Triadic Philosophy - Is There Any Truth in Triads?

Is there any truth in triads Is a triad only in the eye of the beholder Or is there a universal basis for assuming  the usefulness of triadic thought I would never make a claim for sentence three or say yes to sentence one and  no two sentence two were it not for my encounter with the semiotic thought of Charles Sanders Peirce When I speak of Peirce I am careful to say I express my own conclusions Many great thinkers can be taken in many ways The semiotic I derive from Peirce (and by semiotic I mean the landscape of his thought and the process by which it attains logic) is triadic Peirce does not think in any other way Peirce thinks truth in my view So I would say truth lies in triads In thinking in threes  one can arrive at truths one can use It makes sense to see  the very process of thinking as triadic
What does this mean It involves a First Second and Third First in my view is what rises up  every time our mind works the thing we settle on (we settle on many things and anything can be a First by virtue of encounter with a Second) The Second is something that jostles the first that insists something that cautions or strikes  or encounters with a blunt truth (I do not subscribe Hegel's Thesis Antithesis Synthesis as the root of all triads) But a Second does have elements of Antithesis My declension of the Third results from the interaction of First and Second not as a Synthesis but as Experiment A Third is always action a guess that is chosen a hypothesis tried out
When one does things by rote  one has already completed  one or more triadic processes and arrived at a habit Much of our living is simply  moving from one habit to another We settle on habits But we move forward from wherever we are on the basis of thirds
I close this excursion by saying that I subscribe to the triadic mode because a monad has no reality for me and a dyad is a binary that stops at off and on at either or  at yes or no or at Internet's (double bind) OK?
Consciousness human consciousness  is inherently triadic Starting always from the First I call the First Reality the known and unknown ground of being the source of all thoughts signs and words The Second I call Ethics warnings related to ontologoical values tolerance helpfulness democracy and non-idolatry The Third I call Aesthetics the realm of action appearance doing  which at one extreme can be ugly and false and the other true and beautiful
The journey through this triad is universal whether we acknowledge it or not Awareness of this revolutionizes philosophy in this century It elevates will (responsibiity) to the center of Reality values to the center of Ethics  and Aesthetics to the very center of actualization
In this century without the willed choice  of the values noted above and their acceptance universally and the creation of societies that venerate what is true and beautiful over ugliness greed conflict and rampant harm we are doomed to fall on the rusty sword that is the remnant of past philosophies religions and understandings of society 

Stephen's Remarkable Kindle Store 


Buffer

Triadic Philosophy One Reality Ethics Aesthetics

Triadic philosophy is a simple yet foundational mode of thinkjng influenced by Charles Sanders Peirce It thinks in threes Firsts are realities rising and complete in themselves the stuff that comes up To name the first First Reality is simply to identify this as the realm which bounds us the penumbra from which everything in thought and action proceeds We could call it being or existence  The Top First Image above denotes Reality Seconds are blunt truths even brutal oppositions what we might call our realities But because these are the objections and questions  we bring to what rises and because these questions all suggest values and choices the foundational Second may be called Ethics The second image denotes Ethics
Thirds are the playing out of First and Second in habits applications beliefs hypotheses   The highest standard within Ethics is achievement of the beautiful The third image denotes Aesthetics
There are an infinite number of Threes that can spring from this foundation and each of any Three can be a First or a Second And all can be nested within the original three .Stephen's Remarkable Kindle Store

The primacy and Unity of Aesthetics and Ethics - moving past a conundrum

No philosopher am I but lives compose philosophies whether one knows it or not so yes I share my life Where I part company from Kierkegaard Where I part company from Nietzsche Where I part company from Peirce and most likely Aristotle too is in insisting that value and will precede everything and that ethics and aesthetics are  prior to and not subordinate to any other categories including logic and science  What this means is that I am forced by the logic of my own premises to begin applying what this all means in ways that will  eventually make some sense to both me and the reader from now on if not philosophy  contention toward truth
Stephen's Remarkable Kindle Store

Stacked Images - The Main Divisions of Philosophy

Following Charles Sanders Peirce (but not presuming to speak for him) these stacked images mean to represent the three divisions of philosophy the triad that succeeds  Semeiosis and Semiotic + Top First Phenomenology (The categorization of what rises in the mind)   Second Normative Science (Figuring out the uses of same) Third Metaphysics (Figuring out what it means) + The first or top  the place from which things rise The second or brute reality the submission of things to our confined realities The third  progression within our finite sphere to some sense of what its ultimate nature might be  + Stephen's Remarkable Kindle Store

The Jeopardy convention - finding the right question

"If the right question is asked and understood, then the answer is readily apparent if the data that confirms or denies it is accessible. In effect, the answers are all out there, we need only craft the right question. Scientific interpretation of data is but a process of question refinement and this can be generalized to all forms of 'interpretation.' Contrary to the common idea that interpretation is some posterior act.

"When we have the answer, we tend to forget the paths that either failed or were incomplete on our way to it."

From Steven Ericsson-Zenith at Peirce List

                                              Charles Sanders Peirce - Thinking in Threes

Both Aquinas and Aristotle Were Dead Wrong

                                              Stephen's Remarkable Kindle Store

Book Review - Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics - NYTimes.com:

"Thomas Aquinas, writing in the 13th century, believed that in the “Ethics” Aristotle had said everything needful for happiness in this life."

Neither of these worthies had the vantage point of Peirce 

and thus they ended up casting virtues as values 

never surmising that values are what makes the world go round

at least insofar as we have anything to do with it

 The wishy-washy ethics of these two 

enable institutions like the NYT to feel virtuous 

while pushing the same POV that Veblen skewered

 and Pierce understood as a sad phase 

in our move toward achieving reality.

Putnam Rorty and Footnotes to Plato (Video)

Global Online Privacy