RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
> "Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different > movement less tied to Christianity? Probably." I say probably not. And certainly not Islam. > "I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all > they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism." This occurred to me as I made my point, but in the interests of brevity, I thought I'd leave it till someone asked. You asked. Yes, communism and other religions do indeed talk about a higher purpose. As do other aggregations of society. Social obligation is fairly standard in almost any culture. But it generally expresses itself in the context of groupthink and the need to belong. Christianity is different, because it synthesizes a kind of individualism with higher purpose. The notion of Christian love enters the narrative. The courage to sacrifice for what you believe in. Does Hinduism do this? Maybe. But its historical context is different. Buddhism? Buddhism is more secular, less individualistic, and constrained by filial piety, though they still are inspired by love of truth. Could Hinduism (or even Buddhism) rise up as a religion of an advanced future? Maybe. Watch this space. Islam not. The European renaissance was inspired by something different. If some Middle-Eastern cultures have shown signs of advancement, as they have on occasion, that's because they've piggybacked on Christian-European influences. Bottom line... this all revolves around the problem of groupthink. Yes, other systems talk of higher purpose and social obligation. But Christianity synthesizes its higher purpose with individualism and the love of truth. I think that this is the distinction between Christianity/Hinduism and the rest. The individualism that has within it the cure for groupthink. Groupthink is the disease you get when imitation (knowing how to be) turns pathological. Christianity's individualistic Jesus introduced a very different template for knowing how to be. Ultimately, this relates to the distinction between the cowardice of groupthink and the courage of higher purpose. Groupthink is a very real problem. A large part of what we are witnessing in the messy politics of today is the battle between the groupthink of gullible liberalism versus the conservatism that has only recently begun to see through liberalism's masquerade of moral superiority. Groupthink needs an antidote, and for renaissance Europe, Christianity met that need. sj -Original Message- From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:48 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems... > On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > > Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why? Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different movement less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect it was primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance started. But say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from Constantinople primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different reasons a stronger economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different sort of “renaissance.” So while the form the renaissance took was very Christian, I tend to see that as tied to historic accident. For that matter had Islam not arisen and Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a Renaissance? Probably not although likely many similar developments in the technique of art or thought may well have happened. Or perhaps they wouldn’t have happened at all and Europe would have been stuck in a situation more akin to the prior thousand years. If we talk evolution I think we have to recognize the place of chance in all of this. There may well be potential forms that are very useful that would be incentivized to arise. Yet the broader issues seem much more arbitrary. > But Christianity introduces another dimension that is alien to the secular > Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of religions)... commitment > to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly benefits that may or may not > accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a fundamental cultural > principle? I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism. Now you could argue that Marxism can arise only because Christianity already sets the stage. However I think this is biasing things too much to a Eurocentric view of civilization. > Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but > the "higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality > that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks > the same language, and it looks like its shelf-life will be limited. Their > fates are
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
> On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > > Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why? Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different movement less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect it was primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance started. But say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from Constantinople primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different reasons a stronger economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different sort of “renaissance.” So while the form the renaissance took was very Christian, I tend to see that as tied to historic accident. For that matter had Islam not arisen and Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a Renaissance? Probably not although likely many similar developments in the technique of art or thought may well have happened. Or perhaps they wouldn’t have happened at all and Europe would have been stuck in a situation more akin to the prior thousand years. If we talk evolution I think we have to recognize the place of chance in all of this. There may well be potential forms that are very useful that would be incentivized to arise. Yet the broader issues seem much more arbitrary. > But Christianity introduces another dimension that is alien to the secular > Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of religions)... commitment > to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly benefits that may or may not > accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a fundamental cultural > principle? I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism. Now you could argue that Marxism can arise only because Christianity already sets the stage. However I think this is biasing things too much to a Eurocentric view of civilization. > Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but > the "higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality > that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks > the same language, and it looks like its shelf-life will be limited. Their > fates are determined by the entropy of self-interest. I’m not sure that’s true. I think Burkeanism can be reduced to “don’t change too fast and too radically because of unintended consequences.” Higher purposes seem orthogonal to that concern. - 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 .
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why? How has Christianity impacted on the phenomenology/ontology that enables positive cultural evolution? Both the Left and the Right have different ways of prioritizing self-interest. But Christianity introduces another dimension that is alien to the secular Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of religions)... commitment to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly benefits that may or may not accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a fundamental cultural principle? Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but the "higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks the same language, and it looks like its shelf-life will be limited. Their fates are determined by the entropy of self-interest. Of the trillions of billions of planets that exist, at least a tiny proportion must surely contain advanced cultures that do not follow the history template that we are familiar with. Expect the unexpected. The only constant is semiotics... what are the possibilities bound within semiotic constraints? And this brings us back to this notion of commitment to a higher purpose. -Original Message- From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 9:18 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems... It’s worth noting that most evolutionary views of religion see much of it evolving intertwined with the evolution of government. To the point that it’s hard to separate the two. It’s true that particularly in evolutionary psychology religion has some key differences such as focus on the cognition of agency detection and so forth. Yet as a practical social organization the separation between government and religion is fairly recent. And arguably still incomplete (if it’s even possible to really separate the two) >From a Peircean view with its emphasis on common sense as heavily tested >practices in a somewhat narrow environment it’s worth considering how these >social practices would evolve. And perhaps offer some more Burkean like >conservative reasons for worrying about the widespread abandonment of many >tested social practices. > On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:53 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: >> Groupthink is the problem... >> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. > > All the religions of the world began at the village level, usually as > a social group with a guru or medicine-man as the social-religious > leader who shares power with the military leader. > > Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain social power > by persuasion. That means an emphasis on normative values: > aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; ethics by morality and justice; > and truth by knowledge of history, medicine, and good counsel. > > But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power. > It's important to keep the guru poor and honest. > > John > > - > 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 .
Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
Helmut, list: Yes, that's right. Hunter-gatherer societies do not have a leader. There is no such thing as 'early' or 'late' H/G societies! A good set of books on the H/G peoples are - by Richard Lee [who studied, in particular, the Dobe !Kung], Also Lee and Irven Devore, Man the Hunter]. There are quite a few good books on this economic mode - which examine their economy and societal organization and belief systems. I wouldn't take popular literature or TV shows as accurate - and that includes stories about the 'king' being killed as a sacrifice. Edwina On Tue 19/06/18 4:02 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: I have read, that the early hunter/gatherer communities were "acephal", they had no leader. The role of the medicine man or woman (shaman) in popular literature about shamans is often described of being rather a servant to the people than a leader, and that the shaman first didnt want to become one, but has followed a call from the otherworld and its inhabitants, first being reluctant, and gotten into a shamanic crisis, before finally accepting his/her job. About the time of beginning agriculture I have seen in TV something about a king of a small community in England, whose role was not a good job either: He had to symbolically marry mother earth, and convince her to give good harvest. If then the harvest was not good, he was killed and thrown into the swamp, and a new king was elected. Helmut19. Juni 2018 um 16:43 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am assuming a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the individual psychological level, where the individual becomes aware of his own finite nature and lack of power to 'make things happen'. AND - his awareness that, despite his best intentions, 'the best laid plans gang oft awry'. Then, there is a second reality, which is that we, as a species, are necessarily social. We can live only as a collective; our brains - and physique - require a long nurturing period and this necessitates a 'family' situation. Plus, since our knowledge base is primarily learned rather than innate - it is stored within the community. So- to even learn how to live requires that socialization and community. Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of behaviour and belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with others. So- we develop shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what happens when we die'; why do bad/good things happen'. I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or medicine man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger populations where specialization of tasks does take place. But in small bands [about 30 people] - there will rarely be a spiritual leader, much less a military!! Again - it depends on the size of the population which is itself dependent on the economic mode which is itself dependent on the ecological viability of the land to support large populations. As for corruption - that's also basic to our species, unfortunately. Edwina On Tue 19/06/18 9:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent: On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > Groupthink is the problem... > I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. All the religions of the world began at the village level, usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as the social-religious leader who shares power with the military leader. Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of history, medicine, and good counsel. But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power. It's important to keep the guru poor and honest. John - 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 [1] . Links: -- [1] 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 .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Clark, list:
Your comment points to some basic differences in societal analysis.
You are taking a view that societies 'evolve' from, presumably, the
simple to the complex - and therefore, assuming that beliefs and
behaviour also 'evolve'. That includes religion and governance.
A different perspective, which I follow, is that societies - and
this includes their organizational modes [including religion and
governance] do not 'evolve'; that is, there is no original either
Eden or 'brute savage' [two views of 'the origin]. Equally, there is
no Final State - whether this Final State be a utopian
communism/fascism - or even - the complex adaptive system that is
democracy. ...Although, I tend to think that the only possible mode
of organization for very large populations is democracy, simply
because it enables rapid and non-violent adaptation.
In my view and research, societal modes of organization are strictly
correlated to the size of the population. And, the population is
equally correlated to the sustenance capacity of that particular
environment. As the old saying goes: 'You can't grow wheat in the
arctic' - and so, a population living in such an environment would
not be agricultural, but would be a sustenance mode based on hunting
and gathering. Such an economic mode is migratory and also, can
support only a small population.
As for the separation between religion and governance - that is
found only when the power to govern has moved from a hereditary or
authoritarian mode to a democratic mode. I don't think it has
anything to do with 'evolution' - but again - with the size of the
population. The hereditary modes of governance - which were
agricultural [because wealth production was in the land, and land
production required stability]..required a metaphysical agency to
validate this societal mode. I think this connection between religion
and governance [God says this is the best way to live and we must
listen to our betters]….provided a stability of life, and kept
dissent to a minimum without a heavy authoritarian police.
BUT - when the populations grew beyond the carrying capacity of the
old technology - and new methods of food and housing and market
production were required - then, stability became a problem. Dissent,
doubters, questioners were required - and the separation between
church and state began to emerge. In Europe - this began in the 12th,
13th centuries [Abelard's 'dubitando']..Chretien de Troyes 'Perceval'
- and gathered power over the next centuries. Of course, the Church
fought back - very hard; and the Rulers, linked to the Church, fought
equally hard. But- the requirement for the use of individual reason
and flexibility of thought - and the use of the scientific method of
observation and experiment rather than belief...was too economically
necessary - …
Edwina
On Tue 19/06/18 3:17 PM , Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com sent:
It’s worth noting that most evolutionary views of religion see
much of it evolving intertwined with the evolution of government. To
the point that it’s hard to separate the two. It’s true that
particularly in evolutionary psychology religion has some key
differences such as focus on the cognition of agency detection and so
forth. Yet as a practical social organization the separation between
government and religion is fairly recent. And arguably still
incomplete (if it’s even possible to really separate the two)
From a Peircean view with its emphasis on common sense as heavily
tested practices in a somewhat narrow environment it’s worth
considering how these social practices would evolve. And perhaps
offer some more Burkean like conservative reasons for worrying about
the widespread abandonment of many tested social practices.
> On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:53 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
>> Groupthink is the problem...
>> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.
>
> All the religions of the world began at the village level,
> usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as
> the social-religious leader who shares power with the
> military leader.
>
> Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain
> social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on
> normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies;
> ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of
> history, medicine, and good counsel.
>
> But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
> It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.
>
> John
>
> -
> 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 [2] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [3] with the line
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
On 6/19/2018 1:35 PM, Jack Ring wrote: Our blessing is fragile. We have devolved from a nation of laws to a nation of lawyers. Believing in the teachings of Christ doth not a religion make. I agree with both points. I wanted to generalize the issues without getting into a debate with a "Christian". John - 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 .
Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
I have read, that the early hunter/gatherer communities were "acephal", they had no leader. The role of the medicine man or woman (shaman) in popular literature about shamans is often described of being rather a servant to the people than a leader, and that the shaman first didnt want to become one, but has followed a call from the otherworld and its inhabitants, first being reluctant, and gotten into a shamanic crisis, before finally accepting his/her job. About the time of beginning agriculture I have seen in TV something about a king of a small community in England, whose role was not a good job either: He had to symbolically marry mother earth, and convince her to give good harvest. If then the harvest was not good, he was killed and thrown into the swamp, and a new king was elected. Helmut 19. Juni 2018 um 16:43 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am assuming a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the individual psychological level, where the individual becomes aware of his own finite nature and lack of power to 'make things happen'. AND - his awareness that, despite his best intentions, 'the best laid plans gang oft awry'. Then, there is a second reality, which is that we, as a species, are necessarily social. We can live only as a collective; our brains - and physique - require a long nurturing period and this necessitates a 'family' situation. Plus, since our knowledge base is primarily learned rather than innate - it is stored within the community. So- to even learn how to live requires that socialization and community. Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of behaviour and belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with others. So- we develop shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what happens when we die'; why do bad/good things happen'. I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or medicine man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger populations where specialization of tasks does take place. But in small bands [about 30 people] - there will rarely be a spiritual leader, much less a military!! Again - it depends on the size of the population which is itself dependent on the economic mode which is itself dependent on the ecological viability of the land to support large populations. As for corruption - that's also basic to our species, unfortunately. Edwina On Tue 19/06/18 9:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent: On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > Groupthink is the problem... > I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. All the religions of the world began at the village level, usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as the social-religious leader who shares power with the military leader. Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of history, medicine, and good counsel. But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power. It's important to keep the guru poor and honest. John - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
> On Jun 19, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am assuming a belief > in metaphysical powers, begins first at the individual psychological level, > where the individual becomes aware of his own finite nature and lack of power > to 'make things happen'. AND - his awareness that, despite his best > intentions, 'the best laid plans gang oft awry'. It seems to me that viewing religion in terms of metaphysical claims ends up with a rather meager conception of religion. It’s true that some religions, medieval Christianity in particular, tended to emphasize belief. However many didn’t and even within pre-modern Christianity belief was only a component of the religion. For many religions practices rather than belief - particularly metaphysical claims - is the main focus. One can draw out metaphysics, but that tends to be rather distortive since it’s arguably not the focus of the religion. You then have in some religions, like Buddhism, the idea that metaphysics is at best serves an instrumental rather than literal function. (Here thinking of the Lotus Sutra and the allegory of the children in the burning building) Even within Christianity liberal theology tends to reject most of the traditional metaphysical claims as myths at best and elevates instead ethical duty or perhaps a more foundational sense of Being. (Here thinking of Tillich although heaven knows one can critique his ethical behavior) All that said I think most evolutionary psychology does emphasize basic psychological behaviors such as agency detection along with the incentives of false positives versus false negatives as leading to religious comportments. (Atran’s In Gods We Trust is particularly good here although many other books analyze the subject) It’s interesting again from a Peircean conception of common sense and its conservative nature to analyze these. Even if the beliefs are false (and some must be false given the varieties of religious belief) the underlying “common sense” makes sense. i.e. it’s better to be wrong about a predator being there than a predator not being there. What’s changed - and changed rapidly in the modern era - is that the context it which we live is radically different. Put an other way, the costs of being wrong about agents is simply quite different. (And I say that as a religious believer - but I think the underlying logic is quite interesting) > Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of behaviour and > belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with others. So- we develop > shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what happens when we die'; why do > bad/good things happen'. This is true. And of course there are instrumentalist values to these beliefs to the community. Although one might also say that purported encounters also are reasonably common at the community level even if not the individual level. i.e. people who claim encounters with the dead souls. While especially in our “disenchanted world” we tend to dismiss such claims, they are quite widespread and thus have a social effect. > I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or medicine > man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger populations where > specialization of tasks does take place. But in small bands [about 30 people] > - there will rarely be a spiritual leader, much less a military!! Again - it > depends on the size of the population which is itself dependent on the > economic mode which is itself dependent on the ecological viability of the > land to support large populations. > This seems right. Again many religious experiences are happening on the individual level and are quite common. That’s not to dismiss the role of religious leaders - particularly in terms of transmitting religious interpretations of common phenomena. It matters whether your expectations of a phenomena is of false agency inference or a ghost. That in turn affects how stable the interpretations of phenomena are in a given community. Again from a purely economical and evolutionary perspective though, communities that can get people to self-regulate are apt to be more successful at large sizes than those who don’t. So if you can convince people that someone is watching them and judging their actions, that allows for larger stable societies. Therefore there is an evolutionary value in such beliefs to make a community more successful than what government regulation and punishment alone can accomplish. What’s interesting is to ask from a Peircean perspective how such things should be viewed. The way Peirce normally talks about critical common sensism tends to downplay, I think, the distinction between the instrumental value of a belief from its actual truth. That’s of course famously the difference Peirce has from James and to a degree Dewey. James I’d argue actually ends
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
It’s worth noting that most evolutionary views of religion see much of it evolving intertwined with the evolution of government. To the point that it’s hard to separate the two. It’s true that particularly in evolutionary psychology religion has some key differences such as focus on the cognition of agency detection and so forth. Yet as a practical social organization the separation between government and religion is fairly recent. And arguably still incomplete (if it’s even possible to really separate the two) >From a Peircean view with its emphasis on common sense as heavily tested >practices in a somewhat narrow environment it’s worth considering how these >social practices would evolve. And perhaps offer some more Burkean like >conservative reasons for worrying about the widespread abandonment of many >tested social practices. > On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:53 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: >> Groupthink is the problem... >> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. > > All the religions of the world began at the village level, > usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as > the social-religious leader who shares power with the > military leader. > > Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain > social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on > normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; > ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of > history, medicine, and good counsel. > > But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power. > It's important to keep the guru poor and honest. > > John > > - > 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 .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am assuming
a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the individual
psychological level, where the individual becomes aware of his own
finite nature and lack of power to 'make things happen'. AND - his
awareness that, despite his best intentions, 'the best laid plans
gang oft awry'.
Then, there is a second reality, which is that we, as a species, are
necessarily social. We can live only as a collective; our brains - and
physique - require a long nurturing period and this necessitates a
'family' situation. Plus, since our knowledge base is primarily
learned rather than innate - it is stored within the community. So-
to even learn how to live requires that socialization and community.
Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of
behaviour and belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with
others. So- we develop shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what
happens when we die'; why do bad/good things happen'.
I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or
medicine man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger
populations where specialization of tasks does take place. But in
small bands [about 30 people] - there will rarely be a spiritual
leader, much less a military!! Again - it depends on the size of the
population which is itself dependent on the economic mode which is
itself dependent on the ecological viability of the land to support
large populations.
As for corruption - that's also basic to our species, unfortunately.
Edwina
On Tue 19/06/18 9:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> Groupthink is the problem...
> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.
All the religions of the world began at the village level,
usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as
the social-religious leader who shares power with the
military leader.
Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain
social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on
normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies;
ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of
history, medicine, and good counsel.
But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.
John
-
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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: Groupthink is the problem... I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. All the religions of the world began at the village level, usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as the social-religious leader who shares power with the military leader. Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of history, medicine, and good counsel. But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power. It's important to keep the guru poor and honest. John - 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 .
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list:
I disagree with your 'natural progression'. In my view, there isn't
any such natural 'social evolution'. The cause, so to speak, of
political and social organization is: Population size. And population
size is dependent on the ecology; on the pragmatic reality of the
plants and animals that either are natural or can be raised in that
area.
So-called 'original or direct democracy'; i.e., where all members of
the tribe shared decisions [and food, etc] is only found in extremely
small hunting and gathering populations [about 30 members in the
normal band size]. Once you get a larger population - and a larger
population is ONLY possible in ecological areas where the land can
produce more food - then, this basic democracy is impossible - and
decision-making becomes invested in different modes.
The next step, so to speak, based on population size, is also based
on economics; whatever set of families provide the most food for
their family- an extended family of course - becomes politically
dominant. So you get what is called 'Big Man' authority and a family
might be dominant. But - only if they produce the food!
Then - once you move into an economic system based on staying-put,
so to speak; i.e., agriculture - then, political authority becomes
invested in hereditary control of 'capital' - i.e., the land. That's
when you will get an aristocracy. The aristocracy protects the land.
This ensures economic stability for the population.
You can't have huge tracts of food producing land broken up into
small plots; you have to maintain economic food production stability
- and that was the role of the aristocracy...and that need for
stability required that they were hereditary rather than elected.
Emotional voting - has no role in this economy.
And of course - this would emerge ONLY in areas, ecologically, which
could produce this kind of surplus farming produce [particularly the
Western European biomes which are the most fertile in the world].
An oligarchy is a corruption of an aristocracy. This would emerge
when, politically, one member of an aristocratic family, tries to
control other families...Again - this would be possible only in
biomes where food production permitted large populations. But - it
can't last because the focus of an oligarchy is psychological, i.e.,
power-for-the-person/family...and not the people.
A single monarch only develops in even larger populations - which
removes the supreme power of the aristocracy [see the Magna Carta] -
and unites the country, for market economic purposes, under one
political authority and set of laws. This can continue on
indefinitely - I'm sure you are aware of the Constitutional
Monarchies around the world - where the supreme power of the
individual monarch is removed - and power is given to a Constitution
rather than a person.
The point of such a constitutional 'evolution' is that violent
revolution is no longer necessary; you vote the 'bad guys out'; you
vote to amend the constitution and so on. Democracy in this format,
in large, large populations, is representational rather than direct -
and is messy and slow - but - it's the only way to deal with
populations in the millions.
A key problem with modern democracies, I think, is the emotional
nature of decision-making. Voters can be totally ignorant of the
basic economic realities - and vote only because 'he's cute' [as was
done in the last Canadian election - which has resulted in a Canadian
Prime Minister who has to be one of the dumbest and most ignorant
'cuties' we've ever had]. Our media systems instead of providing
facts - provide us with opinions.
AND - because of political parties. When governmental power becomes
focused within political parties - where one or the other political
party 'wins power' - then, this is akin to an oligarchy. The
political party - whether Republican or Democrat - becomes a TRIBE -
and the focus of all its members and supporters is
Power-For-The-Tribe. The people in the other tribe are viewed, not as
co-citizens, but as enemies [deplorables]. This reduction of the
people - into tribes - is a key problem for our democracies.
Edwina
On Tue 19/06/18 9:02 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 6/19/2018 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven,
> corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the
efficiencies to
> which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed.
Not to
> mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the
peer-review
> process as identified by the likes of...
Fundamental principle: There is no difference in the kinds of
people
who go into business, government, academia, and religious orgs.
They
come from the same backgrounds and go to the same schools. Their
ethics,
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
You are also right. Groupthink is the problem. Corporatism (e.g., Nazism) creates its own groupthink. Groupthink is dumb imitation without questioning what one is imitating. Pragmatism, and the need to "know how to be." The question is, is there a way of controlling for groupthink? How might one reconcile individualism with "knowing how to be?" I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. -Original Message- From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 3:03 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems... On 6/19/2018 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven, > corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies > to which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not > to mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review > process as identified by the likes of... Fundamental principle: There is no difference in the kinds of people who go into business, government, academia, and religious orgs. They come from the same backgrounds and go to the same schools. Their ethics, morals, and political acumen are similar -- for better or worse. Big orgs of any kind -- governments, industries, academics, and religions have power -- for good or evil. The amount of power is proportional to the amount of money they have to throw around *and* to the their political connections to other orgs. The biggest businesses are more powerful than all but a few of the governments in the world. In the US, only the federal gov't is bigger than the biggest, and only 3 or 4 states can stand up to them. In recent years, the oligarchs, whose wealth and power has been increasing exponentially since the 1980s, are wielding enormous power with their own wealth and the wealth of the businesses they control. They can buy politicians and collude with other oligarchs to dictate policies to the politicians they bought. The cry for "states rights" is loudest from the oligarchs, because state politicians are cheaper than federal politicians. If they buy up enough state gov'ts, they can control the feds. If you look at history, starting with the Sumerians, democracies are fragile. Only the smallest gov'ts, starting at the village level are true democracies. Larger city-states (Athens for example) could have democracies controlled by the non-slave populations. But eventually, oligarchs (AKA dukes, counts, or billionaires) set up a feudal system to control their city-states. Eventually one of the oligarchs gains enough power to become monarch. Natural progression: Democracy -> Oligarchy -> Monarchy -> Revolution -> Reign of Terror -> Repeat at one of the previous steps. Question: Democracy in the US is in peril. Can it survive? If democracy in the US collapses, what happens to the world? John - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
On 6/19/2018 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven, corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies to which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not to mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review process as identified by the likes of... Fundamental principle: There is no difference in the kinds of people who go into business, government, academia, and religious orgs. They come from the same backgrounds and go to the same schools. Their ethics, morals, and political acumen are similar -- for better or worse. Big orgs of any kind -- governments, industries, academics, and religions have power -- for good or evil. The amount of power is proportional to the amount of money they have to throw around *and* to the their political connections to other orgs. The biggest businesses are more powerful than all but a few of the governments in the world. In the US, only the federal gov't is bigger than the biggest, and only 3 or 4 states can stand up to them. In recent years, the oligarchs, whose wealth and power has been increasing exponentially since the 1980s, are wielding enormous power with their own wealth and the wealth of the businesses they control. They can buy politicians and collude with other oligarchs to dictate policies to the politicians they bought. The cry for "states rights" is loudest from the oligarchs, because state politicians are cheaper than federal politicians. If they buy up enough state gov'ts, they can control the feds. If you look at history, starting with the Sumerians, democracies are fragile. Only the smallest gov'ts, starting at the village level are true democracies. Larger city-states (Athens for example) could have democracies controlled by the non-slave populations. But eventually, oligarchs (AKA dukes, counts, or billionaires) set up a feudal system to control their city-states. Eventually one of the oligarchs gains enough power to become monarch. Natural progression: Democracy -> Oligarchy -> Monarchy -> Revolution -> Reign of Terror -> Repeat at one of the previous steps. Question: Democracy in the US is in peril. Can it survive? If democracy in the US collapses, what happens to the world? John - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] The real environmental problems are less scientific and more ethical
I see Peirce as someone who paved the way to now and that is among the reasons there is so much moroseness about -- we are more or less left with the power of our own thinking -- but that's where it has always been. Things are looking up. Peirce helped open the gate for the unprecedented.. Apropos of this I would commend the following. https://twitter.com/stephencrose/status/1008884368574644224 amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > Gary, I certainly concur with the points being raised here. The > selfishness, in particular, inspires every manner of unfalsifiable > conjecture to be spouted, by average scientists trying to be first with a > great idea. There’s a lot of rubbish swilling around, and this has the > effect of dumbing down the rest of science, so that the really good ideas > are lost in the swill. Unfalsifiable and untestable Big Bang, dark matter, > dark energy, the future impacting on the past (quantum eraser experiment), > etc, etc, and on it rolls, the conjectures spew from all over, they don’t > end. Some might have merit. Most do not. > > I do not disagree that environmental problems need to be taken seriously. > However… and this is non-trivial… the onus is on climate change proponents, > for example, to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven, > corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies to > which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not to > mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review process > as identified by the likes of Richard Horton (2015) and Matt Binswanger > (2014). The climate-change fashion is not to be trusted because of this. > > And then there is my favorite bug-bear, entropy. It continues to amaze me > that Neo-Darwinists, especially, so easily turn a blind eye to the entropy > problem… or perhaps this should not amaze me, maybe we are not all that > different to our pagan-god-worshipping ancestors. With this kind of leap in > judgment, Neo-Darwinism is a belief system, no different to any kind of > religion. Absent is any kind of axiomatic framework to bring it all > together. > > Thinking within the context of an axiomatic framework is essential. Isaac > Newton is my favorite example because his axiomatic thinking is quite > explicit. CS Peirce is another good example, but his axiomatic thinking is > implied… I don’t think he spelled out what it was that structured his > reasoning. Peirce’s implied axiomatic framework (in the context of > biosemiotics), I anticipate, will play an essential part in making sense of > quantum mechanics. Central is the question of pragmatism… how does any > entity (including subatomic and atomic particles) “define” the things that > matter? In what manner is “space” experienced by different mind-bodies > (holons)? > > Think of everything that we now have out our fingertips… the science, the > physics, the telescopes, the realization of what a galaxy is and that there > are trillions of them, and trillions of billions of planets. Then think > about the primitive degeneracy that western culture is rapidly sliding > into. If one accepts the notion of reincarnation (as I do – the question of > nonlocality of self has serious merit), then the odds, for most of us, of > returning to a culture that knows what we know about the moon, the sun and > the stars will be pretty slim. Dark prospects await most of us, and it will > be back to dying from simple diseases, worshipping our local star-god, > drinking stagnant smelly water and not knowing why it makes you sick, child > sacrifice, and wondering whether the little old lady across the road > track is a wicked witch who’s cast a spell on your family. > > In conclusion, a Peircean-biosemiotic based paradigm understands the > relevance of imitation (in the deeper sense of knowing how to be) to > pragmatism. It understands the relationship between personality and > culture, and therefore the nature of groupthink, corruption, and what makes > cultures healthy or sick. Where Peirce says “the man is the thought”, I say > “the culture is the thought,” and this opens up the narrative to thinking > about what heaven and hell might be. Fixing climate change? The problem > lies elsewhere and band-aid fixes by even the most well-intentioned will > fail to address them properly… it’s just pissing into the wind… maybe delay > the inevitable, or maybe make it worse, depending on how fake the science > is. For the most part, the climate-change fashion just gives > virtue-signaling hypocrites the opportunity to masquerade their moral > superiority, and shame those that don’t accept their fake science. > > Regards > > > > *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:45 AM > *To:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] The real environmental problems are less scientific > and more ethical > > > > List, > > > > Today I received a Facebook
RE: [PEIRCE-L] The real environmental problems are less scientific and more ethical
Gary, I certainly concur with the points being raised here. The selfishness, in particular, inspires every manner of unfalsifiable conjecture to be spouted, by average scientists trying to be first with a great idea. There's a lot of rubbish swilling around, and this has the effect of dumbing down the rest of science, so that the really good ideas are lost in the swill. Unfalsifiable and untestable Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, the future impacting on the past (quantum eraser experiment), etc, etc, and on it rolls, the conjectures spew from all over, they don't end. Some might have merit. Most do not. I do not disagree that environmental problems need to be taken seriously. However. and this is non-trivial. the onus is on climate change proponents, for example, to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven, corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies to which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not to mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review process as identified by the likes of Richard Horton (2015) and Matt Binswanger (2014). The climate-change fashion is not to be trusted because of this. And then there is my favorite bug-bear, entropy. It continues to amaze me that Neo-Darwinists, especially, so easily turn a blind eye to the entropy problem. or perhaps this should not amaze me, maybe we are not all that different to our pagan-god-worshipping ancestors. With this kind of leap in judgment, Neo-Darwinism is a belief system, no different to any kind of religion. Absent is any kind of axiomatic framework to bring it all together. Thinking within the context of an axiomatic framework is essential. Isaac Newton is my favorite example because his axiomatic thinking is quite explicit. CS Peirce is another good example, but his axiomatic thinking is implied. I don't think he spelled out what it was that structured his reasoning. Peirce's implied axiomatic framework (in the context of biosemiotics), I anticipate, will play an essential part in making sense of quantum mechanics. Central is the question of pragmatism. how does any entity (including subatomic and atomic particles) "define" the things that matter? In what manner is "space" experienced by different mind-bodies (holons)? Think of everything that we now have out our fingertips. the science, the physics, the telescopes, the realization of what a galaxy is and that there are trillions of them, and trillions of billions of planets. Then think about the primitive degeneracy that western culture is rapidly sliding into. If one accepts the notion of reincarnation (as I do - the question of nonlocality of self has serious merit), then the odds, for most of us, of returning to a culture that knows what we know about the moon, the sun and the stars will be pretty slim. Dark prospects await most of us, and it will be back to dying from simple diseases, worshipping our local star-god, drinking stagnant smelly water and not knowing why it makes you sick, child sacrifice, and wondering whether the little old lady across the road track is a wicked witch who's cast a spell on your family. In conclusion, a Peircean-biosemiotic based paradigm understands the relevance of imitation (in the deeper sense of knowing how to be) to pragmatism. It understands the relationship between personality and culture, and therefore the nature of groupthink, corruption, and what makes cultures healthy or sick. Where Peirce says "the man is the thought", I say "the culture is the thought," and this opens up the narrative to thinking about what heaven and hell might be. Fixing climate change? The problem lies elsewhere and band-aid fixes by even the most well-intentioned will fail to address them properly. it's just pissing into the wind. maybe delay the inevitable, or maybe make it worse, depending on how fake the science is. For the most part, the climate-change fashion just gives virtue-signaling hypocrites the opportunity to masquerade their moral superiority, and shame those that don't accept their fake science. Regards From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:45 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: [PEIRCE-L] The real environmental problems are less scientific and more ethical List, Today I received a Facebook post which included this quotation: "I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don't know how to do that." Gus Spaeth, a US adviser on climate change I wonder (1) whether list members agree that the top environmental problems aren't "biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change" but, rather, "selfishness, greed and
