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.