist conception of history, and Positivist history.
 Written with the use of the three named concepts (flaibilismo, continuity and  
triadic logic), we could write a history  that respects human freedom, free of 
any kind of determinism caused by the belief in the existence of a causal 
chain, and mainly would allow for a more accurate survey of future events. 
Therefore with  this type of hi story, we could make economic predictions that 
could be changed if its effects are undesirable.
 I am currently working on this issue, my problem is the lack of Peirce's works 
in English, as soon as I can buy the complete works, I will finish the paper 
with  all the  correspondentquotes.
Paul Femenia
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:33:03 -0500
From: stever...@gmail.com
To: Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

Regardless of how it may be explained or parsed by different disciplines, 
continuity seems to me to relate mainly to time (mainly chronological time) and 
to the fluidity that this creates, especially when one wishes to fix anything 
IN time. I see CSP as having simply helped to make continuity and fallibility 
acceptable as descriptions of reality to the extent that reality is presently 
known. Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: 
http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

  
-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Continuity

[Stephen C. Rose]

Seeing continuity non-mathematically, is it not the sense of the universal
motion itself - of chronology taking place in a way that we can say, Yes,
we are part of that. A continuum might relate to something within the realm
we call finite. Real but an element or creation.  Continuity would be an
aspect of Reality itself.

-
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] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

Regardless of how it may be explained or parsed by different disciplines,
continuity seems to me to relate mainly to time (mainly chronological time)
and to the fluidity that this creates, especially when one wishes to fix
anything IN time. I see CSP as having simply helped to make continuity and
fallibility acceptable as descriptions of reality to the extent that
reality is presently known.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

-
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] Triadic Philosophy - Naturalism and Reality

[Stephen C. Rose]

This snippet from another thread:

Frederik says, Peirce refused nominalism and psychologism often, if not
always together. Peirce refused both - with the upshot that his naturalism
automatically includes thought, logic, semiotics, and mind as intrinsic
aspects

I want to reiterate my position that the first term of my core triad
Reality Ethics Aesthetics accords with what the above representation
ascribes to Naturalism. I believe all is included in Reality including
falsity or unreality, nature, thought, logic and so forth. Reality is the
best inclusive term for one who is not a nominalist. It is the foundational
term for a triad that includes, though in reverse order Ethics and
Aesthetics), the two areas CSP eventually tagged as normative sciences.
Following the current discussions, I am more and more convinced that
Triadic Philosophy is an apt extension of pragmaticism. Just as I think the
gist of Frederik's book is an apt extension of our understanding of life
and what it consists of in essence.

Explanatory note -For the sake of clarity, I will attach Triadic Philosophy
to my public posts even if I am moved to respond to thoughts in other
threads. My use of terms common to Peirce is hardly apposite in some
contexts.

Finally, on October 23 my short book Triadic Primer will appear as a Kindle
publication. I am glad to make it available free as a Word attachment to
any who request it via email. My quid pro quo would be a brief statement I
could at my discretion include in the published work.

Cheers, S

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*

-
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 .

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Helmut Raulien]

Thank you, Stephen, for you answer and your invitation, sorry for the delay. I hope to come to NY some time more or less soon. I am not sure now, if my attempt of reducing the categories to (time, space, continuum) is ok. I have often followed a path, and later realized, that it was misleading. In semiotics it is not clear, what it is about: Reflection or also action? Is action possible without a reflecting universe? I dont think so. Thats why I believe in God or universal mind, but I dont like calling it belief, but rather assumption. I assume sounds more friendly than I believe. Because Belief is weird, arrogant, not contradictable. But if someone would ask me, if I would believe in God, I would say yes. But for real, it is an assumption, but a most critical one. Without it I would feel like dead. So, for me, I might call it belief. But I mistrust the concept of belief others have. Religion is dangerous, like atomic energy. It has to be handled properly. I like the spiritual part of it, but fear and dislike the prophetic part of it. Islam: Sufis are lovely, but leave me alone with mullahs. I have never recieved more hatred than I had in one christian internet forum. Self-named Christians can be close to what I would subsume under the opposite. My way of dealing with that all, is trying to tell between truth and lies, between reality and myths. Just now i have written something (quasi-) theological, it is at the end of the chapter categories in www.signs-in-time.de , English version, categories. See you once in the pub in the center of Manhattan,

Best,

Helmut



Gesendet:Samstag, 20. September 2014 um 23:56 Uhr
Von:Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
An:Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de
Cc:Peirce List peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff:Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy


Thank Helmut. Nous sommes sur la meme page as Peirce would probably interject. So if you ever get to the exact center of Manhattan which I take to be the intersection of Herald and Greeley Squares, you get your choice of beverage on me exchange for an hour of conversation. That actually goes for anyone whos willing. Yes I am at work on my Triadic Primer which is nothing more than in imagining of how someone can actually use my reality ethics aesthetic triad to foment a global democratic revolution just by messaging people - by the millions and more. My relationship to this list fascinates me. I think of Peirce from time to time and his relationships. We do not share much I am sure but some abrasiveness perhaps and an odd sense that things are more OK for more reasons than many seem t see. Cheers, S




@stephencrose




On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:






Hi Stephen,

I disagree with that what you wrote makes no sense, to me it absolutely does. I also think, that everybody is a philosopher. But why is not everybody a semiotician, resp. a triadic thinker? I have the hunch that this is so, because Peirces writings seem somehow convoluted and esoteric. I say, they seem so. I dont say, that they are so, or are not logically clear and correct. But the mainstream way of thinking is different from Peirces way of thinking. So access is difficult. So my attempt is to reduce the categories concept to something more trivial, or common senseous, that is time, space, continuum. Everybody knows, what time is, what space is, and what continuity is. You have mentioned Ten of this and so forth: That a sign can be of a certain class does not mean, that it is reduced to this class: An iconical object relation eg. means, that category 1 is showing up at the front of the sign. But a sign is connected with the phaneron in an irreducible triadic way, that always includes all three categories. Regarding its iconicity alone, is incompleteness of regard, not reduction. Another example for the difference between incomplete regard and reduction: You can regard your moving leg while you are running. The leg would not move without your heart and your brain being active. So the leg is not reducible from heart and brain. But an incomplete regard is possible: It is possible to only look at the leg. And: Regard is always and must be incomplete. Nobody would be able to see the whole picture. I must pull the brake, just one more thing: I agree that there are objective standards in aesthetics and ethics. My example with fashion was just one example of non-objectivity, that cannot be generalized. So far,

Best,

Helmut


Gesendet:Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 um 22:28 Uhr
Von:Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
An:Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de
Cc:Peirce List peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff:Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy




Hi Helmut - I am afraid that there is much in your emendation with which I am either at sea (do not grasp) or do not (I think) agree with. The fact that both reactions intermingle makes it hard to respond. A few general remarks: I have great difficulty with categories as being much more than what I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Clark Goble]

On Sep 21, 2014, at 9:17 PM, Clark Goble cl...@libertypages.com wrote:


 On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com 
 mailto:stever...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 2) Which of Peirce’s writings contribute to the development and articulation 
 of his late value theory? 
 
 http://buff.ly/XM88XI http://buff.ly/XM88XI
 
 
 'via Blog this' 
 https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk
Thank you for that. I hadn’t seen that bibliography before. (I always like the 
stuff Kelly Parker does on Peirce)

While perusing it briefly I rather liked this quote:

science is nothing but a development of our natural instincts (CP 6.412)

It’s a rather interesting way to think about it. Thinking about Peircean 
developments of common sense it’s a rather fruitful way to think about how 
science starts modifying folk theories until it gets scientists to think 
intuitively along different theoretical grounds. Effectively Peirce’s theory of 
common sensism explains scientific community rather well. We just have a 
specialized community.


-
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 .

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

Thank Helmut. Nous sommes sur la meme page as Peirce would probably
interject. So if you ever get to the exact center of Manhattan which I take
to be the intersection of Herald and Greeley Squares, you get your choice
of beverage on me exchange for an hour of conversation. That actually goes
for anyone who's willing. Yes I am at work on my Triadic Primer which is
nothing more than in imagining of how someone can actually use my reality
ethics aesthetic triad to foment a global democratic revolution just by
messaging people - by the millions and more. My relationship to this list
fascinates me. I think of Peirce from time to time and his relationships.
We do not share much I am sure but some abrasiveness perhaps and an odd
sense that things are more OK for more reasons than many seem t see.
Cheers, S

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:


 Hi Stephen,
 I disagree with  that what you wrote makes no sense, to me it absolutely
 does. I also think, that everybody is a philosopher. But why is not
 everybody a semiotician, resp. a triadic thinker? I have the hunch that
 this is so, because Peirces writings seem somehow convoluted and esoteric.
 I say, they seem so. I dont say, that they are so, or are not logically
 clear and correct. But the mainstream way of thinking is different from
 Peirces way of thinking. So access is difficult. So my attempt is to reduce
 the categories concept to something more trivial, or common senseous, that
 is time, space, continuum. Everybody knows, what time is, what space is,
 and what continuity is. You have mentioned Ten of this and so forth: That
 a sign can be of a certain class does not mean, that it is reduced to this
 class: An iconical object relation eg. means, that category 1 is showing up
 at the front of the sign. But a sign is connected with the phaneron in an
 irreducible triadic way, that always includes all three categories.
 Regarding its iconicity alone, is incompleteness of regard, not reduction.
 Another example for the difference between incomplete regard and reduction:
 You can regard your moving leg while you are running. The leg would not
 move without your heart and your brain being active. So the leg is not
 reducible from heart and brain. But an incomplete regard is possible: It is
 possible to only look at the leg. And: Regard is always and must be
 incomplete. Nobody would be able to see the whole picture. I must pull the
 brake, just one more thing: I agree that there are objective standards in
 aesthetics and ethics. My example with fashion was just one example of
 non-objectivity, that cannot be generalized. So far,
 Best,
 Helmut
  *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 um 22:28 Uhr
 *Von:* Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 *An:* Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de
 *Cc:* Peirce List peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
 *Betreff:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy
  Hi Helmut - I am afraid that there is much in your emendation with which
 I am either at sea (do not grasp) or do not (I think) agree with. The fact
 that both reactions intermingle makes it hard to respond. A few general
 remarks: I have great difficulty with categories as being much more than
 what I call meta - things that are meant to explain or situate or enlarge
 on fundamentals. The triad that I have come up with was and remains an
 effort to simplify what I am sure is an endlessly complex endeavor when you
 get into some of the descriptions I have seen here. Ten of this and so
 forth. My aim is always to find a way to say things to the broadest of
 audiences. My days are spent on Twitter seeking to create statements that
 seek not popularity but resonance. When Dostoevsky says all Russians are
 philosophers I say all people are. I will add that I believe there are
 objective standards that can be applied to both ethics and aesthetics and
 that both in triadic philosophy are a spectrum ranging from the most evil
 and ugly to the most beautiful, true and good. I am sure this makes no
 sense but it's what I think.

  *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*

 On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:


 Dear Stephen, All,
 I agree, that (Esthetics, Ethics, Logic) is a quite fundamental triad, in
 accord with Peirces categories (1,2,3). Now what do you think of this
 thought: Categories are supposed to be something most fundamental. Now,
 what is the most fundamental? The matrix of everything, in which events
 take place, according to Einstein, is the Space-time-continuum. So my
 proposal of assignment is: Time = category 1. Space = Category 2. Continuum
 = Category 3. Esthetics change with time. Fashion is changing. What was
 beautiful to me yesterday may seem ugly to me today.  Ethics tell us what
 space we have to act properly, tell us, how far (in real or virtual space)
 we can go without hurting others or ourselves. Logic is the time- and
 spaceless continuum

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

From:

Charles S. Peirce on Esthetics and Ethics
A Bibliography

Kelly A. Parker

Value theory is the least developed area of Peirce’s philosophy. At the
core of  Peircean value theory are the studies of esthetics, ethics and
logic that he grouped together under the heading of normative sciences.
What Peirce wrote on esthetics and ethics is indeed fragmentary, but–as the
present bibliography indicates–it is not insubstantial.


Sources were identified with the aim of addressing the following two
questions concerning Peirce’s value theory:


1) When and how did Peirce come to identify esthetics and ethics as
normative sciences, and hence as part of philosophy proper?


2) Which of Peirce’s writings contribute to the development and
articulation of his late value theory?


http://buff.ly/XM88XI



'via Blog this'
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Jon Awbrey]

Stephen, All,

Sorry, on a 1 dot wifi so hard to chase links, but I always thought aesthetics, 
ethics, logic as normative sciences whose objects are beauty, goodness (arête), 
truth, respectively, was a classical notion?

Jon 

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com

 On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 From:
 
 Charles S. Peirce on Esthetics and Ethics
 A Bibliography
 
 Kelly A. Parker
 
 Value theory is the least developed area of Peirce’s philosophy. At the core 
 of  Peircean value theory are the studies of esthetics, ethics and logic that 
 he grouped together under the heading of normative sciences. What Peirce 
 wrote on esthetics and ethics is indeed fragmentary, but–as the present 
 bibliography indicates–it is not insubstantial.
 
 Sources were identified with the aim of addressing the following two 
 questions concerning Peirce’s value theory:
 
 1) When and how did Peirce come to identify esthetics and ethics as 
 normative sciences, and hence as part of philosophy proper?
 
 2) Which of Peirce’s writings contribute to the development and articulation 
 of his late value theory? 
 
 http://buff.ly/XM88XI
 
 
 'via Blog this'
 
 @stephencrose

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

The text is a quote Jon not my own thinking. To me beauty and truth are
ultimately one as Keats proposes. Ethics in my triad is a second (index)
through which a sign passes on its way to being translated into an
expression or action or both. I reverse CP's order and name the third
aesthetics.

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net wrote:

 Stephen, All,

 Sorry, on a 1 dot wifi so hard to chase links, but I always thought
 aesthetics, ethics, logic as normative sciences whose objects are beauty,
 goodness (arête), truth, respectively, was a classical notion?

 Jon

 http://inquiryintoinquiry.com

 On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 From:

 Charles S. Peirce on Esthetics and Ethics
 A Bibliography

 Kelly A. Parker

 Value theory is the least developed area of Peirce’s philosophy. At the
 core of  Peircean value theory are the studies of esthetics, ethics and
 logic that he grouped together under the heading of normative sciences.
 What Peirce wrote on esthetics and ethics is indeed fragmentary, but–as the
 present bibliography indicates–it is not insubstantial.


 Sources were identified with the aim of addressing the following two
 questions concerning Peirce’s value theory:


 1) When and how did Peirce come to identify esthetics and ethics as
 normative sciences, and hence as part of philosophy proper?


 2) Which of Peirce’s writings contribute to the development and
 articulation of his late value theory?


 http://buff.ly/XM88XI



 'via Blog this'
 https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk

 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*



-
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 .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy

[Stephen C. Rose]

Hi Helmut - I am afraid that there is much in your emendation with which I
am either at sea (do not grasp) or do not (I think) agree with. The fact
that both reactions intermingle makes it hard to respond. A few general
remarks: I have great difficulty with categories as being much more than
what I call meta - things that are meant to explain or situate or enlarge
on fundamentals. The triad that I have come up with was and remains an
effort to simplify what I am sure is an endlessly complex endeavor when you
get into some of the descriptions I have seen here. Ten of this and so
forth. My aim is always to find a way to say things to the broadest of
audiences. My days are spent on Twitter seeking to create statements that
seek not popularity but resonance. When Dostoevsky says all Russians are
philosophers I say all people are. I will add that I believe there are
objective standards that can be applied to both ethics and aesthetics and
that both in triadic philosophy are a spectrum ranging from the most evil
and ugly to the most beautiful, true and good. I am sure this makes no
sense but it's what I think.

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:


 Dear Stephen, All,
 I agree, that (Esthetics, Ethics, Logic) is a quite fundamental triad, in
 accord with Peirces categories (1,2,3). Now what do you think of this
 thought: Categories are supposed to be something most fundamental. Now,
 what is the most fundamental? The matrix of everything, in which events
 take place, according to Einstein, is the Space-time-continuum. So my
 proposal of assignment is: Time = category 1. Space = Category 2. Continuum
 = Category 3. Esthetics change with time. Fashion is changing. What was
 beautiful to me yesterday may seem ugly to me today.  Ethics tell us what
 space we have to act properly, tell us, how far (in real or virtual space)
 we can go without hurting others or ourselves. Logic is the time- and
 spaceless continuum that combines all. A representamen is a piece of time
 that denotes a piece of space. An object is a piece of space that denotes a
 piece of time. Here I disagree with Peirce. A sign is not a first, an
 object not a second. Categories 1 and 2 are equally fundamental or equally
 unique. Just like one cannot know, whether the hen or the egg is more
 unique, we can never know, whether time or space is the more unique.
 Neither is the continuum either a product of, or the cause for the other
 two, because it is both. So this is triadic irreducibility: No one of the
 sign elements or of the categories can exist without the other two. And no
 one is first, second, or third. (1, 2, 3) are just symbols for
 distinguishment of characters, but not for temporality or essentiality. So
 far my opinion.
 Very best,
 Helmut
  *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 18. September 2014 um 21:37 Uhr
 *Von:* Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 *An:* Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net
 *Cc:* Peirce List Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
 *Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy
  The text is a quote Jon not my own thinking. To me beauty and truth are
 ultimately one as Keats proposes. Ethics in my triad is a second (index)
 through which a sign passes on its way to being translated into an
 expression or action or both. I reverse CP's order and name the third
 aesthetics.

  *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*

 On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net wrote:

  Stephen, All,

 Sorry, on a 1 dot wifi so hard to chase links, but I always thought
 aesthetics, ethics, logic as normative sciences whose objects are beauty,
 goodness (arête), truth, respectively, was a classical notion?

 Jon

 http://inquiryintoinquiry.com

 On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 From:

  Charles S. Peirce on Esthetics and Ethics
 A Bibliography

 Kelly A. Parker


 Value theory is the least developed area of Peirce’s philosophy. At the
 core of  Peircean value theory are the studies of esthetics, ethics and
 logic that he grouped together under the heading of normative sciences.
 What Peirce wrote on esthetics and ethics is indeed fragmentary, but–as the
 present bibliography indicates–it is not insubstantial.



 Sources were identified with the aim of addressing the following two
 questions concerning Peirce’s value theory:



 1) When and how did Peirce come to identify esthetics and ethics as
 normative sciences, and hence as part of philosophy proper?



 2) Which of Peirce’s writings contribute to the development and
 articulation of his late value theory?



 http://buff.ly/XM88XI





 'via Blog this'
 https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk

  *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*

- 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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

[Stephen C. Rose]

19.

Triadic Philosophy is about more than thinking in threes. It is also about
adopting a daily discipline. If you are not inclined to devote a half hour
a day to walking or some modest physical movement and if you are not
willing to give a daily regimen a try, then the chances of benefit
diminish. You benefit of course from the ideas you are reading and the
thoughts they stimulate, but each day loses out in adventures not
undertaken and conclusions never considered or arrived at. So be prepared
to imbibe a notion or two about lifestyle. There is a consolation. It is
not hard to learn and it is free.

20.

Let me share what I do and suggest what is required and what is optional.
I divide my half hour walk (on a treadmill or outside depending) into six
segments averaging five minutes each. My text is my version of the Lord's
Prayer:

Abba whose home in heaven is
Hallowed and holy is your name
Let your realm come your will be done
Till earth and heaven are the same

Give us this day our daily bread
Forgive the wrongs that we have done
As we forgive those who do wrong
Lead us not into temptation

Deliver us from evil Lord
And guide us safely to your shore
Yours is the power to heal and mend
Yours is the glory evermore

I may sing to myself very slowly or speak to myself. I alternate these
segments with three other segments which I will explain. I recommend that
every practitioner have a text such as this. It may be a prayer or a sacred
text or it may be something entirely different. It only needs to have
meaning. With this caveat: Within the words I have written above there is
an utterly necessary act which is at the very center of Triadic Philosophy.
It is the act of forgiving all. And the act of seeking forgiveness for all
the wrongs that you have done.
Triadic Philosophy acknowledges the fallibility and the downright evil in
the world and the need to confront it. And it is impossible to advance as a
human being without being able to forgive and without seeking forgiveness.

The other three segments of my daily half hour are generally given over to
what Peirce called musement. They are meditative periods where the focus is
on whatever I choose. Most often it is whatever I am most concerned about.
And I can tell you that there is no greater proof of the value of this than
the momentous decisions that can emerge. These daily half hours are an
action engine.

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
wrote:

 THanks. Will do - or won't. Whichever is correct usage. Cheers, S

 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


 On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 [off-list]  Stephen,

 I'd suggest not getting into it too deeply with Jerry. He's something of
 a curmudgeon, and you never can win with him (just as you can't with
 Edwina, for example). Save yourself the grief is my suggestion.

 Best,

 Gary


  *Gary Richmond*
 *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
 *Communication Studies*
 *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*


 On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I am not sure what you are saying. Non-idolatry in my view is the
 supreme value of all and underlies all other good values. This means it can
 modify, condition, adjust, trump or accentuate one's consideration. If you
 mean that is the strong conclusion. The premise as I read it is that time
 has shown or revealed the pertinence of three values which in Triadic
 Philosophy are called action values. These are the ones named. The
 statement says that tolerance, helpfulness and democracy are values whose
 practice by individuals, collectively and over time, result in human
 progress.

 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


 On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Jerry LR Chandler 
 jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote:


 On Jun 27, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:

 17.

 Within the scope of chronology, of continuity,  tolerance, democracy
 and helpfulness have risen to the top. Non-idolatry underlies them all.



 I fail to detect a rhetorical relationship between what appears to be a
 multi-term and rather unclear premise and the strong conclusion drawn.

 Cheers

 Jerry





 -
 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

[Stephen C. Rose]

I am not sure what you are saying. Non-idolatry in my view is the supreme
value of all and underlies all other good values. This means it can modify,
condition, adjust, trump or accentuate one's consideration. If you mean
that is the strong conclusion. The premise as I read it is that time has
shown or revealed the pertinence of three values which in Triadic
Philosophy are called action values. These are the ones named. The
statement says that tolerance, helpfulness and democracy are values whose
practice by individuals, collectively and over time, result in human
progress.

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Jerry LR Chandler 
jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote:


 On Jun 27, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:

 17.

 Within the scope of chronology, of continuity,  tolerance, democracy and
 helpfulness have risen to the top. Non-idolatry underlies them all.


 I fail to detect a rhetorical relationship between what appears to be a
 multi-term and rather unclear premise and the strong conclusion drawn.

 Cheers

 Jerry




-
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 .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

[Stephen C. Rose]

 conduct can only rise from memory
 when our investigations have been made and reduced to a memorial maxim.
  He is right. We literally imbibe the values by which we live, turning them
 into the agenda of our minds.


 14.

 Triadic philosophy places reality at the head, ethics as immediately
 following, and aesthetics as the springboard of all action. As we think we
 begin with whatever comes up as real and submit these signs to  the
 ethical. Ethics considers tolerance in its varied senses,  helpfulness or
 enabling and democracy as universal rights. From ethics we move  to the
 aesthetic. We complete our thought by imagining an act or expression that
 follows it. All of this becomes second nature as it it is practiced.


 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


 On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 11.



 The common use of aesthetics to describe art is too narrow. Everyone is
 an artist. Life is performance. All acts have aesthetic properties from
 ugly to sublime. Like everything else, aesthetics is a spectrum. Triadic
 philosophy is a means of becoming conscious not only of where good lies but
 how goodness manifests itself. This approach solves problems Mao could not
 overcome by force. Aesthetics harnesses nonviolence. It moves the world
 toward the beauties of true community. It evolves morality beyond the worst
 instances of harm and violence. It is not utopian. It is moral evolution.
 One by one. It accepts the pace of continuity.



 12.



 This remarkable text is drawn from Joseph Brent,  Charles Sanders
 Peirce: A Life, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1993, Page 331. There are
 only three fundamental kinds of relations: monadic, dyadic and triadic;
 ... by combining triads, all relations greater than the number  three can
 be generated; and ... all those of a greater number than three can be
 reduced to triads. Since, in addition, triads cannot be reduced to dyads,
 nor dyads to monads, monads, dyads and triads constitute the fundamental
 categories of relations. At the same time, triads are made up of dyads and
 monads, and dyads of monads. Hence, in logical order, monads are first,
 dyads second, and triads third, which gives a second group of relations:
 first, second, and third. Hypostatic abstraction provides a third group of
 relations: firstness, secondness, and thirdness, which contain first second
 and third, which in turn contain monads, dyads, and triads. Altogether,
 these elements constitute the abstract,formal mathematical categories and
 relations that constitute the elements of thought. And the remarkable
 truth: When we move beyond two we enter the realm of Triadic Philosophy.

 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Excellent and all the best to you. I have a much loved classmate from
 those parts. It is wonderful to be in a world made smaller by cyber-means.
 Cheers, S

  *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
  wrote:

 Hungary...

 All the best from Budapest!



 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, 21 June 2014 6:17 PM
 *To:* Stephen Jarosek

 *Subject:* Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction



 Netflix beats tv in many ways. Now hu I have to look up. Cheers, S


  *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*



 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Stephen Jarosek 
 sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote:

 Yes, from au but currently residing in hu (the .au is a giveaway I
 guess). I've had to look up RAKE on wikipedia to confirm that I have not
 seen it. I've never been a big fan of tv... not in au, usa and even less so
 in hu given the language!

 Best,

 sj



 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, 21 June 2014 5:53 PM
 *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List


 *Subject:* Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction



 I much appreciate your comment that in reference to the subject of this
 thread. What I gather is a good respect for the utility of threes without
 feeling the need to be rigid about it. Agree. And something cautionary
 about any conclusion made by anyone on the basis of an alleged
 philosophical method of any sort or stripe. Also agree. Which is why
 fallibility is among the terms that most appeals. You are from AU I either
 know or infer. I have just been watching RAKE the first two AU seasons.
 With general pleasure. Cheers, S


 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*



 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Stephen Jarosek 
 sjaro...@iinet.net.au wrote:

  What then is thinking in threes?



 Having formulated my own triadic scheme (desire, association,
 habituation) before I even heard of semiotics, I can tell you that, from my
 humble perspective, when I was contemplating the limitations of association
 and habituation on their own

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

[Stephen C. Rose]

13.

Triadic Philosophy is a ground-breaking way of thinking that is universal.
 Anyone can and should do it.  It can be explained simply.  It is a way of
thinking in threes.  First,  we take a reality we want to deal with. Next,
 we run that reality past the terms tolerance, democracy, helpfulness and
non-idolatry. This is the universal ethical index of Triadic Philosophy.
Finally,  we consider a response that aspires to truth and beauty. Three
stages - Reality, Ethics, Aesthetics.   C. S. Peirce said [EP2:258],
Whenever we set out to do anything we 'go upon', we base our conduct on
facts already known.  He added that our conduct can only rise from memory
when our investigations have been made and reduced to a memorial maxim.
 He is right. We literally imbibe the values by which we live, turning them
into the agenda of our minds.


14.

Triadic philosophy places reality at the head, ethics as immediately
following, and aesthetics as the springboard of all action. As we think we
begin with whatever comes up as real and submit these signs to  the
ethical. Ethics considers tolerance in its varied senses,  helpfulness or
enabling and democracy as universal rights. From ethics we move  to the
aesthetic. We complete our thought by imagining an act or expression that
follows it. All of this becomes second nature as it it is practiced.


*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
wrote:

 11.



 The common use of aesthetics to describe art is too narrow. Everyone is an
 artist. Life is performance. All acts have aesthetic properties from ugly
 to sublime. Like everything else, aesthetics is a spectrum. Triadic
 philosophy is a means of becoming conscious not only of where good lies but
 how goodness manifests itself. This approach solves problems Mao could not
 overcome by force. Aesthetics harnesses nonviolence. It moves the world
 toward the beauties of true community. It evolves morality beyond the worst
 instances of harm and violence. It is not utopian. It is moral evolution.
 One by one. It accepts the pace of continuity.



 12.



 This remarkable text is drawn from Joseph Brent,  Charles Sanders
 Peirce: A Life, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1993, Page 331. There are
 only three fundamental kinds of relations: monadic, dyadic and triadic;
 ... by combining triads, all relations greater than the number  three can
 be generated; and ... all those of a greater number than three can be
 reduced to triads. Since, in addition, triads cannot be reduced to dyads,
 nor dyads to monads, monads, dyads and triads constitute the fundamental
 categories of relations. At the same time, triads are made up of dyads and
 monads, and dyads of monads. Hence, in logical order, monads are first,
 dyads second, and triads third, which gives a second group of relations:
 first, second, and third. Hypostatic abstraction provides a third group of
 relations: firstness, secondness, and thirdness, which contain first second
 and third, which in turn contain monads, dyads, and triads. Altogether,
 these elements constitute the abstract,formal mathematical categories and
 relations that constitute the elements of thought. And the remarkable
 truth: When we move beyond two we enter the realm of Triadic Philosophy.

 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Excellent and all the best to you. I have a much loved classmate from
 those parts. It is wonderful to be in a world made smaller by cyber-means.
 Cheers, S

  *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
 wrote:

 Hungary...

 All the best from Budapest!



 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, 21 June 2014 6:17 PM
 *To:* Stephen Jarosek

 *Subject:* Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction



 Netflix beats tv in many ways. Now hu I have to look up. Cheers, S


  *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*



 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
 wrote:

 Yes, from au but currently residing in hu (the .au is a giveaway I
 guess). I've had to look up RAKE on wikipedia to confirm that I have not
 seen it. I've never been a big fan of tv... not in au, usa and even less so
 in hu given the language!

 Best,

 sj



 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, 21 June 2014 5:53 PM
 *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List


 *Subject:* Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction



 I much appreciate your comment that in reference to the subject of this
 thread. What I gather is a good respect for the utility of threes without
 feeling the need to be rigid about it. Agree. And something cautionary
 about any conclusion made by anyone on the basis of an alleged
 philosophical method of any sort or stripe. Also agree. Which

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

[Stephen C. Rose]

11.



The common use of aesthetics to describe art is too narrow. Everyone is an
artist. Life is performance. All acts have aesthetic properties from ugly
to sublime. Like everything else, aesthetics is a spectrum. Triadic
philosophy is a means of becoming conscious not only of where good lies but
how goodness manifests itself. This approach solves problems Mao could not
overcome by force. Aesthetics harnesses nonviolence. It moves the world
toward the beauties of true community. It evolves morality beyond the worst
instances of harm and violence. It is not utopian. It is moral evolution.
One by one. It accepts the pace of continuity.



12.



This remarkable text is drawn from Joseph Brent,  Charles Sanders Peirce: A
Life, Bloomington and Indianapolis 1993, Page 331. There are only three
fundamental kinds of relations: monadic, dyadic and triadic; ... by
combining triads, all relations greater than the number  three can be
generated; and ... all those of a greater number than three can be reduced
to triads. Since, in addition, triads cannot be reduced to dyads, nor dyads
to monads, monads, dyads and triads constitute the fundamental categories
of relations. At the same time, triads are made up of dyads and monads, and
dyads of monads. Hence, in logical order, monads are first, dyads second,
and triads third, which gives a second group of relations: first,
second, and third. Hypostatic abstraction provides a third group of
relations: firstness, secondness, and thirdness, which contain first second
and third, which in turn contain monads, dyads, and triads. Altogether,
these elements constitute the abstract,formal mathematical categories and
relations that constitute the elements of thought. And the remarkable
truth: When we move beyond two we enter the realm of Triadic Philosophy.

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Excellent and all the best to you. I have a much loved classmate from
 those parts. It is wonderful to be in a world made smaller by cyber-means.
 Cheers, S

 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
 wrote:

 Hungary...

 All the best from Budapest!



 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, 21 June 2014 6:17 PM
 *To:* Stephen Jarosek

 *Subject:* Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction



 Netflix beats tv in many ways. Now hu I have to look up. Cheers, S


  *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*



 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
 wrote:

 Yes, from au but currently residing in hu (the .au is a giveaway I
 guess). I've had to look up RAKE on wikipedia to confirm that I have not
 seen it. I've never been a big fan of tv... not in au, usa and even less so
 in hu given the language!

 Best,

 sj



 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Saturday, 21 June 2014 5:53 PM
 *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List


 *Subject:* Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction



 I much appreciate your comment that in reference to the subject of this
 thread. What I gather is a good respect for the utility of threes without
 feeling the need to be rigid about it. Agree. And something cautionary
 about any conclusion made by anyone on the basis of an alleged
 philosophical method of any sort or stripe. Also agree. Which is why
 fallibility is among the terms that most appeals. You are from AU I either
 know or infer. I have just been watching RAKE the first two AU seasons.
 With general pleasure. Cheers, S


 *@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*



 On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
 wrote:

  What then is thinking in threes?



 Having formulated my own triadic scheme (desire, association,
 habituation) before I even heard of semiotics, I can tell you that, from my
 humble perspective, when I was contemplating the limitations of association
 and habituation on their own, the situation was analogous to a two-legged
 stool. Another element was required to establish a stable tripod, and
 that's when the relevance of desire began to crystallize in my mind. From
 there, things began to snowball, and stumbling across semiotics, I was able
 to factor all that into the established Peircean narrative with reference
 to pragmatism, the mind-body unity, etc. So I suppose you could expand that
 to a FOUR-category system where the fourth category is something like FORM
 (in the sense of appearance or shape). In this case, you need a physical
 FORM (body) in order to define the things that matter. What about a
 fifth? Or can one of the categories be subdivided into sub-categories? For
 example... imitation (as a dimension of association)... or recursion (as a
 dimension of habituation). We could go on, but I think three, from our
 Euro-linguistic perspective

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction Meaning of Aesthetics as a Term?

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Steven, List:

On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:

 If Triadic Philosophy has any claim to originality it might be in the third 
 term in its root triad which is Aesthetics.


A critical comment, if I may...

At a deep level, the origins and the dictionary meanings of words are always 
fundamental when one seeks to communicate a perplex meaning to a colleagues and 
wider readerships.

Please consider the following entry in the Apple Dictionary:

aesthetic |esˈTHetik|(also esthetic )
adjective
concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty: the pictures give great 
aesthetic pleasure.
• giving or designed to give pleasure through beauty; of pleasing appearance.
noun [ in sing. ]
a set of principles underlying and guiding the work of a particular artist or 
artistic movement: the Cubist aesthetic.
DERIVATIVES
aesthetically |-ik(ə)lē|adverb [ as submodifier ] : an aesthetically pleasing 
color combination
ORIGIN late 18th cent. (in the sense ‘relating to perception by the senses’): 
from Greek aisthētikos, from aisthēta ‘perceptible things,’ from aisthesthai 
‘perceive.’ The sense ‘concerned with beauty’ was coined in German in the mid 
18th cent. and adopted into English in the early 19th cent., but its use was 
controversial until late in the century.

If one bases the meaning on the German invention concerned with beauty, one 
becomes entrained in mental pathways that are in the eye of the beholder.
If one bases the meaning of aesthetics on the original Greek root, one becomes 
entrained in mental pathways of a broader sort.  In particular, one notes that 
perceptive minds perceive realistic signs and ethical boundaries.
This interpretation raises a red flag for me.  In what sense are the base terms 
of a triadic philosophy independent of one another, or is triadic philosophy 
rooted in three interdependent terms?
Finally, what would be your preference - three independent terms or three 
interdependent terms?  The nature of the associative logic will be related to 
your choice.

Cheers
Jerry



-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction Meaning of Aesthetics as a Term?

[Stephen C. Rose]

I most appreciate your reply and exposition of the past meanings and your
questions. I am going to answer the final one and see where this goes.
Triadic Philosophy is rooted in three interdependent terms. Without the
three in the order they have there is no substance to it. The three terms
Reality Ethics and Aesthetics signify the Sign, the Index and the Active
element which is the Aesthetic. The entire triad and indeed the entire
philosophy is an explicit method of generating actual conduct by
individuals. It may have other implications but this has from the start
been the reason for presenting the triad exactly as it is and as a fixed
means of engaging in conscious thought that can lead to conscious
expressions or actions.

I would add that your note leaves considerable room for at least
considering that aesthetics does not deserve to be seen primarily as the
province of the art world (Danto). It  underlies as Shakespeare understood
the world itself. Were I an accredited philosopher with the capacity to
influence thought, I would certainly stake a career or two on this
contention.

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jerry LR Chandler 
jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote:

 Steven, List:

 On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:

 If Triadic Philosophy has any claim to originality it might be in the
 third term in its root triad which is Aesthetics.



 A critical comment, if I may...

 At a deep level, the origins and the dictionary meanings of words are
 always fundamental when one seeks to communicate a perplex meaning to a
 colleagues and wider readerships.

 Please consider the following entry in the Apple Dictionary:

 aesthetic |esˈTHetik|(also esthetic )adjectiveconcerned with beauty or
 the appreciation of beauty: the pictures give great aesthetic pleasure.• 
 giving
 or designed to give pleasure through beauty; of pleasing appearance.noun
  [ in sing. ]a set of principles underlying and guiding the work of a
 particular artist or artistic movement: the Cubist aesthetic.DERIVATIVES
 aesthetically |-ik(ə)lē|adverb [ as submodifier ] : an aesthetically
 pleasing color combinationORIGIN late 18th cent. (in the sense ‘relating
 to perception by the senses’): from Greek aisthētikos, from aisthēta 
 ‘perceptible
 things,’ from aisthesthai ‘perceive.’ The sense ‘concerned with beauty’ was
 coined in German in the mid 18th cent. and adopted into English in the
 early 19th cent., but its use was controversial until late in the century.
 If one bases the meaning on the German invention concerned with beauty,
 one becomes entrained in mental pathways that are in the eye of the
 beholder.If one bases the meaning of aesthetics on the original Greek
 root, one becomes entrained in mental pathways of a broader sort.  In
 particular, one notes that perceptive minds perceive realistic signs and
 ethical boundaries.This interpretation raises a red flag for me.  In what
 sense are the base terms of a triadic philosophy independent of one
 another, or is triadic philosophy rooted in three interdependent 
 terms?Finally,
 what would be your preference - three independent terms or three
 interdependent terms?  The nature of the associative logic will be related
 to your choice.
 CheersJerry



-
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 .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

[Stephen C. Rose]

9.



What then is thinking in threes? On one level it is a means of preventing
conflict from coming to a head. If two objects are busily colliding, it
helps to have a third option. It can even be suggested that our minds are
triadic, they can spin out conclusions indefinitely. And three is the way
to infinity which, by the way, Peirce regarded as real. Thinking in threes
is what would have transformed our war on terror into a Sherlock Holmes
investigation of the reasons for terrorism and apprehension of those
responsible instead of killing vast multitudes of innocent bystanders. In
essence, if you cannot resolve anything in a way that will not harm, keep
at it until something comes. Tomorrow is always another day.  For Peirce
there was nothing so felicitous as achieving a bona fide habit. But getting
there required try after try until something worked. Triadic Philosophy is
a happy move beyond knee-jerk, seat-of-your-pants type thought. It rests on
the best thinking that we have.



10.



Triadic philosophy sees moral evolution as documentable. Progress results
from the conscious spread of democracy, tolerance, helpfulness and
non-idolatry. But the frosting on the cake is the placement of aesthetics
as the third element in the conscious consideration of reality.



*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Matt Faunce mattfau...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Sung,

  On Jun 20, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote:
 
  Matt wrote:
 
  Just like 'standing still' is a special case of  (062014-1)
  motion, matter is a special case of mind.
 
 
  Do you mean by (062014-1) that Matter is a necessary condition for
 mind ?

 I didn't mean that. That the special case is a necessary condition for the
 usual case? Maybe it's true, but I'm not signing my name to that.

  Would you agree that
 
  Just as 'standing still' is assocaited with a zero(062014-2)
  velcoity and motion with non-zero velocities, so matter
  is associated with a zero capacity for thinking while
  mind has non-zero capacity of thinking ?

 I thought of this. I do agree.
I used to be a relativist. Back then I would've agreed and further
 stated that thinking and not thinking are each special states relative to
 each other--each seeing itself as mind and the other as matter; or if
 keeping short of the absolutes*, each one thinking he has the superior
 capacity of mind. But now I tend to think that matter is dormant mind, not
 completely dead, and that capacity is not relative.**

 * The pre-quantum physicists must have thought that the special case of
 absolute zero velocity was nowhere to be found in the physical universe.
 But now there's a Planck-Wheeler time and space so I guess there's a
 minimum speed. But that's out of my scope. Is there a similar minimum
 capacity for thought? I don't think I'd even understand the answer.

 ** Relativism still nags me. I haven't yet jumped with both feet into
 'extreme scholastic realism'.

 Matt

 
  It may be that Statement (062014-1) is akin to saying that a glass is
 half
  full, whereas Statement (062014-2) is akin to saying that a glass is half
  empty: Both statements are true.
 
  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
 
 
 
 
 
  You're unnecessarily complicating things. Just like 'standing still' is
 a
  special case of motion, matter is a special case of mind.
 
  Matt


 -
 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 .

RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

[Stephen Jarosek]

 What then is thinking in threes?

 

Having formulated my own triadic scheme (desire, association, habituation)
before I even heard of semiotics, I can tell you that, from my humble
perspective, when I was contemplating the limitations of association and
habituation on their own, the situation was analogous to a two-legged stool.
Another element was required to establish a stable tripod, and that's when
the relevance of desire began to crystallize in my mind. From there, things
began to snowball, and stumbling across semiotics, I was able to factor all
that into the established Peircean narrative with reference to pragmatism,
the mind-body unity, etc. So I suppose you could expand that to a
FOUR-category system where the fourth category is something like FORM (in
the sense of appearance or shape). In this case, you need a physical FORM
(body) in order to define the things that matter. What about a fifth? Or
can one of the categories be subdivided into sub-categories? For example...
imitation (as a dimension of association)... or recursion (as a dimension of
habituation). We could go on, but I think three, from our Euro-linguistic
perspective, is about the most economical and provides the most stable
tripodic form.

 

That fourth category though, FORM, makes the quadruped (?) even more stable
and precise than the tripod, because it crystallizes the principles of
pragmatism and how a mind-body establishes the things that matter. Entities
with hands and feet can see the world in ways that are very different to how
entities with scales and fins can see it. But I digress. Three is the most
economical, because these are perhaps the basic dimensions of thought, and
the rest follows almost as an inevitability.

 

 Thinking in threes is what would have transformed our war on terror into
a Sherlock Holmes investigation of the reasons for terrorism and
apprehension of those responsible instead of killing vast multitudes of
innocent bystanders.

 

Knowing how to be is important... I would place knowing how to be at the
centre of Peirce's triadic scheme. Once we do this, we can make further
sense of the adventurism of GW Bush. He didn't pull is ideas out of thin
air. He was close friends with Australian Prime Minister John Winston
Howard. He obtained major insights into knowing how to be by keeping good
company with JW Howard (books to read - 1) Silencing Dissent by Clive
Hamilton and Sarah Maddison and 2) The Partnership by Greg Sheridan). The
Iraq invasion has John Howard's breath, if not his fingerprints, all over
it. GW Bush learned something from JW Howard about how to be.

 

Either way... knowing how to be... an essential aspect of the infinite...
and the path to heaven or hell... or some lumbering, heaving miasma of
stoopid in between. The universe is a big place... choose your stoopid
carefully, who knows into what variant of heaven or hell your nonlocality
will rebirth you.

 

And three is the way to infinity

 

Knowing how to be is crucial to the concept of infinity. When you have the
infinite to choose from, you need something to distil everything to
bite-sized chunks. Hence the triadic scheme and mind-body pragmatism. And
when world leaders have the infinite to choose from, they cannot help but be
infected by the Being (Dasein) of those that they keep company with... and
they go on to infect those (culture) that they rule over.

 

 

From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 21 June 2014 2:56 PM
To: Peirce List
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

 

9. 

 

What then is thinking in threes? On one level it is a means of preventing
conflict from coming to a head. If two objects are busily colliding, it
helps to have a third option. It can even be suggested that our minds are
triadic, they can spin out conclusions indefinitely. And three is the way to
infinity which, by the way, Peirce regarded as real. Thinking in threes is
what would have transformed our war on terror into a Sherlock Holmes
investigation of the reasons for terrorism and apprehension of those
responsible instead of killing vast multitudes of innocent bystanders. In
essence, if you cannot resolve anything in a way that will not harm, keep at
it until something comes. Tomorrow is always another day.  For Peirce there
was nothing so felicitous as achieving a bona fide habit. But getting there
required try after try until something worked. Triadic Philosophy is a happy
move beyond knee-jerk, seat-of-your-pants type thought. It rests on the best
thinking that we have. 

 

10.

 

Triadic philosophy sees moral evolution as documentable. Progress results
from the conscious spread of democracy, tolerance, helpfulness and
non-idolatry. But the frosting on the cake is the placement of aesthetics as
the third element in the conscious consideration of reality. 

 




@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose 

 

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Matt Faunce mattfau...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction

[Stephen C. Rose]

I much appreciate your comment that in reference to the subject of this
thread. What I gather is a good respect for the utility of threes without
feeling the need to be rigid about it. Agree. And something cautionary
about any conclusion made by anyone on the basis of an alleged
philosophical method of any sort or stripe. Also agree. Which is why
fallibility is among the terms that most appeals. You are from AU I either
know or infer. I have just been watching RAKE the first two AU seasons.
With general pleasure. Cheers, S

*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*


On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Stephen Jarosek sjaro...@iinet.net.au
wrote:

  What then is thinking in threes?



 Having formulated my own triadic scheme (desire, association, habituation)
 before I even heard of semiotics, I can tell you that, from my humble
 perspective, when I was contemplating the limitations of association and
 habituation on their own, the situation was analogous to a two-legged
 stool. Another element was required to establish a stable tripod, and
 that's when the relevance of desire began to crystallize in my mind. From
 there, things began to snowball, and stumbling across semiotics, I was able
 to factor all that into the established Peircean narrative with reference
 to pragmatism, the mind-body unity, etc. So I suppose you could expand that
 to a FOUR-category system where the fourth category is something like FORM
 (in the sense of appearance or shape). In this case, you need a physical
 FORM (body) in order to define the things that matter. What about a
 fifth? Or can one of the categories be subdivided into sub-categories? For
 example... imitation (as a dimension of association)... or recursion (as a
 dimension of habituation). We could go on, but I think three, from our
 Euro-linguistic perspective, is about the most economical and provides the
 most stable tripodic form.



 That fourth category though, FORM, makes the quadruped (?) even more
 stable and precise than the tripod, because it crystallizes the principles
 of pragmatism and how a mind-body establishes the things that matter.
 Entities with hands and feet can see the world in ways that are very
 different to how entities with scales and fins can see it. But I digress.
 Three is the most economical, because these are perhaps the basic
 dimensions of thought, and the rest follows almost as an inevitability.



  Thinking in threes is what would have transformed our war on terror
 into a Sherlock Holmes investigation of the reasons for terrorism and
 apprehension of those responsible instead of killing vast multitudes of
 innocent bystanders.



 Knowing how to be is important... I would place knowing how to be at
 the centre of Peirce's triadic scheme. Once we do this, we can make further
 sense of the adventurism of GW Bush. He didn't pull is ideas out of thin
 air. He was close friends with Australian Prime Minister John Winston
 Howard. He obtained major insights into knowing how to be by keeping good
 company with JW Howard (books to read - 1) Silencing Dissent by Clive
 Hamilton and Sarah Maddison and 2) The Partnership by Greg Sheridan). The
 Iraq invasion has John Howard's breath, if not his fingerprints, all over
 it. GW Bush learned something from JW Howard about how to be.



 Either way... knowing how to be... an essential aspect of the infinite...
 and the path to heaven or hell... or some lumbering, heaving miasma of
 stoopid in between. The universe is a big place... choose your stoopid
 carefully, who knows into what variant of heaven or hell your nonlocality
 will rebirth you.



 And three is the way to infinity



 Knowing how to be is crucial to the concept of infinity. When you have
 the infinite to choose from, you need something to distil everything to
 bite-sized chunks. Hence the triadic scheme and mind-body pragmatism. And
 when world leaders have the infinite to choose from, they cannot help but
 be infected by the Being (Dasein) of those that they keep company with...
 and they go on to infect those (culture) that they rule over.





 *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com stever...@gmail.com]

 *Sent:* Saturday, 21 June 2014 2:56 PM
 *To:* Peirce List
 *Subject:* Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Introduction



 9.



 What then is thinking in threes? On one level it is a means of preventing
 conflict from coming to a head. If two objects are busily colliding, it
 helps to have a third option. It can even be suggested that our minds are
 triadic, they can spin out conclusions indefinitely. And three is the way
 to infinity which, by the way, Peirce regarded as real. Thinking in threes
 is what would have transformed our war on terror into a Sherlock Holmes
 investigation of the reasons for terrorism and apprehension of those
 responsible instead of killing vast multitudes of innocent bystanders. In
 essence, if you cannot resolve anything in a way that will not harm, keep
 at it until