Ben Novaks Book is Peirce-related, because it is about abduction, and how abduction was misused by Hitler. Edwina had mentioned many other historical, economical, and other causes for this ideology. This was Peirce related because it was about the fixation of belief. Instincts for example are relevant for the apriori method of fixating belief, eg. the tribalistic instinct Edwina had mentioned. Stephen Jarosek said, that everything is culture, I said no, politics and ideologies are not working (fixating the belief in themselves) just with cultural conditioning, but by manipulating, amplifying and suppressing human instincts. Hitlers abduction is a misuse of the scientific method, to manipulate instincts is a misuse of the apriori method. What kind of signs are instincts, inherited representamens? immediate objects?
Best,
Helmut
Supplement: But I dont want to push the thread to continuing- anyway it is not about abduction anymore, and "instincts" would better fit to biosemiotics, I suppose- so I am not desperately waiting for an answer. Best,
Helmut
Von: "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
I thought I raised a valid point but I think it turned out to be a red flag. Sorry.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Stephen, please don't join in the insultingly trivializing games that others have played with the meaning of "Peirce-related", and please don't convert it to a question of what is Peirce is relevant or related to. PEIRCE-L has the audience that it has because of the promise of Peirce-related discussion, and The Peirce Group and Indiana University continue peirce-l's _existence_ for the sake of Peirce-related discussion. The Peirce Group will not go on indefinitely allowing peirce-l to be commandeered for the extended, multi-post discussion of people's pet causes that are not sufficiently Peirce-related. - Best, Ben
On 7/12/2015 7:38 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:Peirce is relevant to the issues we are discussing, particularly to the relationship between semiosis then and now, to the growing iteration and acceptance of triadic rather than binary thinking, and to the huge sea change which Helmut just noted. There is a text probably prominent on Arisbe that lists about a dozen or more ways that Peirce is relevant to now. Unless we are committed to textual exegesis these matters are relevant. The matter of fixing belief according to scientific method is not merely relevant but worth discussion. Also his understanding of the individual which is not exactly charitable toward the concept. I think what is missing are some folk who used to participate regularly and were clearly writing from a Peircean perspective.Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxblGifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:Folks, I'm not the moderator (that's Gary Richmond), just the co-manager, but it seems like this thread has gotten away from explicitly Peirce-related matters. Is it possible to bring it back to Peirce matters?
Best, Ben
On 7/12/2015 6:24 PM, Thomas wrote:
-----------------------------
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 .
