Main Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.
I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides. So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the grass too. It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot. Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.) However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions to take root. Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root all over the world. I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism. Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: >Gene Halton wrote: > > >I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary >R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet you >continue, Gene, that "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to >Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” >whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which is it Gene? Did >Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as you termed it? Our >"take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford. > > >I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite sympathetic >to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the group of >quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, "Brooks's >understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you >at least in that. > > >It is possible that when I read your book Bereft of Reason a few years ago I >may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just quoted >regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American involvement did >lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the >war. . ." > > >Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 >perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" >(Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical >triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we >now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the >military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global >corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and >children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those >"wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc. > > >Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with >"perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about >how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and the >Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and >the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring in >the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may have >proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that >those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering >children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and >civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end? (certainly >in this sense at least, I completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most >recently, that there is a case to be made for pacifism). > > >So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's >not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely correct and Dewey >completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably less >"uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I >greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has all the answers to >the question of war and peace. > > >Best, > > >Gary > > > > >Gary Richmond > >Philosophy and Critical Thinking > >Communication Studies > >LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > >C 745 > >718 482-5690 > > >On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> >wrote: > >I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York Times, and have had a long term >interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually discuss >Mumford’s essay described by Brooks in my book, Bereft of Reason, on page 147 >forward. > >I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary >R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s >claim that Mumford’s position is close to ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, >180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s point in this context being >described that living for immediate pleasure gratification regardless of >purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position regarding intervention >against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the time before World War II >was incorrect. Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's >outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he >meant by using the term, was shallow. And the term Mumford was using was >"pragmatic liberalism." > >Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United States' >use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a critic of the >US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned against the >Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the Presidential Medal >of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like to see what >conservative David Brooks would do with that. > I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in Bereft of Reason, >on “Lewis Mumford’s Organic World-View” below. > >Gene > > > > excerpt from Bereft of Reason: “The second confrontation with Dewey and >pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what Mumford >termed “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford believed that fascism would not >listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and urged strong measures >as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of European nations which might >be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in The New Republic that the United >States “Strike first against fascism; and strike hard, but strike.” His >militant position was widely attacked by the left, and he lost a number of >friends in the process, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles >Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others. > >To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just >consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of >Common Sense on the question “If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be >Neutral?”: > >Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S. Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic >Force’ May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John >T. Flynn, “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry Elmer Barnes, “A War for >‘Tory Finance’?”. Dewey’s contribution was titled, “No Matter What >Happens--Stay Out,” and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford’s >piece, “Fascism is Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the inability of the >left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to stem >Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition of what >Mumford called “pragmatic liberalism.” The fatal error of pragmatic >liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of emotional >neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as “the dread of >the emotions.” He illustrated why the emotions ought to play a significant >part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a poisonous snake: >“If one meets a poisonous snake on one’s path, two things are important for a >rational reaction. One is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming >that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion >of fear, if the snake is poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in >into the blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on >the alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or >to attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it >and without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly >irrational step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one’s >guard against his bite.” Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the >opposite of the rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be >neutralized in order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in >this example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling >one’s way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the >rationale becomes conscious… > >… In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the “context of situation” should provide >the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to empty >formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its shortcomings >in the practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the eve of World War II that the >United States should stay out of the impending war against Nazi Germany, >because it did not involve the American situation. As he put it in 1939, “If >we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if we now set >ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we stay out, we >shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe that could >overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which to erect a >socialized democracy.” Dewey criticized the idea that American involvement >was “inevitable” while simultaneously assuming such participation would >somehow produce inevitable results. > >Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic >complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have >emerged in any case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to the fact that Western >and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault >from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By >ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader context of the >situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in >Hitler’s totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was >unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was >led to a false conclusion concerning American intervention which only the >brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change. > >Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being? >Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies’ >adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and in >the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of military >standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Mumford was >among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having written an essay >on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima and a book >within a year, as well as helping to organize the first nuclear disarmament >movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam War, expressing opinions >publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly >book, The Pentagon of Power (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on >the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment.” > >Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f. > > > > > > > >--- > > > >On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > >My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection of the >value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was indeed >thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the value of >life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. Universalism for me >is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other imperative, that humans >(so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as means. And scientists >like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my >conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and pragmatists, >his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept of "culture" too, >because for him, culture is not based on the value of life, but vice versa. >But I was refering to a quote out of its context, maybe. > >Best, > >Helmut > > > "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > > >Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list, > > > >I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and even >in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support his >argument contra Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had a generally >positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I have ever read an >entire book by him. > > > >This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his books I >found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which is not to >say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, some of his >ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although his critical >purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at the moment. > >See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford > > > >Best, > > > >Gary > > > > > >Gary Richmond > >Philosophy and Critical Thinking > >Communication Studies > >LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > >C 745 > >718 482-5690 > > > >On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > >Helmut, list, > >I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although I have >somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's worth, I'll >point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, when the >horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed down from >it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I meant to read, >about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting just to live, >became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve life, not tell it >that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. >brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). >"They want politics and think it will save them. At best, it gives direction >to their numbed desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of >power through language. Thus the latter’s constant debasement." - Gilbert >Sorrentino in _Splendide-Hôtel_. > >Best, Ben > >On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > >Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the Isis: >"“Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice is worth >fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth fighting for: >These universal principles and values give purpose and direction to human >life.” That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: Your life is worthless, >so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) heaven. Brooks and Mumford >are moral zealots and relativists who project that on the people who have >deserved it the least. They intuitively know that they havent understood >anything, the least the concept of universalism, and bark against those who >have, because they are jealous. > > > >Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr >Von: "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >An: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less" > >List, > > > >Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, "The >Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. >http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion > > > >To the Editor: > >David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American pragmatism >(“The Problem With Pragmatism,” column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of >Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal >pragmatists who were passionate about values as well as the means of realizing >them in enduring democratic social institutions. > >The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not paralysis or >doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and self-defeating >values and policies that will make matters worse. What is needed is more >pragmatism, not less. > >JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO >Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014 > > > >The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook. > > > >Brooks > >' article, >http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D > which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, >may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito >points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry terms "vulgar >Pragmatism" > >(182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version. > > > >Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter "Vulgar >Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: ". . . if I >should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is for the true >interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a great deal of >help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." ( > >op. cit. > >201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a logician. > > > >Best, > > > >Gary > > > > > > > > > > >----------------------------- >PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu >. To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu >with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
