Home
CP 1:583. "Let us, then, next consider whether the perfect and prompt satisfaction of every instinct is the only ultimate good. Though I cannot recall it at all, I think it very likely that in my childhood I read of a malevolent fairy who pronounced this curse upon an infant that during his entire life whatever wish he should conceive should be instantly gratified. If he wished for a drink, a drink should be instantly before him. If he wished it to taste differently, it should taste differently. If he was tired of sloth and wished he were working, he should be putting forth his strength. Only two things would be debarred. The first restriction should be that vague dissatisfaction, mere ennui at having his own way, should not be enough. He must form a definite wish. And secondly, wishing that his wishes should not be gratified should only be gratified until he made a positive wish. The instant he did that the satisfaction should come. I do not think that consciousness herself could have the face to pronounce this state of things good. The only alleviation of it would be the state of imbecility in which the person would be engulfed. Now I ask whether, in view of this, the mere satisfaction of an impulse can be said to be per se a good, at all. Under certain circumstances, the satisfaction may be good, no doubt; but is it so per se and simpliciter? Here again, we find ourselves contemplating an absurdity. A satisfaction cannot be divorced from its circumstances. It results then that the gratification of an instinct is not per se any part of the good. Still, it might be said that this is only because we have supposed an impossible situation in which there was no providing for future desires."
This is sort of a shaggy dog passage as it can be read whole by knowing the last few lines.
We're pursuing a line that I intend to lead us to the Triadic Philosophy suggestion that logic is good, that logic is the product of ethical and aesthetic reflection, and that -- at the same time -- consciousness (dignified with a feminine identity here) is indeed feeling, as Peirce has said.
I go as far as to stipulate (almost) that universal pedagogy be aimed at ensuring that thought itself be understood as a triadic process and that it begin with a sign (Reality), proceed with ethics, and arrive at aesthetics -- which amounts to an intention which is nonviolent and fair, tending toward truth and beauty.
I see a roomful of largely male go-getters being regaled by yours truly along these lines. I can see the dismissive body lingo.
But I happen to be right and they are very wrong if the see their efforts as leading consciously to good understood as what is beneficial to I, We and All.
We are at the cusp of seeing this. We are witnessing the distinction between distraction for the sake of negative ends (narcissism) and the living of life with intention/attention to genuine self-love which is inevitably both self, communal. and universal in awareness.
Peirce tells us that "the gratification of an instinct is not per se any part of the good". The per se is what matters. All goodness that rises from self-love serves its author. Which it should. It merely fathoms also that ethical qualities like democracy, tolerance and helpfulness are a prerequisite. And that aesthetic understanding in the Triadic sense (truth and beauty fused, Keats-style) is the way to keep the world nonviolent, free, and fair.
Consciousness without the heavenly is phony, to coin a phrase. Consciousness is available to us, inherent only as it is recognized. It is inherently social. It is the stuff of reality which is the matter of the universe which happens to be all the universe, seen and unseen.
Peirce: CP 1.584 Cross-Ref:††
This is sort of a shaggy dog passage as it can be read whole by knowing the last few lines.
We're pursuing a line that I intend to lead us to the Triadic Philosophy suggestion that logic is good, that logic is the product of ethical and aesthetic reflection, and that -- at the same time -- consciousness (dignified with a feminine identity here) is indeed feeling, as Peirce has said.
I go as far as to stipulate (almost) that universal pedagogy be aimed at ensuring that thought itself be understood as a triadic process and that it begin with a sign (Reality), proceed with ethics, and arrive at aesthetics -- which amounts to an intention which is nonviolent and fair, tending toward truth and beauty.
I see a roomful of largely male go-getters being regaled by yours truly along these lines. I can see the dismissive body lingo.
But I happen to be right and they are very wrong if the see their efforts as leading consciously to good understood as what is beneficial to I, We and All.
We are at the cusp of seeing this. We are witnessing the distinction between distraction for the sake of negative ends (narcissism) and the living of life with intention/attention to genuine self-love which is inevitably both self, communal. and universal in awareness.
Peirce tells us that "the gratification of an instinct is not per se any part of the good". The per se is what matters. All goodness that rises from self-love serves its author. Which it should. It merely fathoms also that ethical qualities like democracy, tolerance and helpfulness are a prerequisite. And that aesthetic understanding in the Triadic sense (truth and beauty fused, Keats-style) is the way to keep the world nonviolent, free, and fair.
Consciousness without the heavenly is phony, to coin a phrase. Consciousness is available to us, inherent only as it is recognized. It is inherently social. It is the stuff of reality which is the matter of the universe which happens to be all the universe, seen and unseen.
Peirce: CP 1.584 Cross-Ref:††
