Correction: The benign neglect. Thing Did not belong with the rest of my comments.
Phyllis Chiasson <ath...@olympus.net> wrote: > >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 .
