The notion that groupthink and bureaucracies are the result of what are wrongly considered to be idealistic urges on the part of the well-intentioned is absurd. If there is group think beyond the TV soundbites it is well distributed across the spectrum of bloviation. People tend to fashion their perceptions on such frail signs. The spectre of bureaucracy as villainous is more pertinent and there is no defense of its various harmful effects. But to see this as somehow the product of your idealistic sorts is again absurd. What is not absurd is Triadic Philosophy, vastly cheaper to buy than a book on Hitler and vastly more pertinent to the issue you raise which is at the center of Triadic Philosophy. Any examination of it will show that it is the most individualistic of POVs. It stipulates that history is made by the decisions of individuals and that these are determinative. This sweeping characterization of progressive thinking is more redolent of Reince Priebus than it is of Peirce.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > It would seem that Edwina and I are on the same page throughout most of > this topic. It is often said that the founding fathers of America > understood something about human nature, hence their emphasis on minimal > government. What was that “something?” Let me posit a guess. IMHO, it would > proceed by way of the following reasoning: > > 1. Idealists are usually well-intentioned enough. They see the > world through rose-coloured glasses and want to fix things that they > perceive are “wrong” or “broken.” But accompanying their best intentions is > a problem... a very intractable problem; > > 2. To make the naive but well-intentioned vision of idealists work, > they need to harness cultural groupthink, and they need to implement the > machinery of bureaucracies... ie, big government. They need to give license > to groupthink to make it work. The person that assimilates well into the > cogs of bureaucratic groupthink is a very different kind of animal to the > naive but well-intentioned idealist; > > 3. The typical idealist is usually a very congenial person with > passions and ideas. The typical bureaucrat (at least from the perspective > of my own experience as a whistleblower-turned-refugee) is usually a > secretive troglodyte that maps his own agenda to the purpose of the greater > bureaucratic machine. He uses the bureaucratic machine, principally, to > further his own ends, and his ideal situation is synergy between his own > agenda and that of the bureaucracy. Any person that is perceived as a > threat to both agendas is perceived as dangerous and is to be eliminated. > In the meantime, while all this takes places under the cover of The Privacy > Act, EEO, FOI, HR, and other such smoke-and-mirrors hogwash, the > bureaucracy carries on its people-friendly masquerade that is usually > publicly associated with the intentions of the idealists. > > I think that America’s founding fathers were onto something. How tragic > that it’s all falling into a heap now. This then, is the crux of the > problem. Bureaucracies require the application of a very different kind of > groupthink psychology to that of the individualistic idealist that inspires > them... the secrets and hidden agendas that make the behemoth of stoopid > work are very different to the congenial, public best wishes of the > idealists, and there is no solution to this conflict of interest. It is at > this juncture that the well-intentioned idealist becomes naught but a > useful idiot... useful as a public face of the bureaucratic machine that > takes on a life of its own. > > sj > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca <tabor...@primus.ca>] > *Sent:* Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:54 PM > *To:* Thomas > *Cc:* Benjamin Udell; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > > > Yes, very nice outline, Thomas, of the strength of the 'melting pot' > tactic, which I support. And that's why I'm against the current focus on > 'multiculturalism' and 'identity politics' which is all the rage in America > and Europe now. It actually retains and fosters those ancient irrational > tribal hatreds. And any 'progressive' who, in their multicultural/identity > political sanctimonious zeal doesn't understand that these minority > enclaves - which are kept insular by multiculturalism/identity > politics.... can be even more racist, bigoted and irrational than any > majority...is naive in the extreme. > > > > Edwina > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Thomas <ozzie...@gmail.com> > > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > > *Cc:* Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> ; <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu%3e> > > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 11:46 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > > > Edwina ~ > > Germans and the other groups you listed have all assimilated into American > society, and none of the nationalities or races have proved particularly > intractable. The melting pot is imperfect, but it does a good job of > challenging cultural myths and ancient hatreds that seem to continue for > centuries in closed/insular societies. The demagogues of America appeal to > the down-and-out of most/all nationalities -- almost as though they're > broad-minded humanists. That reveals a focus on laws and justice, as > opposed to settling scores with ancient enemies. > > > > By contrast, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are comprised of far more > insular societies. Historically most people there have been poor and ruled > by often-brutal and almost-always deceitful autocrats who coopted the > church to hold onto power. Little wonder that warlords and terrorists have > played such a big role in their political histories. > > > > Regards, > > > > Tim Wyrick > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Yes, stereotypes are basic to our identification of 'identity groups' - > whether it be Jews, Italians, Germans, Russians, Chinese. Such distorted > and simplistic images-of-the-other are found among all people. Americans > are viewed by Europeans as...and so on. But the few key variables of > behaviour that we understand to define 'that nationality' are not, in my > view, an explanation for the rise of fascism in Germany. > > > > That is, my point is that we are all as human beings, susceptible to > emotional blindness in our political and societal views; we aren't at all > 'rational beings' when dealing with political and social affairs. > Therefore, if the economic and societal order breaks down, I'd say that we > are all susceptible to fascism. There is a critical threshold when the rule > of law, the political order, the societal order, the economic viability > breaks down - and a power-bloc can move in and take over..and then, impose > its fascism. > > > > The ideology of 'old Germany', with its aristocracy, its ideals of > governance had little to do with the ideology of 'pure race' of Nazism, nor > the Nazi focus on nationalism as a biological construct and the contempt > for 'lesser beings'. After all, the British upper class had a similar focus > as the old Germans on 'noblesse oblige', strict rules of behaviour, a > military career and so on - and were not susceptile to fascism. [But many > were susceptible to communism/socialism!]. > > > > There were plenty of people in the old upper class and the middle class of > Germany who were opposed to fascism and Nazism. > > > > Yes, the horrors of WWII did bring a requirement that US military bases > remain in Germany after 1990 reunification - but, logically, such a demand > by the French and others cannot PROVE that, 'Germans are basically capable > of moving back into fascism' without such a presence. That is - the modus > ponens statement of: > > IF there are bases, THEN, they will be peaceful" > > > > can't be turned around to declare: > > 'They are peaceful; that's because there are bases'. (Fallacy of Affirming > the Consequent). > > > > So- I am not convinced that the German people are predisposed to fascism, > nor that Hitler's rise was a mysterious event. I remain focused on the > economic, political and societal infrastructure - which can decimate a > culture's deep beliefs in a decade. We have our own examples. > > > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> > > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 6:19 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > > > Having grown up in the 1960s on Manhattan's West Side, when WWII wasn't so > long ago and a German accent was immediately associated to movies and TV > series about Nazis, I admit that I may be unduly predisposed to regard > certain strains of militarism, morality by government fiat, and 'just > taking orders' as problematic aspects of the early-20th-Century German > culture. Also I read _Roots of the Nazi Mentality_ when I was an > impressionable kid. > > But I don't think that power affairs (military+politics) and economics are > everything against culture (glamour!) and society (status!) as some sort of > zero. You've a case to make there, Edwina, if you wish to convince people. > The problematic character of early-20th-Century German attitudes - > militarism, morality by government fiat, 'just taking orders' - have not > gone unnoticed by anybody around Germany. The reunification of Germany in > the 1990s involved US guarantees of maintaining military bases in Germany, > guarantees sought by the French and other governments. > > Best, Ben > > On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > No, Helmut, I don't think that the German people 'had more barbaric > instincts than other people'. We are all similar in our capacity for > emotional irrationality and violence. When a societal system of law and > order breaks down for various reasons, i.e., is not providing security, is > not functioning in a just and fair manner, is corrupt, , is subverted by a > higher authority - then, the 'cooling off' phase of rational examination of > the situation is rejected - and we get either a mob, or a 'controlled mob, > i.e., a band of thugs'. > > Democracy is not, in itself, a barrier against barbarism. As Tolstoy said, > 'Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority shares in it'. > Democracy, to be just, requires a constitution and the rule of law, set up > as created by men, and capable of change by men, but applicable to all. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Helmut Raulien > To: Ozzie > Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; <stever...@gmail.com> <stever...@gmail.com> ; > Peirce List > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:51 PM > Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > I agree, that his "abduction-type message is" only "a big part of that > success". Tenacity, authority and apriori also are. I wrote, that a false > abduction to laypersons of logic can look like a proper conclusion. But not > all Germans were too much laypersons to see the lies (eg. Heidegger). > Nevertheless they followed him. Putting the emphasis on Hitlers intelligent > ways of manipulation should not assign him a bigger part of the guilt, and > lessen the guilt of the Germans. They had more barbaric instincts than the > other peoples, and were no democrats. Other in than other nations, there > has not been a democratic constitution initiated by the people. > Best, > Helmut > > Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com> <ozzie...@gmail.com> > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
