Stephen, Helmut, List, I would like to call a halt to this discussion as it is in no way Peirce related. Please discontinue this thread.
Gary RIchmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator and co-manager of it and Arisbe with Ben Udell) On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 6:01 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, > > I don´t have forensic or psychological expertise how to argue with a > terrorist sympathizer. This zombie-apocalypse is caused by social media. Do > digital diet. > 22. August 2025 um 10:53 > "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> > *wrote:* > > Helmut, Gary, List, > > > > I used to be a Leftist. Now I'm a Contextist… sounds a bit “Centrist” (and > well it might be) but no, a CONTEXTIST is what I am. My politics is > contingent on the state of the system. In my repudiation of the Left, I > follow in the footsteps of people like Brandon Straka of the Walkaway > Movement, and Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat. Like Brandon and Tulsi, I > know degeneracy when I see it. > > > > What do I mean that I'm a Contextist? I mean that nobody has a perfect > politics. Ever. I left the Left for the same reasons that Bandon Straka and > Tulsi Gabbard did. The Left are the fascists now. They are the new > authoritarians. Their Antifa masquerade as anti-fascists, and this ties in > with the Left’s masquerades in identity politics. > > > > Gary frames the “Great Replacement” in terms of supremacism, and if he > wants to make that association, I’m not going to bother changing his mind. > So, am I supposed to be a supremacist now that I’ve shifted to the right? > Anti-white racists cannot excuse themselves just because it’s whites whom > they hate. Anti-white racists are still racists, and just because it's > whites whom they hate does not unracist them. So, who’s worse? Anti-white > racists or the “supremacists” that these racists call “nazis”? > > > > A recent post of mine in another forum summarizes my revised take on the > Left, in the context of Orwell-speak (America's Democrats I now call > Demofascists): > > > > <Orwellian-Leftists> > The American Left thinks that Demofascists are Democrats. They out-Orwell > Orwell: > OUR fascism is Antifascism; > OUR riots are peaceful protest; > OUR anti-white racism is tolerance; > OUR authoritarianism is Democracy; > Truth is hate speech; > Deranged is Woke; > Corruption is Aid. > Notice a pattern? > </Orwellian-Leftists> > > > > Indeed, let’s pause a moment here… DO we notice a pattern? How does the > term “cognitive dissonance” come across? That's why I regard myself a > Contextist. EVERYONE becomes a fascist when their propaganda bloats and > goes unchallenged for an extended period of time. Symptoms of bloat? > Wokeness, progressivism, identity politics… and those who disagree with > them they call nazis. That’s what’s happened to the Left. Unchallenged, > they morphed into fascists, and when that happened, it came time to leave. > Brandon, Tulsi and I get it. > > > > Incidentally, do the non-Germans among us know the German word for nazism? > Nationalsozialismus. “National socialism” is its direct translation. The > nazis began as Leftists! Regardless of whether or not their Leftism was > subsequently subverted by stakeholders, the fact remains that its origins > were on the Left. [I just ran this conjecture past Grok for a more detailed > opinion… interesting, worth looking into] > > > > Is there another word for Contextism? Yup. Spirituality. Scientific > Spirituality, to be more specific. > > > > HELMUT: “and by far not every muslim is a misogynic. Equal rights for > genders and people from different birthplaces, and non-criminality, are not > a matter of culture, but of universal human rights” > > > > This is the God/Not-God schism playing out. Neither an anthropocentric God > nor physicalist scientism are in any position to understand culture at > deeper, semiotic levels. Speaking of “universal human rights” in the > absence of compelling theories of embodied cognition and “knowing how to > be” in culture (Dasein) is a futile enterprise. > > > > History keeps repeating. And with each repeat, people keep believing the > same nonsense. Today is little different to what went on during either of > the world wars and their leadup. A new Dark Age… perhaps a final Dark Age… > looms to perhaps finally nuke a uniquely anthropocentric human > exceptionalism. Some among us… particularly those of us who look with > horror at what we are doing to other innocent creatures… might well say, > good riddance. The Universe, Hubble-Deepfield and trillions-galactic big, > won’t miss us when we’re gone. > > > > Cheers, > > sj > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *'Helmut Raulien' > *Sent:* 20 August, 2025 6:05 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Planck and Peirce on mind as primary, matter > secondary > > > > Gary, Stephen, List, > > > > Stephen, Gary wrote a perfect outline about "great replacement". Nazis are > not everybody leftists disagree with. I am a leftist, and I disagree with > other leftists, because I am against identity politics of both the rightist > and the leftist kind. "Great replacement" and "remigration" are terms in > Germany mostly used by the "AfD", a frighteningly successful party, > considered by the constitrutional court as "secured right-extreme", thus > making it justifiedly due to observation by the Federal Office for the > Protection of the Constitution. The same office has allowed to call Bjoern > Hoecke, the AfD-leader in county Thueringen, a "nazi", because he is. > > > > By far not every german is a xenophobe, and by far not every muslim is a > misogynic. Equal rights for genders and people from different birthplaces, > and non-criminality, are not a matter of culture, but of universal human > rights. I think, instead of claiming "integration" for both nationals and > strangers, it would be better to claim "integrity", that is mainly not to > apply double standards. A national supremacist is not less dangerous or > despisable than a jihadist. In fact, supremacists produce jihadist > terrorists and other criminals. If a young man has experienced many times > job application rejection, because of his name, and does not have a > developed moral mindset, he possibly will start some sort of criminal > career, which he probably tries to justify with generalisation: These > germans discriminate me, donot support me whatever, so it is ok. for me to > sell them drugs, betray, burglar them, whatever. Generalisation is caused > by generalisation, a vicious circle. You can only break this circle by > stopping generalising. If you, like you so far, Stephen, don´t, it is your > turn to take responsibility. > > > > Best, Helmut > > 20. August 2025 um 11:17 > > "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> > > *wrote:* > > Helmut, Gary R, List, > > > > Helmut: “The ‘great replacement’ is a conspiracy theory > by nazis.” > > > > Are people still using that word, “nazi”? The word has become so over-used > that it’s lost its original meaning. These days a “nazi” is simply anyone > that Leftists disagree with. > > > > Helmut: “Two cultures are not like oil and water, because > cultures are there for mutual appropiation, not for demarcation. Not only > in music, but there it is most obvious.” > > > > There are complex nuances of a systemic nature that must be factored into > the current migration programs of the EU and the UK: > > > > - Migrants from cultures whose misogynistic religions routinely abuse > women, are not going to assimilate easily into cultures emphasizing women’s > rights and democratic values. The incentivization of migration from > despotic regimes, comprised of the worst elements that include grooming > gangs, rapists, drug cartels and criminals, is not going to end well; > - Persons motivated by the promise of free stuff are a very different > category of migrant to those whose motivations revolve around survival or a > better life (as in the Europeans that settled America). It’s not a crime to > take advantage of free stuff. The crime is the EU/UK’s deliberate program > of incentivisation. The problem is not the unskilled economic migrants, > often masquerading as refugees, taking advantage of freebies, such as > welfare and free accommodation, towards which they’ve never had to pay > taxes. The problem is the treason being perpetrated by EU/UK politicians > against European/UK interests, whether as “Great Replacement” or “Stupid > Progressivism” (take your pick). Regardless of the motivation, treason, as > the aiding and abetting of invaders, is the one word that defines both. > > > > Helmut, if I read you correctly, you think it’s all good, we get to > benefit with nice music in a diverse, equitable ambiance, without crime, > rape or violence. You’re proving my point. Us Westerners, confined to our > anthropocentric religions and physicalist scientisms (the God/Not-God > schism), just don’t get it. And we never will… until, perhaps, it’s too > late. > > > > Europe has had an extensive history of unavoidable challenges with > minorities and their assimilation… not always perfect, but we’ve done the > best we could. But what we are now facing is something new and > unprecedented. Human exceptionalism is an anthropocentric God’s curse and > it will soon be coming home to roost. A new Dark Age is on the horizon. > > > > Helmut: “I think it is not only ok to leave the God-question > open, but to not leave it open is blasphemy, as God obviously leaves it > open, which we should respect.” > > > > On this, we agree. > > > > Cheers, > > sj > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Helmut Raulien > *Sent:* 18 August, 2025 9:54 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Planck and Peirce on mind as primary, matter > secondary > > > > Stephen, List, > > > > The "great replacement" is a conspiracy theory by nazis. Two cultures are > not like oil and water, because cultures are there for mutual appropiation, > not for demarcation. Not only in music, but there it is most obvious. I > think it is not only ok to leave the God-question open, but to not leave it > open is blasphemy, as God obviously leaves it open, which we should > respect. Scriptures are never the words of God, though they claim it, and > prophets mainly have their own agendas (career goals). I guess, the best > religious scripture is the Granth Sahib, in which on 1430 pages God is an > object of worship, not of assumption = attempted analysis. > > > > Best, Helmut > > 18. August 2025 um 16:48 > > "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> > > *wrote:* > > Jon, Gary, List, > > Jon: “Peirce considered the ‘anthropocentric bias’ of Western philosophy > to be a feature, not a bug" […] "To say, therefore, that a conception is > one natural to man, which comes to just about the same thing as to say that > it is anthropomorphic, is as high a recommendation as one could give to it > in the eyes of an Exact Logician" (CP 5.47, EP 2:152, 1903). > Gary: “So, in a word: the spirit of the ‘Religions of the Book’ and those > of the East are, in my view, quasi-necessary; the language, symbols, > doctrines and dogmas, however, are mainly insufficient for the needs of our > era.” > > > > Allow me to expand on my motivations for leaving the god question open. > One of them, I've already touched on... the creative void, as first cause, > may itself be the progenitor of life. If so, then this raises questions as > to whether God is a product of life processes (the universe as a unified > collective), or the creator of them… or even both, in the sense of a > god-universe bootstrapping itself into existence. Indeed, is God even > necessary, whether as the creator of life, or the arbiter of moral purpose? > By leaving the god question open, one is forced to address first principles. > > > > First principles? The creative void is one such first principle. Another > is the pervasiveness of maternal love throughout nature. How do the mothers > of so many species know to love their offspring? Where does this come from? > Darwinians typically trivialize maternal love (or any other kind of love) > as an "adaptive trait", an adjunct to the meat-and-potatoes of dumb > stochastic processes. Religious folk, by contrast, might describe it as > God's love pervading throughout nature. I introduce a different slant... > maternal love as of semiotic significance prioritizing the known, an > expression of the tension between the known and the unknown. > > > > An anthropocentric bias would presuppose that only humans are capable of > love, and that its manifestation outside of the human domain is in the form > of "instinct" as an adaptive trait. In this context, maternal love in > non-human animals, as "instinctual", is merely incidental - an artificial > fabrication of God's perfect love that He reserves for humans. With our > anthropocentric interpretation, we lose sight of its semiotic significance, > rich in meaning and purpose… and even, as a first principle in all sentient > life throughout the universe, not just human life on Earth. > > > > On the moral question and its intent... is morality defined by God? Or > does it relate to cultural health and well-being? Self-interest versus the > greater good? Christianity has already demonstrated that morality relates > to the greater good that makes progress in cultures possible. The > foundation of civilisation, the European Renaissance and all that. In the > absence of morality, overwhelmed by self-interest, degeneracy and misery > would be the end-point of that trajectory. The European Renaissance is now > in the past, a new future beckons. A new Dark Age, perhaps? [I allude here > to Douglas Murray’s “The Strange Death of Europe”] > > > > So where has the anthropocentric, "man made in God's image" indulgence > brought us? Yes, it gave us the European Renaissance that preceded the > industrial and technological revolutions. But it never tempered its human > exceptionalism, the notion that only human logic and reason are real, > everything else a mere simile. And in this our indulgent anthropocentrism > might have now brought us to the edge of extinction, that's where. The > God/Not-God tension of the Occident is unlike the synthesis that emerged in > the East. Our Creationism flips to Darwinism morphs into Neo-Darwinism > morphs into physicalism/materialism, the notion that everything can be > explained in terms of matter and math. > > > > Who here hasn't heard of "The Great Replacement"? A strategic agenda or a > stupid experiment? Regardless, the established physicalist narrative cannot > comprehend that mixing very different cultures, like mixing oil and water, > can only ever result in catastrophe. The European cultures that had taken > millennia to evolve from the hunter-gatherers now stand at a precipice. The > chaos that has arrived at our doorstep we owe to the human exceptionalism > that renders human ways of knowing as exceptional, not required to answer > to a higher authority, other than the god made in Man's image. > > > > The god that I have in mind is Hubble Deep-field, trillions-galactic big. > He won’t know my name. Insofar as I might occasionally conjecture, he is > very different to the Abrahamic god made in Man's image that has set the > stage for a God/Not-God duality, an irreconcilable religion/materialist > schism. I'm sure He won't be offended were I to leave Him out of our > conversations. He's bigger than that. > > > > Cheers, > > sj > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Gary Richmond > *Sent:* 18 August, 2025 8:18 AM > *To:* Peirce List <[email protected]>; Stephen Jarosek < > [email protected]>; Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Planck and Peirce on mind as primary, matter > secondary > > > > Stephen, Jon, List, > > > > SJ: Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric > (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern > interpretations, which leave the god-question open. > > > > I too am more and more inclined to "leave the god-question" open, although > I still consider myself something of a 'Cosmic Christian' in Matthew Fox's > sense of Christ as Logos and Pantokrator (Fox follows de Chardin and > Meister Eckhart, for example, in seeing Christ as a cosmic reality, as an > energy pattern, a presence pervading the universe) However, this is for me > likely an interim measure as I move further from traditional theism to I > know not what (none of the Eastern religions either). So, in a word: the > spirit of the "Religions of the Book" and those of the East are, in my > view, quasi-necessary; the language, symbols, doctrines and dogmas, > however, are mainly insufficient for the needs of our era. > > > > On the other hand, I didn't comment in the Planck/Peirce discussion that > both thinkers were wholly opposed to atheism and made many statements to > that effect. And I too am opposed to materialism, nothing-but-ism, social > Darwinism, irreverence (for people, animals, the earth), etc. As did First > Nations people of the Americas, I see all of nature as sacred. And *Tat > Tvam Asi*. > > > > My own thinking to date is that *some* Eastern thought posits Mind in a > way which not only leaves 'the god-question open' but which offers such > stimulating ideas as expressed in a Tibetan Buddhist tantra I read decades > ago which opens: *Samaya: Gya, Gya, Gya*, translated, *Universal Mind: > Vast, Vast, Vast*. And I am inspired by those metaphysical ideas which > suggest that we are of the very nature of that Vast Intelligence. For > example, Vedanta, *Tat Tvam Asi *(translated*, You* *Are That:* 'Tat' = > 'That', 'Tvam = 'You', 'Asi' = 'Are') identifies the person with the > essence of *Tat*. So I welcome a discussion of how some Eastern thought > can help us find a way to see Vast Intelligence at the core of the cosmos > without making *That * 'an anthropomorphic God' as Peirce and billions of > Jews, Muslims, and Christians do. I have great respect for those who hold > such beliefs as they all have at least the potential value of finding life > -- and not only human life, but all life -- valuable, sacred. > > > > Jon: Despite viewing consciousness as "limited to embodied and living > beings," Peirce considered the "anthropocentric bias" of Western philosophy > to be a feature, not a bug. . . Applying this directly to "the > god-question," he preferred "the anthropomorphic conception" of "an > old-fashioned God" as "more likely to be about the truth" than "a modern > patent Absolute". > > > > Gary: I would agree that for many an abstract 'Absolute' resonates very > little with the sense of the profound mystery of our being in this vast > cosmos (just spend a little time with the images take by the Webb telescope > to get a sense of what I mean by 'vast cosmos'), that for some of us our > 'intellect' and 'soul' or 'spirit' senses a connection to something > profoundly Real/Vital which the extant religions no longer adequately > address. The 'old-fashioned God' of the "Religions of the Book " has > apparently worked well enough for multitudes and for centuries, and still > has a powerful grip on many today. But there seems to be an increasing > desire among some for a faith which, if not exactly 'scientific', is at > least not at odds with science (again, neither Peirce nor Planck thought it > need be). Still, should it ever evolve, that now quite inconceivable > religion will need symbols more powerful than those of the existing major > religions which, however, and in my personal experience as a Christian, are > very powerful indeed in pointing the way to the sacred. > > > > Perhaps there's a truth in what Jon quoted Peirce as saying ". . .that > each of us believes in God, and that the only quest is how to believe less > crudely." > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Stephen, List: > > > > SJ: Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric > (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern > interpretations, which leave the god-question open. > > > > Despite viewing consciousness as "limited to embodied and living beings," > Peirce considered the "anthropocentric bias" of Western philosophy to be a > feature, not a bug, because "every scientific explanation is a hypothesis > that there is something in nature to which the human reason is analogous" > (CP 1.316, 1903). "To say, therefore, that a conception is one natural to > man, which comes to just about the same thing as to say that it is > anthropomorphic, is as high a recommendation as one could give to it in the > eyes of an Exact Logician" (CP 5.47, EP 2:152, 1903). Applying this > directly to "the god-question," he preferred "the anthropomorphic > conception" of "an old-fashioned God" as "more likely to be about the > truth" than "a modern patent Absolute" (CP 5.47n, EP 2:152; see also CP > 8.168, 1902). > > > > Of course, Peirce famously professed his own belief that God is "Really > creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908), > and he even asserted, "It may, therefore, truly be said that each of us > believes in God, and that the only quest is how to believe less crudely" > (SWS 283, 1909). However, he also insisted that "'God' is a vernacular word > and, like all such words, but more than almost any, is *vague*," going on > to suggest that the reason why many people erroneously deny that they > believe in the reality of God is because "they precide (or render precise) > the conception, and, in doing so, inevitably change it; and such precise > conception is easily shown not to be warranted, even if it cannot be quite > refuted" (CP 6.494-6, c. 1906). After all, he adds a few paragraphs later, > "it is impossible to say that any human attribute is *literally *applicable" > to God (CP 6.502); so, accordingly, "we must not predicate any Attribute of > God otherwise than vaguely and figuratively" (SWS 283). > > > > My forthcoming paper in *Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society*, > "Peirce's Cosmological Argumentation: God as *Ens necessarium*," explores > Peirce's answer to "the god-question" in greater detail. As usual, I will > post a link and the abstract when it is published, presumably in the next > issue. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 8:11 AM "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Gary, List > > Gary R: “While Planck was cautious about explicitly theological language > (although he was a practicing Lutheran), my sense is that he tended towards > a view in which the universe’s ultimate reality is mind-like, far more > general than human consciousness, perhaps more like a universal cosmic > field in which human minds participate.” > > > > Resonates with aspects of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and the quantum void. > Peirce’s and Planck’s interpretations are exceptional. Peirce, for example, > appreciates that “consciousness seems limited to embodied and living > beings”, and this resonates nicely with my own thinking. However, my > exchanges with Grok focus more on Eastern philosophies, rather than > Western. Too many Western interpretations are tinged with anthropocentric > (god-leaning) biases, and that’s why I am more inclined to Eastern > interpretations, which leave the god-question open. > > > > In my latest research (current paper under review with a journal), I > factor in the parallels between the quantum void and Sunyata (the creative > void of Buddhism/Hinduism), within a Peircean-semiotic context. My > extensive convo with Grok covers the “creative void” in greater detail, > around the notion that the “tensions” in the void (its potentialities) are > essentially semiotic. If anyone is interested, DM me and I can send you a > Word transcript of my convo with Grok… or I can post it to the forum, if > there’s a way of doing this. > > > > If anyone is interested in my current paper that is under review, here’s a > link to a preprint on Academia.edu: > > https://www.academia.edu/129898049/UPDATE_Association_as_Downward_Causation > > > > Cheers, > > sj > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE > FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your > default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; > and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or > "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go > to [email protected] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L > <[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l> . But, if your subscribed email > account is not your default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE > PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
