The fact that we disagree on the way things are is encouraging as I think we agree more than you might perceive on many basics. We have had different life experiences And nothing I suggest ever is more than about a degree or two removed from things that would contradict. Above all I believe in the power of conversation along with what I understand to be continuity and fallibility.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, Stephen Rose, you are more 'rosy-viewing' than I am. I don't think > that the scientific method is any more secure now than in the past. Nor do > I see a general reduction in violence or poverty. Instead, I see an > increase in a sense of entitlement (which is utopian in itself!) and > sweeping generalizations about eg, the climate, diseases, and so on - which > don't stand up to scientific scrutiny but are widely believed. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 11:44 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > And scientific method's hold on the present is more secure than in the > past and there are arguments to suggest that there is a factual basis for > assuming both a general reduction of violence and a reduction of poverty. > Certainly both of these positives have been denoted utopian in the past, > but they should become more and more subject to the very method Peirce > venerated. Merely because Peirce adduced three modes of error does not > substantiate their capacity to overcome one mode which constitutes truth. > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl > Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Utopianism, which is an imaginary perfection of life, is basic to the >> human imagination. You can see that in our fictional tales - whether from >> Homer to fairy tales to romance novels to Batman films to James Bond to our >> political and economic ideas of the current era. >> >> But fascism isn't the only type of utopianism. The other main type is >> socialism, which is equally focused on 'everyone behaving the same'. The >> difference from fascism is that socialism focuses on a future ideal, while >> fascism focuses on a past ideal (as in the *pure volk of *Germany and >> also, of current Islamic fascism)....and socialism focuses on a future >> state (if we all share everything and all have the same amount of >> wealth...). >> >> We are, as humans, all subject to hate, irrationality, mob behaviour and >> susceptibility to false promises. We've seen that in every nation on earth- >> and that includes our own and in recent times. Therefore - we are not >> 'condemned to repeat the past' for this behaviour is never confined to our >> past. We are condemned to be aware that irrationality is a basic emotional >> capacity in ourselves. There is only one scientific method, but there are >> three methods of irrational belief in Peirce's work. >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> ; Peirce List >> <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 10:18 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >> >> All Edwina says is fine. My only caveat is that the tendency of what she >> calls utopianism (that assumption needs some proving I think) is not >> necessarily in a fascist direction. Fascism requires what she suggests -- a >> sort of blindness to reality. It's result is hate, irrationality, mob >> behavior and susceptibility to false promises. I believe that because of >> what Peirce rightly put together we can achieve incremental progress by >> means of reasonable moves forward. Based on a growing body of evidence. I >> do not as I have said before believe that we are condemned to repeat the >> past. >> >> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl >> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Ben, thanks for your comments. >>> >>> With regard to the use of such terms as 'mystery, magical, and luck' >>> when referring to the rise of Hitler, I consider them all similar in that >>> they suggest some non-factual or illogical causality to his rise. My point >>> is that such explanations are, of course, not explanations and that >>> Hitler's rise to power - as well as that of any demagogue - is explicable. >>> And - it can happen again and elsewhere. >>> >>> In Canada, and I imagine in other countries, one does not register to >>> vote, and need not register for nor belong to any political party. Voting >>> 'registration' is primarily but not solely via taxation information. >>> >>> As for the rise of Hitler, as a nationalist fanatic, >>> racist and demagogue, (see his autobiography written at a young age!) ; >>> i.e., his conversion as a fascist, one can see in his early education and >>> life (Wm. Shirer The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) his >>> personal movement into this ideology. I think the real focus is on the rise >>> of fascism; it was by no means foreign to the German/Austrian sentiments >>> of the time. (eg, 1913 in Vienna). ; See W. Shirer and see also R. Eatwell: >>> Fascism, a History; and R. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich; and R. >>> Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism. See also a discussion by Jean B. Elshtain, >>> 'Sovereignty: God, State and Self. ). I'd consider that F. Hayek's 'The >>> Road to Serfdom', another examination of how and why people move into a >>> utopian ideology. >>> >>> How could a majority of a population move into fascism, the utopian >>> ideology of a perfect *volk...*with its primordial, pure Will which, as >>> pure to the *volk*, *must triumph*. We see fascism in the preachings of >>> various political leaders of the current era both here and in other >>> countries. And people listen to and accept it! The question then becomes - >>> what is the critical threshold when fascism becomes dominant and drowns >>> out/prevents other discourse and the voice of established law and ongoing >>> critical reason? We see, in Germany, its rise due to many 'leaders' - not >>> just Hitler. >>> >>> And then, we must acknowledge that fascism is not unique to one era and >>> one man, but, we are all susceptible to a 'Fixation of Belief' by >>> irrational means. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Ben Novak <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* PEIRCE-L <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 8:56 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >>> >>> Dear Edwina: >>> >>> You have made a number of interesting points. Most of them have been >>> addressed rather well by Ben Udell. But let me add a few points that I >>> think will be helpful to many others on the list. >>> >>> First, it is important that one read the book or dissertation, rather >>> than for summarizing its salient points, for one main reason. The book >>> involves the application of Peirce's theoretical structure of abduction to >>> facts. Therefore, the book is not the presentation of a theory, whose >>> salient points can be summarized and presented in bite-size form for others >>> to critique in theoretical terms and argue over principles, definitions, >>> and soundness of syllogisms. Rather, in this case, the "devil is in the >>> details." >>> >>> In this respect, I think that the work should be of particular interest >>> to the members of Peirce-L precisely because it involves the messy world of >>> facts, in other words, it is an experiment of seeing whether certain >>> theories can actually explain certain facts. It is like the situation when >>> a scientist claims to have established something by experimental methods; >>> one must meticulously go over each step of the experiments to see whether >>> the result holds. >>> >>> In this respect, Eco and Sebeok's *The Sign of Three *is very >>> instructive.They wrote that book because their studies of Peirce had >>> introduced them to several other scholars who noted the presence of >>> Peirce's adductive logic in the stories of Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Conan >>> Doyle. They therefore set out to show how this form of logic pervades the >>> work of these two giants of the detective story genre. In that case, in >>> order to see if their premise holds, one must not only read Eco and >>> Sebeok's book, but must also be familiar with the works of Poe and Doyle. A >>> lot of work. >>> >>> Second, I don't think that I am making more of a mystery of Hitler than >>> is warranted. Almost every major historian has shouted out that the facts >>> of Hitler so far constitute a major mystery. That was the thesis of Ron >>> Rosenbaum' book, *Explaining Hitler*, which he boldly states: "Hitler >>> has escaped explanation." >>> >>> I set out to deal with one part of the Hitler mystery, specifically, >>> what there was about him that enabled him to succeed. It seemed that simply >>> to say he was lucky is not an explanation. First because he was the most >>> unlikely of people to have any success in politics. He was a high school >>> dropout, a denizen of the poor houses of Vienna, had shown no signs of >>> leadership through four years of war in which any sign of leadership was >>> sought to replace the high mortality of line officers. More importantly, >>> however, one must keep in mind that he was not a citizen, and could neither >>> vote nor hold office. >>> >>> Finally, he built up his political movement from scratch not once, but >>> twice.He took the tiny DAP from a *stammtisch* organization and built >>> it into the largest force in Bavaria in four years. Then came the Putsch, >>> and he was imprisoned, the party declared illegal and all its assets >>> seized, and he was convicted of treason. No one believed that he could be >>> any further trouble. But he said he could be back on top in a few years, >>> and within five years after he was released, he was the leader of the >>> second largest party in Germany. To say it was luck alone is to believe >>> that lightning strikes twice in the same place.... >>> >>> This brings up another fact that is disconcerting. Many people believe >>> that Hitler succeeded because of his oratory. But he built up his party the >>> second time under a complete ban on public speaking, effectively from >>> November 1923 till spring of 1927 in Bavaria, and until 1928 throughout the >>> rest of Germany,during which he gave only one public speech in February >>> 1925, which is the speech that got him banned again from public speaking. >>> Yet his party grew by leaps and bounds during this period from a party of >>> one, to 49,000 dues-paying members in 1927, and to 78,000 members and >>> almost 3 percent of the vote in 1928. This calls out for explanation. >>> >>> (Understand that in Germany at this time, one did not register for a >>> party as we do in the US when one registers to vote. Every German was >>> automatically registered, but one had to actually go to Party headquarters >>> to join, and that meant paying dues and being required to perform >>> organizing services. So, building an army of 49,000 dues-paying, hard >>> working election organizers in two years was no small thing. My point it >>> that this was done when Hitler was forbidden to give public speeches, so it >>> cannot be because of his oratory.) >>> >>> Well, my point is that this process has not been explained. My book >>> offers to provide at least one part of an explanation. >>> >>> Again, I agree with you that this is different from the usual discussion >>> on Pierce-L where abstract issues can be discussed. My original >>> announcement was simply that there was now a book trying to apply Peirce's >>> theory of abduction to an historical event, with the idea that people on >>> the list might be interested to know that. Of course, I hoped that someone >>> would actually read it and critique it. But if you choose not to read it, >>> that is a fair choice. >>> >>> Thanks for responding, >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>* >>> 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 >>> Telephones: >>> Magic Jack: (717) 826-5224 *Best to call and leave messages.* >>> Landline: 239-455-4200 *My brother's main phone line.* >>> Mobile (202) 509-2655* I use this only on trips--and in any event >>> messages arrive days late.* >>> Skype: BenNovak2 >>> >>> *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the >>> arts themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the >>> last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be — **though possibly a colored >>> canvas and a sheet of notes may remain — **because the last eye and the >>> last ear accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Tom, yes, this is the kind of thing where I speak of rephrasing. >>>> Fresh from a first reading of 3/4 of the thesis, my impression was that Ben >>>> N. was attributing more originality to Hitler than seems established. Still >>>> I think Ben N. is on to something. Mainstream German politicians were >>>> offering practical programs, while Hitler was offering a Big Explanation of >>>> Everything and avoiding proposing solutions to particular problems. >>>> >>>> Best, Ben U. >>>> >>>> On 7/9/2015 11:15 PM, Ozzie wrote: >>>> >>>> Ben ~ >>>> >>>> Thanks for your helpful summary ("Ben N. is saying that Hitler was the >>>> first leader to invite the public to follow a pattern of abductive >>>> inference like in a detective story ...") >>>> >>>> Both for sport and to attain positions of leadership, Greek orators at >>>> the time of the Peloponnesian Wars invited the general public to form, >>>> accept and act on abducted hypotheses. The logical tales spun by Hitler >>>> were based upon resentment, which places him among the demagogues. >>>> >>>> Regards - >>>> >>>> Tom Wyrick >>>> >>>> On Jul 9, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: >>>> >>>> Edwina, Ben N., list, >>>> >>>> I've been reading the online version of Ben N.'s thesis. I found that I >>>> could not save it to my computer without first opening it online, and in >>>> order to save it computer, one has to move one's mouse over some buttons in >>>> the upper right-hand corner of the view pane till a little tool tip says >>>> "Download". I'm convinced that visual design of computer programs these >>>> days is largely done by sadists. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I've been reading it, it's two PDFs, and I'm half-way through >>>> the second one. It really is very readable, and that involvement of Hitler >>>> does add a certain electric current to the discussion of abductive >>>> inference. It's not a labor to read, and it's quite interesting. There are >>>> a number of technical errors (as Ben N. warns) evident to a Peirce scholar, >>>> but these can be corrected without damaging the thesis. >>>> >>>> In response to Edwina, I'd say that Ben N. does not present Hitler's >>>> rise as having a magical or mystical element, rather a mysterious element >>>> that requires explanation. He makes a case that many scholars think that >>>> there are some very difficult questions as to who Hitler was and how did he >>>> get so far. I'm no historian and hadn't read a book on Hitler since I was a >>>> teenager. So far, I'd say that the case is not made clear enough to the >>>> general reader that Hitler didn't just get lucky in the sense that some >>>> party had to come out on top or, in the classic formulation, "somebody has >>>> to be the king of France." Ben N. outlines some argument that luck wasn't >>>> such a big part of it, but it's not clear to me yet. On the other hand, I >>>> don't think that Ben N. is relying on a "Great Men" theory of history - he >>>> says that Hitler might have made very little difference in other times and >>>> circumstances. >>>> >>>> Insofar as everybody uses abductive inference, Ben N. perhaps doesn't >>>> bring out clearly enough the difference between Hitler's use of it and >>>> others' use of it, instead he talks about how Hitler was the first leader >>>> to use it. I think I know what Ben N. is getting at, but I'd phrase it more >>>> carefully. Ben N. is saying that Hitler was the first leader to invite the >>>> public to follow a pattern of abductive inference like in a detective story >>>> (Who Murdered Germany?), and that Hitler relied for credibility on the >>>> justificatory plausibility and complex cohesion of an untested hypothesis >>>> that would take a long time to verify. Well, there's more to it, which it >>>> would be foolish of me to try to summarize. I'd ask, is Ben N. so sure that >>>> Hitler was the first such leader? Many other regimes have 'explanations' >>>> that they give to their people, sometimes involving the idea of hidden >>>> forces behind events. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I'm enjoying reading it. One can certainly say that Ben Novak >>>> has made a serious effort, deserving of more attention than what some >>>> rather pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey stuff has received occasionally on >>>> peirce-l. >>>> >>>> Best, Ben >>>> >>>> On 7/9/2015 7:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: >>>> >>>> Ben, I'm going to disagree with your view that in order to discuss the >>>> basic issue of your book, namely, your attempt to correlate the rise of >>>> Hitler with abductive logic - that it requires that we either buy your book >>>> or read it. >>>> >>>> I think that on a Peirce-list, the members ought to have a reasonable >>>> reading knowledge of Peirce's works, but I don't think that a research >>>> topic dealt with by a member requires that members of this list read that >>>> member's work. My view is that it is incumbent on YOU, to provide members >>>> with a reasonably thorough precis of the salient points of your argument. >>>> >>>> With regard to the points you have so far provided, my concern is that >>>> you seem to be trying to imbue Hitler's rise to power with some 'magical' >>>> or mystical element. >>>> >>>> For example, you claim that when his party took power, German politics >>>> consisted of 28 parties - why was Hitler's dominant? In Canada, at the >>>> federal level, there are 26 political parties - and there is nothing >>>> particularly magical or surprising that only three are dominant. There are >>>> about 30 minor political parties in the US. Only two-three are dominant. >>>> >>>> Second, my concern is your method of explaining this history. You seem >>>> to be using what is known as the 'Great Man Theory' of historical analysis, >>>> which examines history by focusing on the charisma or whatever of some >>>> singular causal individual. I consider this a weak analytic frame; I prefer >>>> the 'long duree' framework of the 'Annales' school (eg, Braudel), which >>>> considers infrastructural causality such as the population size, economic >>>> mode, technological capacity, trade relations etc...rather than >>>> individuals. >>>> >>>> As for fascism, it is an ideology of the mind, i.e., it is not rooted >>>> in pragmatic reality but in a notion of utopian purity of the past, such >>>> that 'if only we returned to that pure mode', then, all would be well. It >>>> is now rampant in the Al Qaeda (from the 19th c!) and ISIS of the MENA. >>>> There are, I maintain, population and economic reasons for the refusal of >>>> these populations and governments to deal with the pragmatic problems of >>>> the area and the resultant retreat into fascism. >>>> >>>> Same with Germany of the 1930s. And, once an infrastructure is set up, >>>> e,g, National Socialism's Third Reich, it is extremely difficult to move >>>> out of the rhetoric and back down to hard reality. That requires an >>>> external intervention. Certainly, internally, some tried to stop Hitler - >>>> >>>> As for Hitler being logical - what??? I think some examples would be >>>> helpful. His behaviour around Stalingrad was hardly logical. >>>> >>>> Is the popularity of various cult figures, of wealthy preachers, of >>>> due to their being logical? Or for some other reason(s)? >>>> >>>> What is abductive about Hitler's 'reasoning'? >>>> >>>> Again, my view - and I say it is my view - is that the onus for >>>> explanation of a topic is not to have readers buy your book or read it >>>> online, but for you to explain key points to us - and then, explain why you >>>> align it with Peircean theory. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Ben Novak <[email protected]> >>>> *To:* Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> >>>> *Cc:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> ; Peirce List >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 09, 2015 5:12 PM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive >>>> Logic >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 >>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 >>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
