In discussing the impact of any individual I do not think luck and chance can be excluded. I suspect Peirce would agree. I wonder sometimes whether chance in life is not as pervasive as it clearly is in say the progress of a spermatozoan to an egg.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Tom- I fully agree. I don't 'buy into' what I see as any romanticism of > Hitler that sees his rise as 'special' or 'a mystery'. Or that sees fascism > as dependent on a charismatic leader. And I don't accept the notion that > the German people and their history in itself had anything to do with the > rise of German fascism [this is a critique of the *Sonderweg* theory that > Germany had a particular propensity for fascism]. That is - given the > situation of economic depression, national isolation and a societal 'black > hole' (no future for a middle class), it could happen elsewhere. And as we > see in Islamic fascism, it isn't simply a reaction to failed democracy but > to failed governments and economies. > > There were many who did not support Hitler, both among the ordinary middle > class and certainly, among the old nobility. But his imposition of a brutal > military dictatorship, run outside any rule of law, and thus, run by thugs, > isolated dissent and criticism. And we shouldn't ignore the conflict with > communism as an 'alternative' to fascism - this debate was vital at the > time. > > Right - the division of German into East and West didn't help Germany or > Europe; the impoverishment of the East is still quite something to see when > you cross the border between the two. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> ; <stever...@gmail.com> > <stever...@gmail.com%3E> ; Peirce List <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 2:26 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > I believe that a society's shared beliefs are the outcome of a competitive > evolutionary process, where "the environment" rewards/favors certain traits > and punishes/rejects others. In this analysis Hitler is a "random > variation" of nature, and in some environments he would have been in jail, > while in others he would be elected dictator, etc. Every society has > numerous demagogues who would be dangerous if given the opportunity, and > many of those are silver-tongued speakers. > > This way of modeling the issue returns the focus to a question raised > earlier by Edwina: What characterized German society in the 1920's, 1930's > and 1940's that made it susceptible to the message of a Hitler-type leader? > Most historians believe resentments following WW1 reparations, the > crushing impact and distraction of the Great Depression, and disarmament by > other nations played a decisive role in creating that climate. In that > setting Hitler rose to power, but if there had been no Hitler some other > extremist leader/group would likely have gained widespread support. > > According to this view, Hitler's "specialness" is the set of idiosyncratic > talents that set him above other would-be dictators he competed with for > power. Perhaps his abduction-type message is a big part of that success. > Yet,nwe do not credit Hitler for the larger environmental effects that set > the scene for a German dictator. > > This, I believe, represents the general view of most historians and US > foreign policy makers. They believed that by not imposing punishing > reparations after WW2 and helping Germany rebuild its economy, ordinary > German citizens would no longer support another Hitler, even though other > demagogues are available if called upon. Many of Germany's closest > neighbors, including the USSR, were not persuaded of that, however, and > sought instead to prevent Germany from becoming aggressive again > (presumably behind another Hitler) by dividing and weakening that nation. > > Regards, > > Tom Wyrick > > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Helmut - if you use the scientific method and lie about your data and > conclusions then, you are NOT using the scientific method. > > Hitler used all three fallacious (and common to us all) methods of 'fixing > belief'. The a priori emotional pure visceral appeal to the romantic > idealism of the *pure volk*, the tenacity of repetition about the > economic and political crisis of the time and the sense that Germans were > victims; the tenacity of assurance that such a pure *volk* exists and the > 'authority' of the past and the romanticism of the past heroes and era, and > the yes, romanticism of violence - and eventually, of course, pure > military and outside-of-the law authority. > > Nothing scientific at all about fascism or Hitler's political tactics. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > *To:* stever...@gmail.com > *Cc:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> ; Peirce List > <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 12:50 PM > *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive > Logic > > Now I am wondering, which of the four methods of fixating belief did > Hitler use? According to Ben Novak it is like this, I think: He was > tenacious, but that is not the main point. He used authority, but that is > not the main point either. Also he took advantage of apriorian ituition and > instincts, but neither that is the main point. The main point is, that he > used the scientific method, but not in a proper, but in a mendacious way. > And it is scary how it was working, how a false abduction is able to > immunize itself against contradictions. So I think, that Ben N., by showing > this mendacios mechanism, has contributed much to making the scientific > method more secure. Edwina wrote about sweeping generalizations, which dont > stand up to scientific scrutiny, but are widely believed. Perhaps people > believe it, because they do not have the means or the energy for scientific > scrutiny, and want to believe something. But if they would know about this > mendacious mechanism, maybe they would stop to think before believing. The > fact, that this mechanism exists, is not a proof against any conspiracy > theory, but an abduction in this respect. But that does not matter, because > if one abduction can make people believe, another abduction can keep them > from believing the first, possibly false abduction. > Best, > Helmut > > > "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> > > 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 <tabor...@primus.ca> > 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 <http://stever...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <http://tabor...@primus.ca> >> *Cc:* Peirce List <http://Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> >> *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 <tabor...@primus.ca> >> 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 <http://stever...@gmail.com> >>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <http://tabor...@primus.ca> ; Peirce List >>> <http://Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> >>> *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 <tabor...@primus.ca> >>> 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 <http://trevriz...@gmail.com> >>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <http://tabor...@primus.ca> >>>> *Cc:* PEIRCE-L <http://peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>> *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 <bud...@nyc.rr.com> >>>> 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 <http://trevriz...@gmail.com> >>>>> *To:* Stephen Jarosek <http://sjaro...@iinet.net.au> >>>>> *Cc:* Stephen C. Rose <http://stever...@gmail.com> ; Peirce List >>>>> <http://Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> >>>>> *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 >>>>> 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 . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 . > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
