Terry -
Based on your outline - I'm not sure that you and I are in agreement
on all points.
I'm not sure what 'fascist capitalism' means. Fascism is a 'leftist'
ideology, promoting the collective vs the individual. Capitalism is an
economic ideology, based around the economic enterprises of the
private individual.
What I rejected in James was, as you point out, a totalitarian
process, based on his idea of 'the perfect state' - an idea which
Popper outlines as found in the ideology of 'historicism'.
Historicism is a view based around an innate destiny of a natural [or
God-given] destiny of mankind/or a special group - and the path
towards some kind of ultimate utopian perfection. Whether found in
Plato, or Hegel or Marx - or Mussolini or Hitler or the UN - it
relies on an ideology based, as I see it, in the emotional vacuity of
a bond between Firstness and Thirdness. That is - it's removed from
pragmatic reality. And it is inevitably disastrous.
I prefer Popper's 'piecemeal' bricolage which is based around the
individual. I think the US Declaration of Independence, which is one
of the greatest documents in history, to be an excellent example of
this view. The individual is, of course, an entity grounded in
Secondness [as well as 1ns and 3ns] - but all three interact and
constantly confront each other with their data and perimeters.
Edwina
On Fri 03/07/20 11:48 PM , Terry L Rankin rankin.te...@hotmail.com
sent:
Edwina & list,
It seems you and I are in agreement to at least some extent, Edwina,
on common Peircean and Popperian grounds.
In my Peircean philosophy of science and theistic view, James’ and
Dewey’s co-opting and corruption of Peirce’s pragmat(ic)ism
facilitated the hybridization of anti- and post-Peircean utilitarian
pragmatism with the neopositivist scientism imported from Europe’s
Vienna Circle between the Great War and WWII. The subsequent ascent of
USAmerican fascist capitalism through the Cold War era to become the
contemporary domestic police state and global neoliberalism ruling
the world today under its new (World Economic Forum) “Great Reset
[1]” from “state (fascist) capitalism” through “shareholder
(fascist) capitalism” to its latest (as of January this year at
Davos) “stakeholder (fascist) capitalism [2]” is, I suggest,
exactly the seed of totalitarianism you sense in James, spread now a
century later like a genetically engineered toxic kudzu to destroy
the planet and most of the life on it in what’s widely acknowledged
to be the anthropogenic 6th mass extinction level event on Earth
(‘MELEE#6’). The demon seed that spawned the fascist capitalist
Fourth Reich we’re in today is that neopositivist scientism
fertilizing the pragmatism ovum of utilitarianism to destroy the
world and the lifeforms it sustains, including us.
Peirce was an existentialist good-faith road not taken at a
crossroads that now turns out to have been a fatal mistake. Taking
the other path, what James, Dewey, Carnap, Neurath, and others
unleashed instead is the worst-faith tyranny of global fascist
capitalism to carry the day and humanity’s future into that MELEE#6
truth and reality, the signs of which have just begun to appear in
common experience. COVID-19 may in fact be the first death scything
in the onrushing bad night into which most of us will go anything
but gently before the end of the century if not much sooner. With
that ‘perfect society’ delusion as the future agenda, small
wonder Harvard all but buried ‘the American Aristotle’ in
ignominious penury during his life and beyond his death. That
strikes me as an alluring Occam reduction despite the improbability
of the elitist power and wealth conspiracism it would require.
To the extent that we are in fact aligned on at least some elements
of Peirce and Popper in light of the contemporary states of nature,
union, and the world at large we’re in today, Edwina, I appreciate
the corroboration, however limited it may be. You surely know Peirce
far better than I, so wherever you may doubt or dispute my views as
stated in this message, please share your thoughts further so I may
sharpen my own. Thanks!
Still in One Peace,
Terry
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 3:45 PM
To: 'Peirce-L'
; g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] The Pragmatic Trivium
I personally find the comments by Henry James the elder rather ..I'm
not sure of the word. Not merely naïve but possibly alarming.
I consider that the agenda to develop a 'perfect society' has always
been a basis for totalitarian subjugation - whether it be the
socialism of fascism or communism; whether it be an isolate cult or
an ideology.
Such an agenda, in my view, ignores that we are material, finite
entities, and as such in a mode of Secondness, which is a mode of
'brute interaction' - and diversity rather than homogeneity.
Furthermore, we cannot ignore that there is no such thing as
'perfection' - whatever that means. Instead, I prefer the 'bricolage'
of Karl Popper, his rejection of 'historicism' [vs a theistic
interpretation, ie by recognizing God as the author of the play
performed on the historical stage" [The Open Society and Its
Enemies, p8]. AND the open evolution of both Popper and Peirce,
where, with the reality of both Firstness and Secondness and
Thirdness - there is no such thing as 'perfect'.
Edwina
On Fri 03/07/20 1:39 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca [3] sent:
Gary R, list,
I just came across a piece of the reverse side of Turning Signs that
strikes me as relevant to the “ways in which Peirce's philosophical
trivium might help inform the aesthetics, ethics, and critical
thinking of the world as it emerges from the coronavirus pandemic”
— and relevant in a way that I don’t think has been discussed in
this thread before. It’s only a 3-to-5 minute read:
http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/snc.htm%23x14&data=02%7C01%7C%7C197c0bee948f4a6d64b208d81f89951c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294023054795065&sdata=/SahKb602KmoK8pzD3QB5QExXhxXRzioBzF6XXL7wAY%3D&reserved=0
[4]" target="_blank"> http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/snc.htm#x14 [5] .
Gary f.
From: Gary Richmond
Sent: 13-Jun-20 16:04
List,
In a recent op-ed piece titled "The End of College as We Knew It" (
https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb [7]), Frank Bruni reflects on something
I've been informally discussing with friends and colleagues now for
years; namely, that "A society without a grounding in ethics,
self-reflection, empathy and beauty is one that has lost its way”
(Brian Rosenberg, recently president of Macalester College). It
seems to me that this has happened in the United States.
It has long seemed to me that America today has largely abandoned
what might be called the normative trivium of aesthetics, ethics, and
logic -- Peirce's three Normative Sciences, not the classical trivium
(for which see Sister Miriam Joseph's 2002 book, The Trivium: The
Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric) that he generalized to
serve as the three branches of Logic as Semeiotic.
This philosophical trivium points to the possible application of
Peirce's three Normative Sciences -- not their theoretical forms,
but rather their ordinary and potentially pragmatic guises as they
appear in life practice, including reflection and action upon what is
beautiful in art and nature, what is ethical in our behavior in the
world, and how we can apply 'critical commonsenseism' in our
quotidian lives. Bruni writes: " We need writers, philosophers,
historians. They’ll be the ones to chart the social, cultural and
political challenges of this pandemic -- and of all the other
dynamics that have pushed the United States so harrowingly close to
the edge. In terms of restoring faith in the American project and
reseeding common ground, they’re beyond essential. "
Bruni's op-ed reflection came in part in response to a recent
article by Rosenberg in The Chronicle of Higher Education ; see "How
Should Colleges Prepare for a Post-Pandemic World" (
https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Should-Colleges-Prepare/248507
[8]). Rosenberg writes: “If one were to invent a crisis uniquely
and diabolically designed to undermine the foundations of traditional
colleges and universities, it might look very much like the current
global pandemic.” In a similar vein, Professor Andrew Belbanco,
president of the Teagle Foundation which gives as its purpose
promoting the liberal arts, writes: “This is not only a public
health crisis and an economic crisis, though Lord knows it’s both
of those. It’s also a values crisis. It raises all kinds of deep
human questions: What are our responsibilities to other people? Does
representative democracy work? How do we get to a place where
something like bipartisanship could emerge again?”
Commenting on the economic divide of the American university, Bruni
notes that "the already pronounced divide between richly endowed,
largely residential schools and more socioeconomically diverse ones
that depend on public funding grows wider as state and local
governments face unprecedented financial distress. A shrinking
minority of students get a boutique college experience. Then
there’s everybody else." Gail Mellow, former president of
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York (where I taught
for decades before my retirement) is quoted as saying, “We always
knew that America was moving more and more toward very different
groups of people," to which Bruni adds, "that movement is only
accelerating."
Confronting all this will undoubtedly be one of the great challenges
that America -- and for that matter, the world -- will have in the
years and decades to come. The question I pose is: Can Peirce's
version of pragmatism (or pragmaticism) -- which he also calls
'critical commonsenseism' -- creatively contribute to these enormous
challenges? And, if so, how? And are there ways in which Peirce's
philosophical trivium might help inform the aesthetics, ethics, and
critical thinking of the world as it emerges from the coronavirus
pandemic? If so, how?
[Note: I have Bcc'd this post to several former members of this
forum, a few members who rarely if ever post but who have stayed in
contact with me offlist, and a few friends and colleagues who have
not been members but who may have an interest in this topic. Those
who are not current members of the forum may send your thoughts on
the topic off-list to me letting me know if I have your permission
to post them.]
Best,
Gary
Links:
------
[1]
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/
[2]
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/davos-manifesto-2020-the-universal-purpose-of-a-company-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'g...@gnusystems.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=<a href=
[5] http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/snc.htm#x14
[6] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[7]
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb&data=02%7C01%7C%7C197c0bee948f4a6d64b208d81f89951c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294023054805054&sdata=VsV/0XfZ5vjEI1aFK%2Biu6EA%2Bq8eIu1cIRIK6yiAujGY%3D&reserved=0
[8]
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Should-Colleges-Prepare/248507&data=02%7C01%7C%7C197c0bee948f4a6d64b208d81f89951c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294023054825019&sdata=WXN3fy/SSBZSgRzgZZHZNESYdaHwjip0a0qlrbNGjWw%3D&reserved=0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
