Wonderful conversation! Just a thought. .... About 'evil thoughts' ..... In order to process experience and grow (evolve), we need adversarial thought. Contradiction and negation are huge in Peirce's perspective and understanding of Logos. I agree with him on this. Consider Heraclitus's Unity of Opposites in Logos. .... By the way, not many people know this about me. but my path also took me to being very involved in church for a while too. I even taught bible study for a while. I also studied world religions in college. ... To understand this understanding that I found out later aligns so well with Peirce, I suppose it's not unusual to have had some similarities in our paths.
Great insights. So, in the same vein as there needs to be some external brute force (2ndness) for us to orient and develop our habits, there must also exist evil for us to recognize and learn what is good.
@@PhiloSign I'm not a fan of the word 'evil', since it is so connected to the nominalist vein that runs through certain religious doctrines. I absolutely do not agree with Protestant Christianity's definition of evil, because it is directly associated with the origin of nominalism, which was birthed because the Church wanted to profess and instill in doctrine that God's Will could selectively damn an individual simmer or save an individual saint. I wrote about the history of this in my essay 'There is No 'I' without the 'Not I''. ... So no, I do not believe in THAT concept of 'evil'. I understand and point to the inherent negation that finds its ground in polarity, contradiction, and opposites. ... I never use the word 'evil' unless I am explaining the history of that concept. ... Fleshing out the differences in these perspectives is definitely a deep dive. 😉
Another thought. ..... Something to always be aware of in the nominalistic twists and turns of the history of human thought over the past few millennia. ... Keep this in mind, and it will help one navigate the confusing doctrines that others want one to subscribe to. ...... Watch for how 'embodied' is defined or described and watch for whether or not it is 'reduced'. .... Embodied Thirdness cannot be 'reduced' to particulars (parts). .... This gets a little murky when also trying to associate this with an 'instance' (instantiation). All of this has to do with how Thirdness is 'represented' in the manifested (physical) world. We must remember that reality is not static (fruit rots and iron rusts). Reality is a dynamic process! ✨ .... Here are two definitions of 'embody'. The way Peirce used it, and the Husserl/Merleau-Ponty, eidetic reduction method (Platonic/Cartesian). em·bod·y /əmˈbädē/ be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, or feeling). "a team that embodies competitive spirit and skill" 2. include or contain (something) as a constituent part "the changes in law embodied in the Freedom of Information Act"
Thank you for this dissection of a term. Generality (3rdness) is thus something that cannot be exhausted by its instances (2ndness). I've conceptualized generalities as forces that guide and govern their instances, so that 3rdness is the one with agency in a sense.
@@PhiloSign Agency that is not separate (nominalistic), ... because its growing identity and awareness is developed and dependent upon the flow of Logos in immanent and transcendent community (and I would say more than just human community). ... This understanding circles back to semiosis and the momentum it creates in the autopoiesis of manifested living and non-living systems. As a living example, think of a murmuration of starlings (birds who read and respond to Thirdness). .... Glorious and Mystical Cosmos. ✨🙂
@@ellefanaten It is the "Peircean triangle" used in his famous 10 signs. On the top left 1stness (yellow), on the bottom 2ndness (red), on the top right 3rdness (blue).
@@ellefanaten Here you can find my tutorials to semiotics philosign.com/tutorials In the "Diagrams" you can see various diagrams utilizing this idea of the triangle.
This was a very stimulating interview that made some significant notions clear to me.
Cool discussion. I've been wanting Dr. Ward's book ever since it came out. Alas, it is way too expensive. Maybe someday.
It was dense, but a good read, full of inspiring ideas. I think Ward's argument that religion was the driving force for Peirce is pretty convincing.
Wonderful conversation! Just a thought. .... About 'evil thoughts' ..... In order to process experience and grow (evolve), we need adversarial thought. Contradiction and negation are huge in Peirce's perspective and understanding of Logos. I agree with him on this. Consider Heraclitus's Unity of Opposites in Logos. .... By the way, not many people know this about me. but my path also took me to being very involved in church for a while too. I even taught bible study for a while. I also studied world religions in college. ... To understand this understanding that I found out later aligns so well with Peirce, I suppose it's not unusual to have had some similarities in our paths.
Great insights. So, in the same vein as there needs to be some external brute force (2ndness) for us to orient and develop our habits, there must also exist evil for us to recognize and learn what is good.
@@PhiloSign I'm not a fan of the word 'evil', since it is so connected to the nominalist vein that runs through certain religious doctrines. I absolutely do not agree with Protestant Christianity's definition of evil, because it is directly associated with the origin of nominalism, which was birthed because the Church wanted to profess and instill in doctrine that God's Will could selectively damn an individual simmer or save an individual saint. I wrote about the history of this in my essay 'There is No 'I' without the 'Not I''. ... So no, I do not believe in THAT concept of 'evil'. I understand and point to the inherent negation that finds its ground in polarity, contradiction, and opposites. ... I never use the word 'evil' unless I am explaining the history of that concept. ... Fleshing out the differences in these perspectives is definitely a deep dive. 😉
Another thought. ..... Something to always be aware of in the nominalistic twists and turns of the history of human thought over the past few millennia. ... Keep this in mind, and it will help one navigate the confusing doctrines that others want one to subscribe to. ...... Watch for how 'embodied' is defined or described and watch for whether or not it is 'reduced'. .... Embodied Thirdness cannot be 'reduced' to particulars (parts). .... This gets a little murky when also trying to associate this with an 'instance' (instantiation). All of this has to do with how Thirdness is 'represented' in the manifested (physical) world. We must remember that reality is not static (fruit rots and iron rusts). Reality is a dynamic process! ✨ .... Here are two definitions of 'embody'. The way Peirce used it, and the Husserl/Merleau-Ponty, eidetic reduction method (Platonic/Cartesian).
em·bod·y
/əmˈbädē/
be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, or feeling).
"a team that embodies competitive spirit and skill"
2.
include or contain (something) as a constituent part "the changes in law embodied in the Freedom of Information Act"
Thank you for this dissection of a term. Generality (3rdness) is thus something that cannot be exhausted by its instances (2ndness). I've conceptualized generalities as forces that guide and govern their instances, so that 3rdness is the one with agency in a sense.
@@PhiloSign Agency that is not separate (nominalistic), ... because its growing identity and awareness is developed and dependent upon the flow of Logos in immanent and transcendent community (and I would say more than just human community). ... This understanding circles back to semiosis and the momentum it creates in the autopoiesis of manifested living and non-living systems. As a living example, think of a murmuration of starlings (birds who read and respond to Thirdness). .... Glorious and Mystical Cosmos. ✨🙂
You two 🔥🔥🔥
Curious about the triangle sign in top right corner?
@@ellefanaten It is the "Peircean triangle" used in his famous 10 signs. On the top left 1stness (yellow), on the bottom 2ndness (red), on the top right 3rdness (blue).
Cool- I'll look it up. Just getting started. Sign lover, Kristiansand Norge (Halvt finlandssvenska, Kaskinen/Kaskö Sydösterbotten)
Studied frensh pragmatism locally. Stumbled over your wonderful youtube thing. Thanks! @@PhiloSign
L. Boltsnski
@@ellefanaten Here you can find my tutorials to semiotics philosign.com/tutorials
In the "Diagrams" you can see various diagrams utilizing this idea of the triangle.
🎉🎉🎉