Edwina, oh, this is a Peirce list, that's interesting, isn't it? What kind of red hering is this? You keep writing this stuff on this list for years over and over again. Now, when someone asks you for some evidence of your "theory" you say you can't provide it because this is a Peirce list? Why the heck do state that stuff in the first place on this list over and over again?
Asking for evidence is quite a natural thing for scientists - not willing to provide it for ideologists. Got nothing more to say and ask. Best, Stefan Am 20. November 2016 03:36:35 MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>: >Stefan - I can't deal with your questions on this list, as it is a site >devoted to Peirce - and Peirce has nothing to do with ecological >analysis of societal adaptation. > >i may deal with it off-list - but your questions are, to me, rather >strange, for you seem to be approaching societal adaptation as if it >were some kind of chemical formula carried out in a laboratory. There >are plenty of books on 'cultural ecology' [look up the term]- which is >basically what I'm talking about [R. Netting, E. Moran.] And plenty of >books dealing with non-industrial societies, their physical >environments, their societal systems, their economies, their >populations sizes..etc. > >There are all kinds of data on population dynamics among various >groups.. > >As for technological change - there are equally well-documented works >on the development of technology, the development of sources of energy >[manpower, animal, wind, water, fossil fuels, etc]. The development of >towns, of currency, roads, ...literacy etc...And there are plenty of >books on societal organization and the development of the middle class >market economy in the West. [J.D. Bernal, Ferdinand Braudel..] > >Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: sb > To: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 8:34 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy > > > Edwina, > >where can we find these descriptive data? Did you use archival data? >Did you do any fieldwork? Has it been published? What sources do you >draw on? How did you conduct your qualitative research? What hypotheses >guided your qualitative research? Have documented how you get to your >conclusions? Could you provide us your analytical framework? What are >the exact cases you did study? What are the dimensions of comparison >between the cases? Where are they similar? Where are they different? >What is your ecological analysis based on? Where did you get the >ecological data? How did you link it with the cases you have studied? >Have your heard of Qualitative Comparative Analysis? > >In short: Could you please provide us information on what data you did >use, where to find these data, how you analyzed the data and where to >find the documentation of your analysis to back up any of your claims? > >"Looking" at "the West", "late industrialism" and "climate", is a bit >abstract, isn't it? I would really appreciate if you could elaborate a >bit more on data and how you arrived at your conclusions, than on the >conclusions themselfes. > > Best, > Stefan > > > >Am 20. November 2016 01:35:38 MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky ><tabor...@primus.ca>: >Stefan - the analysis is based on descriptive data of the ecological >anthropological analyses of various socioeconomic peoples - >hunting/gathering; the different types of agriculturalism - wet and dry >horticulture, pastoral nomadic, rainfall agriculture...and early and >late industrialism. It includes first a consideration of the ecological >realities in the area; second the socioeconomic descriptions of the way >[kinship, political, legal] that people have adapted to those >ecological realities..and third, the history and technological >developments ...particularly of the West. Why the West? Because it has >the richest most fertile biome on the planet - which is why its >population kept increasing and why it eventually had to, with >difficulty, change its technology to support that increased population. > >Data would be based around ecological factors: arable land and soil, >water type and availability [ie, desert, tundra, seasonal, irrigation, >rainfall, rainforest..] ; climate and temperatures; plant and animal >types and the domestication capacities of both; carrying capacity of >the land; carrying capacity of the technology to extract >food/sustenance; > >Then, you'd look at population size. And then societal systems - such >as kinship systems, and political systems. > >There is no lab test possible; there are no falsifying assumptions. >It's pure description of 'the ecological realities and the societal >forms of actual peoples. Then, one can generalize. And it's interesting >to see how peoples - completely out of touch with each other - have >nevertheless developed the SAME societal structures if they are in >similar ecological realities. > > Edwina > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: sb > To: Edwina Taborsky ; Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy > > > Edwina, > >i would be really interested how you tackled such a complex theoretical >concept empirically. > >Which historic datasets of demography and economics did you use? To >build up such a database must have been quite labourious! > >I would also be really interested in how you operationalized your >theory? What constructs and variables did you use? In which datasets >are they found? How did you model your assumptions statistically? > >In testing your theory, what were your initial hypotheses? Where have >you been able to falsify or verify your assumptions? Where did you >struggle empirically because of data quality? > > Best, > Stefan > > >Am 19. November 2016 22:48:20 MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky ><tabor...@primus.ca>: >Yes - I've taught this relationship between economics, population size >and political infrastructure for about 20 years. No- it's not really in >the Architectonics book. It IS in a graphic book, The Graphic Guide to >Socioeconomics - which a retired CEO banker and myself have just >finished [about 170 slides]....which deals with the pragmatic relations >between population size and economic modes and political modes. I am >not sure if I should attach it since is has nothing to do with Peirce. >It's a powerpoint presentation which we are planning to promote as a >'graphic guide for dummies' on the topic, so to speak. > >That is - we tried to make it clear that democracy, which means >'political power of the majority decision' is suitable only in large >population, flexible-risktaking- growth economies, and unsuitable in >small population no-growth steady-state economies which must ensure >their economic continuity by focusing on retaining the >capacity-to-make-wealth by stable measures [control of the land, >control of the cattle, control of fishing rights, etc]. > >And we've been very surprised in our test runs with various people - >how many people don't understand the basic issues of growth/no growth >economies, carrying capacity of the economy; growth vs steady-state >populations; what is a middle class; what is capitalism; the role of >risk; the role of individuals..etc. etc. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary Richmond > To: Peirce-L > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 4:20 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy > > > Edwina, list, > > >You've clearly given this a lot of prior thought, Edwina. I want to >reflect on wht you wrote and see what others think before commenting >further. Btw, would looking again at your book, Architectonics of >Semiosis, for example, Chapter 2, "Purity and Power," be of any value >in this discussion (as I initially began reading it I recall that in an >off-list message you commented that in some ways you were now seeing >things quite differently than you did in 1998)? > > > Best, > > > Gary R > > > > > > > > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > C 745 > 718 482-5690 > > >On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >wrote: > > Gary R- that's an interesting topic. > >1) I'd like to first comment that democracy, as a political system for >arriving at authoritative government decisions, is the 'right' method >but ONLY in a very large population with a growth economy and a growth >population. That is, political systems have FUNCTIONS; the function is: >who has the societal right to make decisions among this population? > >In economies which are no-growth, such as all the pre-industrial >agricultural and horticultural economies which dominated the planet >until the industrial age, democracy is dysfunctional. That is, all >political systems must privilege the wealth-producing sectors of the >population. If your economy is agricultural/horticultural - which can >only produce enough wealth to support a steady-state or no-growth >population, then, the political system must put the authority to make >decisions in the control of the owners of wealth production; i.e., the >landowners. This control over the land must be hereditary [you can't >have fights over ownership], and limited [you can't split up the land >into minuscule small farms]. Democracy, which puts decision-making >into the hands of the majority, doesn't work in such an economy. > >When the economy moves to a growth mode [and enables a growth >population], the political system must empower those sectors of the >population which make an economy grow. This is the middle class - a >non-hereditary set of the population, made up of private >individual/small group businesses. This economic mode is highly >flexible [new business can start, succeed, fail]; extremely adaptable >and enables rapid population growth. As such an economic mode, >political decision-making must fall into the control of this middle >class - and we have the emergence of elected legislatures and the >disappearance of hereditary authority. > >For a growth economy to work, it must support individual rights [to >invent, differ from the norm, to succeed AND fail] so that failure, for >example, will only affect those few individuals and not a whole >village/collective. Therefore, individualism must be stressed and >empowered; a growth economy must enable novelty, innovation, freedom of >the periphery....as well as success, which is measured by the adoption >by the collective of that product/service. FOR A WHILE. > >2) But - it seems that the definition and function of democracy in >Dewey does not deal with the economy and the questions of the >production of wealth and size of population. Instead, it deals with >social issues - Talisse writes: > >"The core of Deweyan democracy can be stated as follows. Deweyan >democracy is substantive rather than proceduralist, communicative >rather than aggregative,and deep rather than statist. I shall take >these contrasts in order.Deweyan democracy is substantive insofar as it >rejects any attempt to separate politics and deeper normative concerns. >More precisely, Dewey held that the democratic political order is >essentially a moral order, and, further, he held that democratic >participation is an essential constituent ofthe good life and a >necessary constituent for a “truly human way of living”.... Dewey >rejects the idea thatit consists simply in processes of voting, >campaigning, canvassing, lobbying, and petitioning in service of one’s >individual preferences; that is, Dewey held democratic participation is >essentially communicative, it consists in the willingness of citizens >to engage in activity by which they may “convince and be convinced by >reason” (MW 10:404) and come to realize“values prized in common” (LW >13:71). > >The above seems to me, to be a social relations account - and doesn't >deal with the fact that democracy as a political system, empowers a >particular segment of the population - the middle class, in an economy >based around individual private sector small businesses. It has nothing >to do with 'the good life' or a 'truly human way of living'. Nomadic >pastoralists, and land-based feudal agriculture were also 'human ways >of living. > > 3) From the Stanford Encyclopaedia, I found the following on Dewey: > >"As Dewey puts it, ‘men are not isolated non-social atoms, but are men >only when in intrinsic relations’ to one another, and the state in turn >only represents them ‘so far as they have become organically related to >one another, or are possessed of unity of purpose and interest’ (‘The >Ethics of Democracy’,EW1, 231-2). > >Dewey is anti-elitist, and argues that the capacity of the wise few to >discern the public interest tends to be distorted by their position. >Democratic participation is not only viewed as a bulwark against >government by elites, but also as an aspect of individual freedom– >humanity cannot rest content with a good ‘procured from without.’ >Furthermore, democracy is not ‘simply and solely a form of government’, >but a social and personal ideal; in other words, it is not only a >property of political institutions but of a wide range of social >relationships. > >The above, seems to me, at this first glimpse, to totally ignore the >economic mode - and again, some economies whose wealth production rests >in stable, no-growth methods [land food production] MUST ensure the >stability of this economy by confining it to the few, i.e., those >elites'...the wise few if you want to call them that'. > >That is - the to put power in the majority/commonality rests with the >economic mode. Certainly, Peirce's community of scholars was a method >of slowly, gradually, arriving at 'the truth'. But this has nothing, >absolutely nothing, to do with governance and the question of who in a >collective has the ultimate authority to make political decisions. That >is, political decisions are not really, I suggest, the same as >scientific or 'truth-based' inquiries. There is no ultimate 'best way' >for much is dependent on resources, population size, environment.. > >And, I don't see a focus on the required capacity of a growth economy >for rapid flexible adaptation - which HAS to be focused around the >individual. That is, risk-taking shouldn't involve the WHOLE >collective, but only a few individuals. > > 4) As for Peirce's philosophy of democracy - again, Talisse writes: > "the Peircean view relies upon no substantive > >moral vision. The Peircean justifies democratic institutions and norms >strictly in terms of a set of substantive epistemic commitments. It >says that no matter what one believes about the good life, the nature >of the self, the meaning of human existence, or the value of community, >one has reason to support a robust democratic political order of the >sort described above simply in virtue of the fact that one holds >beliefs. Since the Peircean conception of democracy does not contain a >doctrine about “the one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity” (EW >1:248), it can duly acknowledge the fact of reasonable pluralism. p 112 > >This seems to suggest that a societal system that enables exploratory >actions by individuals is a 'robust democracy'. And, since a growth >economic mode, that can support growth populations, requires >risk-taking by flexible individuals to deal with current pragmatic >problems - then, this seems to be a stronger political system. > >My key point is that the political system, economic mode and population >size are intimately related. > > Edwina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary Richmond > To: Peirce-L > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 2:59 PM > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy > > > List, > > >I read Robert B. Talisse's A Pragmatist Philosophy of Democracy (2007) >a few year ago and was thinking of it again today, in part prompted by >an op-ed piece in The New York Times by Roger Cohen which quotes H. L. >Mencken (see below). At the time of my reading PPD, I was not at all >convinced that Talisee had demonstrated his principal thesis, namely, >that we ought replace the inadequate, in his opinion, Dewyan approach >to thinking about democracy with a Peircean based approach. This is >how David Hildebrand (U. of Colorado) outlined Talisse's argument in a >review in The Notre Dame Philosophical Review. >http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23707-a-pragmatist-philosophy-of-democracy/ > > >[Hildebrand] As I read PPD, I kept returning to two fundamental >propellants powering Talisse's argument for a Peircean-based democratic >theory. The first is constructive: his quest for a lean, non-normative >pragmatist inquiry to provide just enough of a philosophical basis for >a broadly effective conception of democracy. The second is destructive: >the argument that political theorists should reject Dewey's >self-refuting philosophy of democracy. Taken together, the insight is >this: get over Dewey and accept this particular Peirce and we get just >what we need from pragmatism for the purposes of democracy. > >Hildebrand's review is a good introduction to the PPD. While I'm not >much of a Deweyan, and I wouldn't presume to argue for or against his >ideas, yet I don't think Talisse makes a strong case for a Peircean >approach to political theory on democracy,. > > >I should add, however, that Talisse is, in my opinion, a very good >thinker and an excellent writer. Besides this book, over the years I've >read a number of his scholarly articles and heard him speak in NYC and >elsewhere. PPD is definitely worth reading, while those with a Deweyan >democracy bent will probably find themselves arguing with him nearly >point for point (as Hildebrand pretty much does). On the other hand, >the concluding chapter on Sidney Hook is valuable in its own right. As >Talisse writes: > > >Hook's life stands as an inspiring image of democratic success; for >success consists precisely in the activity of political engagement by >means of public inquiry. > > >I haven't got my e-CP available, so I can't locate references, but it >seems to me that Peirce's view of democracy as I recall it is, if not >nearly anti-democratic (I vaguely recall some passages in a letter to >Lady Welby), it may at least be closer to H. L. Mencken's: > > >As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more >closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On >some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach >their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a >downright moron. > > >I doubt that a discussion of PPD would be very valuable, but it might >be interesting to at least briefly reflect on Peirce's views of >democracy. As I recall,he hasn't much to say about democracy in what's >published in the CP and the other writings which have been made >available to us. Perhaps more will be uncovered in years to come as his >complete correspondence is published in W (I probably won't be alive >for that as I understand that it will probably be the last or near last >volume in W, and at the snail's pace the W is moving. . .) > > >Meanwhile, can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations which >might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? I would, of course, >hope that if there is some discussion here that we keep to a strictly >theoretical discussion, especially in light of the strong feelings >generated by the recent American presidential election. > > > Best, > > > Gary R > > > st Philosophy of Democracy > > > > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > C 745 > 718 482-5690 > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ----------------------------- >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 . > > > > > > > -- >Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail >gesendet. > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ----------------------------- >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 . > > > > > > > -- >Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail >gesendet. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ----------------------------- >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 . -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
----------------------------- 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 .
