abba's way

Charles Sanders Peirce on The Three Elements of Thinking

[. . .]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 1.21-23
Cap tip Gary R.
abba's way

The Limits of Embracing the Suck

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.

abba's way

Conscious Thought Is a Matter of Will and Validates Free Choice

This from a response in a thread on the Peirce list.

It seems to me that the thread has sought to describe how the mind works, and that Peirce thought it worked by accessing the general which I call reality and he calls first and having it bump up against an index which he calls second and which I call ethics and having it transit in some melded way to a third which he calls a third and I call aesthetics and take to be an action or expression whose effects can be empirically validated and measured. Now if Peirce’s threes do not refer to what can be a conscious process then to what do they refer? And if to a conscious process, then am I justified in saying that thinking in threes can involve accessing whatever is rising in your mind and subjecting it to an ethical challenge and then seeing that the result of that encounter issues in something that you take to aim for truth/beauty?  There are surely myriad other ways to think in threes, just as triangles can be infinitely iterated. But just as Hegel and Marx developed what we call dialectics that have influenced thought, who is to say that a mode of triadic thinking cannot come to bear on the challenges we face – the primary one being whether we can morally evolve beyond what Veblen aptly described as our predatory nature?
abba's way, pattern language, politics, theology, twitter

Continuity is central in Triadic Philosophy.

50.  Continuity is central in Triadic Philosophy.

51.   We move in one direction.

51a. We never stand still.

51b. Continuity is synonymous with life itself.

51c. We owe our understanding of continuity to Charles Sanders Peirce.

52.  Continuity and chronology are related.

52a. Time may contract and bend under some circumstances.

52b.  Continuity prevails. We move forward.

“Welcome to an integral philosophy for the 2000s. Going on 1500 entries. Updated 3 May, 2013. Contact the author at steverose @ Triadic Philosophy is an intellectual and spiritual revolution in progress. It is taking place @stephencrose on Twitter. This text is the first truly integral philosophy to grow out of the thinking of Charles Sanders Peirce. It is not Peirce, but it could not exist without him. It takes Peirce’s vision of triadic thinking, thinking in threes, and grafts it to the revolutionary Triad – Reality, Ethics.”

Related articles

abba's way, theology

Charles Sanders Peirce on the Sanctity of Guesses

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 – 1914)

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 – 1914) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This generous quote from Charles Sanders Peirce bears all the marks of the excitation that his thought continues to produce. My cap is tipped to Matt and my sense of propriety is modified by Peirce’s own insistence that thought is a continuous and communal process and by the fact that this is a free blog not Jstor.

Ms. 692 pg. 25-31:

Any novice in logic may well be surprised at my calling a guess an inference. It is equally easy to define inference so as to exclude or include abduction. But all the objects of logical study have to be classified; and it is found that there is no other good class in which to put abduction but that of inferences. Many logicians, however, leave it unclassified, as sort of logical supernumerary, as if its importance were too small to entitle it to any regular place. They evidently forget that neither deduction nor induction can ever add the smallest item to the data of perception; and, as we have already noticed, mere percepts do not constitute any knowledge applicable to any practical or theoretical use. All that makes knowledge applicable comes to us via abduction. Looking out my window this lovely spring morning I see an azalea in full bloom. No, no! I do not see that; though that is the only way I can describe what I see. That is a proposition, a sentence, a fact; but what I perceive is not proposition, sentence, fact, but only an image, which I make intelligible in part by means of a statement of fact. This statement is abstract; but what I see is concrete. I perform an abduction when I so much as express in a sentence anything I see. The truth is that the whole fabric of our knowledge is one matted felt of pure hypothesis confirmed and refined by induction. Not the smallest advance can be made in knowledge beyond the stage of vacant staring, without making an abduction at every step.

When a chicken first emerges from the shell, it does not try fifty random ways of appeasing its hunger, but within five minutes is picking up food, choosing as it picks, and picking what it aims to pick. That is not reasoning, because it is not done deliberately; but in every respect but that, it is just like abductive inference. In man, two broad instincts common to all animals, the instinct for getting food, and the instinct for reproduction, are developed into some degree of rational insight into nature. The instincts connected with getting food require that every animal should have some just ideas of the action of mechanical forces. In man these ideas become abstract and general. Archimedes and Galileo make right guesses about mechanics almost at once. Only a few of their notions have to be rejected, because they know how to do their guessing piece-meal and in an orderly sequence. Out of their guesses, corrected by induction and deduction, the science of dynamics has been built. Guided by the ideas of dynamics, physicists have guessed at the constitution of gases, the nature of heat and of sound, and experiment has only corrected errors and measured quantities. By analogous processes, on science suggesting ideas for another, the whole physical side of our theoretical knowledge has grown up out of the original seed of the food instincts.

The instincts connected with reproduction require that every animal should have some tact and judgment as to how another animal will feel and act under different circumstances. These ideas likewise take more abstract forms in man, and enable us to make our initial hypotheses successfully in the psychical side of science, – in such studies, for example, as psychology, linguistics, ethnology, history, economics, etc.

It is evident that unless man had some inward light tending to make his guesses on these subjects much more often true than they would be by mere chance, the human race would long ago have been extirpated for its utter incapacity in the struggles for existence; or if some protection had kept it continually multiplying, the time from the tertiary epoch to our own would be altogether too short to expect that the human race could yet have made its first happy guess in any science. The mind of man has been formed under the action of the laws of nature, and therefore it is not so very surprising to find that its constitution is such that, when we can get rid of caprices, idiosyncrasies, and other perturbations, its thoughts naturally show a tendency to agree with the laws of nature.

But it is one thing to say that the human mind has a sufficient magnetic turning toward the truth to cause the right guess to be made in the course of centuries during which a hundred good guesses have been unceasingly occupied in endeavoring to make such a guess, and a far different thing to say that the first guess that may happen to possess Tom, Dick, or Harry has any appreciably greater probability of being true than false.

It is necessary to remember that among the swarms who have covered the globe, there have not been above these individuals, Archimedes, Galileo, and Thomas Young, whose mechanical and physical guesses were mostly correct in the first instance.

It is necessary to remember that even those unparalleled intelligences would certainly not have guessed right if they had not all possessed a great art of so subdividing their guesses as to give to each one almost the character of self-evidence. Thus, the proof by Archimedes of the properties of the lever, which makes the foundation of the whole science of mechanics, is composed of a series of abduction, or guesses. But look at the character of those guesses. He begins by saying that equal weights freely hanging from the extremities of an equal-armed balance will be in equilibrium. That was a mater of familiar knowledge; at least when the two weights were suspended at equal distances from the balance. But Archimedes guessed that the length of the suspending thread would make no difference, otherwise than by its own weight. [Peirce goes on from here to describe the orderly sequence of Archimedes piece-meal guesses.]

— Matt

abba's way, pattern language, politics, theology, twitter

Ego is a nominalist misnomer

1050. Ego is a nominalist misnomer.

1050a. We are will.

1050a1. Ego does not imply or encompass the higher self.

1050a2. Ego exists only in the imagination of psychology.

1050b. We are life.

1050c. We are freedom.

1050c1. We can forgive and seek forgiveness.

1050d.  Will and freedom enable us to choose the values we live by.

1050d1. Values range from the ugly and tawdry to the efficacious and beautiful.

1050e. As Albert Schweitzer said, “We are life that wills to live midst life that wills to live.”

The above is a sampling from the work in progress Triadic Philosophy, a Kindle book. I have set the price at $9.99 and it will not change although the book will grow substantially.  As it does, Kindle users will be able to download the latest version (by managing their Kindle). This is an alternative mode of expressing thought and it could only occur in the context of cyber-space. This is a book that is literally being played out on Twitter. While it is meant to strike at the heart of dualistic philosophy, it is also meant to be a clear and useful iteration of thinking that is universal in relevance. Triadic Philosophy will not be able, as it grows, to be relegated to any group or category or school of thought whatsoever. We are beyond that. You can sample more of  Triadic Philosophy and purchase or borrow the book (if a Kindle Prime member) by clicking the image below.

abba's way, politics, theology

Triadic Philosophy. $9.99 price will remain constant. Kindle readers can get updates free

Triadic Philosophy. $9.99 price will remain constant. Kindle readers can get updates free.