Helmut, List, After reading your email I happened to get a post from Kyle Henry, a well-known film-maker and educator whom I met a few years ago at the SXSW premiere of a documentary, 'Before You Know It', which Kyle edited and in which I appear. Kyle is also an educator and an armchair philosopher (when thoroughly 'self-educated' in philosophy, the best kind, I'm beginning to think). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Henry
In any event, he recently wrote this, which I found thought-provoking in the context of several of your recent reflections in the Pragmatic Trivium thread. In light of Peirce's discussions of Mill's philosophy (in the secondary literature (see, for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40320085?seq=1), I thought that it might help bring the discussion back to pragmatism. Perhaps not. In any event, I found it is interesting in its own right and hope that you do as well. (Btw, I'll not be discussing politics. including "Libertarianism," in this thread unless I see a clear connection to philosophical pragmatism). So, this should be seen principally as more American Independence Day food for thought. , Best, Gary "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:25 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Edwina, List, > > I don´t think that rightism is the same as individualism. I is collective > ideology too, though more particularistic than leftism. It claims a > supremacy of a particular collective such as "race" or nation. Though > leftism sometimes also is particularist, classist. Leftism, if it is > supremacistic, wants to give supremacy to groups that dont have it now, > while rightism wants the groups that have supremacy now to keep it. > Capitalism is neither rightism nor leftism, because it allows the power in > the form of money to freely wander between the groups. Only it does not. It > tends to stay with those who already have it. > > > 04. Juli 2020 um 19:20 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> > *wrote:* > > Terry - please see my comments below: > > 1] I don't think my understanding of fascism is a 'small minority > conception'. I won't take a Wikipedia definition as legitimate and refer > you to such works as Robert Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism; Roger Eatwell: > Fascism: A History. Of course, there's Mussolini's definition. See also > Popper's long definition and analysis in his books: The Open Society and > Its Enemies. > > . All of them focus on the definition of fascism as a collective ideology > [which is what makes it 'left' rather than 'right' - for the > 'right' ideology promotes the individual while the left promotes the > collective'. ]. The point about fascism, with its rejection of individual > reason and freedom, is its focus on the organic nation [of which you are > just an inherent member] as a determinant of the future. This also puts it > firmly in the area of 'historicism' with that notion of a determined future > utopia. Its rejection of individual reason and freedom and its focus on a > 'higher authority as embedded in the State' puts it within the ideology of > the collective.[See Plato's Republic; an outline of fascism - so, it's > hardly a modern ideology!!!]. The fact that it is commonly opposed to > communism is superficial - for both reject the individual reason and > freedom; both are utopian and focused on an a priori 'future goal of > perfection'. Both function within, if I may compare: the emotionalism of > Firstness and the pure intellectualism of pure Thirdness. Totally alienated > from the realities of Secondness - and the 'lesser' Thirdness. > > 2] I agree - fascism [and communism] reject and deny the famed Social > Contract. Since they reject the individual, then, of course, they are not > interested in any contractual participation of these individuals in their > own governance. > > 3] I don't see that capitalism is toxic. In fact, I see that capitalism, > which means that economic production is in the control of private and free > individuals - rather than the State or an aristocracy - has moved more > people out of poverty than any economic system in the world. And note - > that capitalism doesn't emerge from fascism! > > 4] I also don't understand your term of 'fascist capitalism'. You haven't > explained it. > > 5 I have no idea what you mean by 'alt-right fascist pseudo-Christianity > and fascist capitalism.'. Capitalism, in my definition, can't be fascist > [or communist] since its operation is focused around the individual, while > that of fascism and communism rejects individual freedoms and economic > decision-making. I refer you to Fernand Braudel's magnificent histories of > the development of the market economy in the 15th-17th centuries in Europe. > See also Milton Friedman's work [eg, Free to Choose]. And F. Hayek's famed > 'The Road to Serfdom] > > A data source for exploring which nations operate within individual > freedoms, is to examine the number of inventions, patents, new enterprises > in each nation. The USA is the strongest in these fields. > > 6] Democracy is a messy system - as many have attested, for aligning the > freedom of the individual [Firstness and Secondness] with the restraints of > the collective habits-Rules [Government] is always contentious - but- to > have only ONE of these three universes/categories in operation is > disastrous. All three have to interact. Furthermore, to reject historicism, > or an a priori destiny and leave the future open - is emotionally difficult > for it involves risk - and most of us prefer security, even under a 'gentle > tyrant' rather than risk. So democracy has to be always an active process, > one which we cherish and support - and where we reject any hints or efforts > to remove these freedoms. > > Edwina > > Edwina > > > On Sat 04/07/20 12:27 PM , Terry L Rankin rankin.te...@hotmail.com sent: > > > > > > From: Edwina Taborsky > Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:01 AM > To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce-L' ; g...@gnusystems.ca; Terry L Rankin > Subject: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] The Pragmatic Trivium > > > > ET> Based on your outline - I'm not sure that you and I are in agreement > on all points. > > Apparently I was mistaken to suppose we were. > > ET> 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. > > That’s a pretty small minority conception of ‘fascism’ – actually, from > Wikipedia, the more common and widely acknowledged conception is that it’s > “a form of far-right <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics>, > authoritarian <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism> > ultranationalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultranationalism> [1] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-authoritarian-and-authoritarianism-1> > [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-2> characterized by > dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong > regimentation of society and of the economy[3] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-3> which came to > prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-RoutledgeCompanion-4> The > first fascist movements emerged in Italy > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism> during World War I > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I>, before spreading to other > European countries <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_Europe>.[4] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-RoutledgeCompanion-4> Opposed > to liberalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism>, Marxism > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism>, and anarchism > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism>, fascism is placed on the far > right within the traditional left–right spectrum > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_spectrum>.[4] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-RoutledgeCompanion-4>[5] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-University-Aristotle-Hartley-Wilhelm-Hawkesworth-5> > [6] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-6>” [emphasis added] > > > ET> 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. > > Here, you seem to align James more closely to the common understanding of > fascism as given in Wikipedia and quoted above … and, IMHO, rightly so. I > struggle with the idea that ideologies (be they religious, philosophical, > political, social, scientific, cultural, or whatever) are “removed from > practical reality,” however. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the > pragmatic maxim Peirce expressed, for example. For me, fascism is the > abrogation of the very idea of any form of social contract, which is how > and why it is inherently a totalitarian ideology that, as you say, is > inevitably disastrous. Indeed, fascism is the tyrannous ground from which > the toxic fruits of rapacious unfettered capitalism inevitably spring in > abundance. Hence my view that fascist capitalism is the black heart of the > global regime running the world today. > > ET> 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. > > On paper, The US DofI indeed is a magnificent manifesto. In practice, > especially 244 years later, however, it’s an irrelevant relic – an > anachronism – relative to the truth and reality of USAmerica in the 21st > century. Along with the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (also a > magnificent document), the US DofI is a symbolic cornerstone of our civil > religion and its pseudo-patriotic mythology. Together with the > red-white-and-blue iconically symbolic US flag and emblematic Eagle, > they’ve been completely expunged from social, economic, cultural, and > political truth and reality in the US, displaced by the tyranny of > alt-right fascist pseudo-Christianity and fascist capitalism. Meanwhile a > bitterly divided citizenry stumbles around in the semiotic dissonance of > still clinging to the USAmerican mythology and its civil religion, which > blocks all discernment of truth and reality, both individually and > collectively, with temperamental allergy to rational bricolage being just > another pandemic in the world, most virulent and morbid in USAmerica. > > My apologies for reading into your post to the list what apparently wasn’t > there. > > One Peace, > Terry > > > > > > > > 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 > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf5edc387b4384606f5c908d8201a4cda%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294644619301617&sdata=O63SduI%2BVvM8b5Qk7Gle3FIXsAv3AzE3YF8UN92MsjQ%3D&reserved=0>” > from “state (fascist) capitalism” through “shareholder (fascist) > capitalism” to its latest (as of January this year at Davos) “ > stakeholder (fascist) capitalism > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/davos-manifesto-2020-the-universal-purpose-of-a-company-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf5edc387b4384606f5c908d8201a4cda%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294644619316601&sdata=WE/GuGBhmL/tmwnKKB6wgpkypsr93IxenGly5KmJzps%3D&reserved=0>” > 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 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: > <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=%3Ca%20href=> > http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/snc.htm%23x14&data=02%7C01%7C%7C197c0bee948f4a6d64b208d81f89951c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294023054795065&sdata=/SahKb602KmoK8pzD3QB5QExXhxXRzioBzF6XXL7wAY%3D&reserved=0"; > target="_blank"> > http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/snc.htm%23x14&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf5edc387b4384606f5c908d8201a4cda%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294644619326583&sdata=uYBEhDId04/YjrwZ4vpwOgRUycr1SX1WekzEdhMy8SA%3D&reserved=0 > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=%3Ca%20href=>" > target="_blank"> http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/snc.htm#x14 . > > Gary f. > > > > From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > 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 > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf5edc387b4384606f5c908d8201a4cda%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294644619331574&sdata=aqXlo8WTQuJIydDhL3hpltDMY3KOoqydd0acNc/L0XM%3D&reserved=0>), > 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 > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Miriam_Joseph&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf5edc387b4384606f5c908d8201a4cda%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294644619341557&sdata=VogmzqJ75ExVcQmWPrYZEKDzTFHSUJG35lpxzK4bq18%3D&reserved=0>'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 > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Should-Colleges-Prepare/248507&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf5edc387b4384606f5c908d8201a4cda%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637294644619356532&sdata=qjWd4n2MqpnmohRUgVF6iOri5gIqd7SLEWyWt4nzKV8%3D&reserved=0>). > 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 > > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
