[. . .]The modern philosophers — one and all, unless Schelling be an exception — recognize but one mode of being, the being of an individual thing or fact, the being which consists in the object’s crowding out a place for itself in the universe, so to speak, and reacting by brute force of fact, against all other things. I call that existence.Aristotle, on the other hand, whose system, like all the greatest systems, was evolutionary, recognized besides an embryonic kind of being, like the being of a tree in its seed, or like the being of a future contingent event, depending on how a man shall decide to act. In a few passages Aristotle seems to have a dim aperçue of a third mode of being in the entelechy. The embryonic being for Aristotle was the being he called matter, which is alike in all things, and which in the course of its development took on form. Form is an element having a different mode of being. The whole philosophy of the scholastic doctors is an attempt to mould this doctrine of Aristotle into harmony with christian truth. This harmony the different doctors attempted to bring about in different ways. But all the realists agree in reversing the order of Aristotle’s evolution by making the form come first, and the individuation of that form come later. Thus, they too recognized two modes of being; but they were not the two modes of being of Aristotle.My view is that there are three modes of being. I hold that we can directly observe them in elements of whatever is at any time before the mind in any way. They are the being of positive qualitative possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern facts in the future. CP 1.21-23Cap tip Gary R.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 3,100 times in 2013. If it were a cable car, it would take about 52 trips to carry that many people.
Embracing the suck is a military term now going viral as jargon, meaning that we have reached the end of a time of passionate defense, as Placemakers puts it. That is how the recent turn of Mr. Boehner, seeming to skewer the so-called far right, those who loved the shut-down, is being taken. And that is also how progressives led by Nancy Pelosi are characterizing the compromise, which will seemingly protect us from more of the same from the GOP. But this turn to military jargon, this active embrace, merely affirms the binary nature of thinking in a world that calls out for triadic values and triadic thought. Triadic philosophy is all about building a future that does not suck. The reality we need to transcend is the suck that exists. The ethic that must modify that reality is tolerance of on-the-ground diversity, creation of a fair floor for all and local leadership that enlivens community. This leads to acts and expressions that explicitly alter the the suck we are embracing. That suck is the oil-automobile stranglehold on everyone. That is what the military defends. That is what our dysfunctional society is built on. We live in a world still dominated by a binary code. My way or the highway. And the highway we are on is literally made of Koch asphalt and Koch concrete and navigated by Koch oil. Triadic thinking moves past either-or. The fruit of triadic thinking is what does not suck, something better than what we have now. So suck is transformed by encounter with ethics into aesthetic intent. Truth and beauty lie in a world that has begun the slow, caring creation of communities of the future, beyond the domination of oil and the automobile. A future based on tolerance, helpfulness and democracy. A future where idols are less in control. And conscious triadic thinking has put the binary in its place.
This from a response in a thread on the Peirce list.