Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object
> On Jun 20, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > GF: It’s important to note that Stjernfelt’s definition of the immediate > object is a functional one--the immediate object plays an indexical role > within the functioning of a Dicisign ... > > According to Peirce, this is only true of some Immediate Objects--the > Existent ones for Signs that he classified as Designatives in the late 1908 > taxonomy. Immediate Objects can also be Possibles for Signs that are > Descriptives, or Necessitants for Signs that are Copulatives. My apologies as I’m just coming back to the list after having too little time to read for quite some time. Are you talking about Stjernfelt’s discussion of natural signs? If so that functional focus would make sense rather than the more general case. But of course you’re completely right that possibles as immediate objects are extremely important. - 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...
I think it is simpler than that. But I agree that past ethics does not cut it. Harm is harm and can be measured. So can its absence. That we fail to perform or act on these measurements is a fault of a system that delivers political power to special interests that themselves bear the brunt of responsibility. The resolution of the ethical problem will be delayed until an intelligent majority rectifies things at the polls and in the offices of those who make laws. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose > wrote: > > The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses > on the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated > aesthetics and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core > understanding of things. This suggests he would have had little interest in > parsing the merits of groups and religions but would have focused instead > on the fruits of their thinking. > > > Many elements of the maxim as applied in this way arise out of Stoic > ethics we should note. John Shook has a good article on this, “Peirce’s > Pragmatic Theology and Stoic Religious Ethics.” Although much of what he > discusses are parallels rather than evidence for direct influence. > > While the agapaic element obviously comes from Christianity, particularly > the fairly platonic Gospel of John, the Stoic elements can’t be neglected. > While Stoicism sees this through reason rather than love, the reasoning out > the place of the individual in terms of the whole through self-reflection > is significant. As is the rather pantheistic conception of God. (Here > meaning how individual signs are parts of the whole) > > Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a > blind spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have > vanished. And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of > the degree to which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be > measured. It is not beyond the province of science which is also universal. > > > Sadly blind spots in ethics towards slavery were nothing new. Again this > was a constant problem in Roman ethics I’d say. It is one reason why Stoic > ethics remain somewhat problematic IMO. > > > > > - > 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: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
Helmut, list I don't think that the Indus Valley societies were matriarchal! There is no evidence of that. Indeed, there is essentially no evidence of any society being matriarchal [ political governance by the women]. This is differentiated from matrilineal, which means that descent is defined by the women. In Judaism, you are not consider a member of the Jewish faith unless your mother was Jewish. That's matrilineal not matriarchal. A number of tribes are matrilineal. Among the Hopi - where much of the agricultural work was done by women, where there was no war [and no need for warriors], women were dominant in the household; men were dominant in the clan/tribe. Similar to the Iroquois - Again, the basic view is that 'whoever provides the sustenance and protection of the food for the group - is politically dominant. Edwina On Wed 20/06/18 2:15 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Supplement: And I think, but I dont know how certain this is, that there have been matriarchalic societies that were not H/G, but already agricultural, e.g. the Indus- culture.Édwina, list, I see, but I think that division of labour is something else than power hierarchy. Like with the shaman who is not a leader, but a servant to the community, doing spiritual psychotherapy for them. Or the women who care for the children and gather, while the men hunt. And I do not see a natural reason, why admistrative work should be better paid and held in higher esteem than crafts or agriculture. People are different and want to do different jobs, but should (and can) be equal regarding their status, wealth and esteemedness, I think. But of course, someone who works in administration has more opportunities to misuse his/her work for gaining power over others than a peasant has. But that is what democracy is for, to have the governing process controlled by the people to avoid misuse and nonequality. Best, Helmut 20. Juni 2018 um 19:36 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" Helmut, list: No - I very much disagree with you. We are not 'genetically H/G'. We are genetically- as far as social organization is concerned -- -nothing -- which means, that our mode of life is entirely socially or intellectually constructed. Our social organization has absolutely nothing to do with genes - but - as I keep saying - with our economic mode. And our economic mode is directly linked to our environment; - which is to say - with what our environment has, naturally, in it [temperature, soil type and fertility, water source, seasons, plants and animals]...and what we can introduce that will grow/live there. For example - we can't grow wheat in the arctic; we can't farm milk cows in the rain forest etc. Animals in herds have a ranking order - and that is meant to keep the herd safe. And a human society - MUST have normative rules of 'how to live' [remember Thirdness??]. And since our rules are not genetic - then - we must develop them. And we develop them to enable a certain size population to live - to obtain food and shelter, to reproduce in security and health. So- in a H/G society - there may be no leader because the population is too small for that and because the economic mode is based around sharing. But there is no such thing as 'gender equality' - whatever that means. Men hunt; women gather. Do you know why? Does a crying baby frighten away the prey? But- when you get into any type of agriculture - even the most basic/smallest [eg, swidden] - then, there MUST be leaders. Why? First, because the 'capital' or 'wealth producing goods'...i.e., the LAND and the domesticated plants and animals - can't be allowed to be split up into bits. Do you know what happens when you split up 10 cows among 5 brothers? Who gets the bull? Who gets the possibility of future cattle? Instead - to secure the viability of the family, the 'capital' [the land, the cattle, the pigs whatever]...must be kept 'as one set'. That - is the duty and responsibility of The Leader. This will almost always be a man. That's also because once you get settled food production, rather than Hunting/Gathering...then, you have to protect this land and the domesticated animals - not merely from other tribes but from prey animals. You need warriors. That's always - men...and do I have to explain why? In even larger agricultural societies - where the food is produced on large acres - again, heredity rights and duties are paramount - for the same reason. To ensure the security and ongoing capacity of the food production system. And there will be a need for security as well. And that's why - in all agricultural economic modes ...as well as pastoral nomadic -..men will be privileged over the women. Why? Because they do all the hard work in agricultural food production and also, the hard work of the military. It's as simple and basic commonsense as that.
: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
Helmut, list Division of labour among genders is due to physique and childbirth/care. Division of labour among a population is due to economic productive capacities.. No matter what semantic term you want to call a shaman [leader, servant] - he DOES have authority over the community, for his spiritual knowledge is assumed to be greater than that of the rest of the tribe. Why else should people listen to him?? If crafts bring in more economic wealth for the community than administration - then, it will be socially valued. We are equal as human beings; we are equal under the law. But we are not equal in our intellectual or professional knowledge and, capacities and skills [should a sales clerk do neurosurgery?]. And yes- we always have to be 'on the watch', for our psychological nature means that we can be jealous, envious, greedy - and want to deny our equality as humans and under the law. Edwina On Wed 20/06/18 2:04 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Édwina, list, I see, but I think that division of labour is something else than power hierarchy. Like with the shaman who is not a leader, but a servant to the community, doing spiritual psychotherapy for them. Or the women who care for the children and gather, while the men hunt. And I do not see a natural reason, why admistrative work should be better paid and held in higher esteem than crafts or agriculture. People are different and want to do different jobs, but should (and can) be equal regarding their status, wealth and esteemedness, I think. But of course, someone who works in administration has more opportunities to misuse his/her work for gaining power over others than a peasant has. But that is what democracy is for, to have the governing process controlled by the people to avoid misuse and nonequality. Best, Helmut 20. Juni 2018 um 19:36 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" Helmut, list: No - I very much disagree with you. We are not 'genetically H/G'. We are genetically- as far as social organization is concerned -- -nothing -- which means, that our mode of life is entirely socially or intellectually constructed. Our social organization has absolutely nothing to do with genes - but - as I keep saying - with our economic mode. And our economic mode is directly linked to our environment; - which is to say - with what our environment has, naturally, in it [temperature, soil type and fertility, water source, seasons, plants and animals]...and what we can introduce that will grow/live there. For example - we can't grow wheat in the arctic; we can't farm milk cows in the rain forest etc. Animals in herds have a ranking order - and that is meant to keep the herd safe. And a human society - MUST have normative rules of 'how to live' [remember Thirdness??]. And since our rules are not genetic - then - we must develop them. And we develop them to enable a certain size population to live - to obtain food and shelter, to reproduce in security and health. So- in a H/G society - there may be no leader because the population is too small for that and because the economic mode is based around sharing. But there is no such thing as 'gender equality' - whatever that means. Men hunt; women gather. Do you know why? Does a crying baby frighten away the prey? But- when you get into any type of agriculture - even the most basic/smallest [eg, swidden] - then, there MUST be leaders. Why? First, because the 'capital' or 'wealth producing goods'...i.e., the LAND and the domesticated plants and animals - can't be allowed to be split up into bits. Do you know what happens when you split up 10 cows among 5 brothers? Who gets the bull? Who gets the possibility of future cattle? Instead - to secure the viability of the family, the 'capital' [the land, the cattle, the pigs whatever]...must be kept 'as one set'. That - is the duty and responsibility of The Leader. This will almost always be a man. That's also because once you get settled food production, rather than Hunting/Gathering...then, you have to protect this land and the domesticated animals - not merely from other tribes but from prey animals. You need warriors. That's always - men...and do I have to explain why? In even larger agricultural societies - where the food is produced on large acres - again, heredity rights and duties are paramount - for the same reason. To ensure the security and ongoing capacity of the food production system. And there will be a need for security as well. And that's why - in all agricultural economic modes ...as well as pastoral nomadic -..men will be privileged over the women. Why? Because they do all the hard work in agricultural food production and also, the hard work of the military. It's as simple and basic commonsense as that. In large populations - of course there must be a hierarchy of legal authority.
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Direct experience and immediate object
Gary F., List: Apologies for the long-delayed response, but I was traveling abroad on vacation during the last two weeks and am still catching up on certain things. Coincidentally (or providentially), I have now finally managed to read through most of Francesco Bellucci's excellent book, *Peirce's Speculative Grammar*, although I am still processing many of its valuable insights. GF: It’s important to note that Stjernfelt’s definition of the immediate object is a functional one--the immediate object plays an indexical role within the functioning of a Dicisign ... According to Peirce, this is only true of *some* Immediate Objects--the Existent ones for Signs that he classified as Designatives in the late 1908 taxonomy. Immediate Objects can also be Possibles for Signs that are Descriptives, or Necessitants for Signs that are Copulatives. FS: That is, IO refers to the identity and the reference to the object - not to any description of the object, because the task of description is fulfilled by the no less than three concepts of interpretant (immediate, dynamic, final, respectively). With all due respect to Stjernfelt, I strongly disagree; some Signs refer to their Dynamic Objects primarily (if not exclusively) by describing them, and such description constitutes the Immediate Object in those cases--i.e., "the Object as represented in the sign" (EP 2:498; 1909). Moreover, assigning "the task of description" to the Interpretant strikes me as making the same mistake that Peirce called "a confusion of thought between the reference of a sign to its *meaning*, the character which it attributes to its object, and its appeal to an interpretant" (EP 2:305; 1904). FS: To take an example: a guy points while exlaiming: “Look at that car over there!” “Which of them?” “The red, not the blue one!” The initial pointing gesture combined with the reference "over there" constitutes the Immediate Object - but is subsequently supplied with descriptive material in order to make precise the object of the pointing ... In my view, this analysis conflates two different (although related) Sign-Replicas. The first statement is indeed Designative--its Immediate Object is the combination of pointing and saying "over there," which provides context-specific instructions for locating its Dynamic Object. However, the second statement is Descriptive--its Immediate Object is the redness of the specific car to which it purports to refer. Overall, the entire exchange is Copulative, as must always be the case for Signs that are Symbols--its Immediate Object is the set of logical relations that it expresses. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:28 PM, wrote: > List, > > While working on my transcription of Lowell Lecture 6 from the manuscript > on the SPIN site (https://www.fromthepage.com/j > effdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-472-1903-lowell-lecture-vi), I came > across what strikes me as a key passage in it, and what struck me as a key > term in it: *“direct experience”*. To get a more exact sense of what > Peirce meant by that term, I collected several passages where Peirce had > used it in other contexts and arranged them in chronological order (they > date from 1893 to 1903). I found the resulting collection so interesting > that I’ve now included it in the Peirce resources on my website: > http://www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm#dirxp. It throws a direct light, so > to speak, on Peirce’s phenomenology. > > Coincidentally (or providentially), I’ve also been reading Frederik > Stjernfelt’s article responding to some critical reviews of his *Natural > Propositions*, http://frederikstjernfelt.dk/P > eirce/Answer%20to%20Critics%20of%20Natural%20Propositions%202016.pdf. > This includes some remarks about the nature of the immediate object, which > was the subject of a discussion on the list awhile back, which got bogged > down partly for lack of specific examples of IOs, especially examples that > do not involve human mentality. Stjernfelt includes two very specific > examples, which I will quote below (though I’d recommend reading the whole > section where he discusses the matter, which starts about halfway through > the article.) It’s important to note that Stjernfelt’s definition of the > immediate object is a *functional* one — the immediate object plays an > indexical role within the functioning of a Dicisign — so I’ll begin with > that. The words in double brackets below are Stjernfelt’s: > > [[ I claim that the *immediate* object (IO) is a concept addressing the > way the sign is connected to the object (or is claimed by the sign to be so > connected), while the opposed category, the *dynamic object* (DO) is the > object of the sign as existing independently of the particular sign > relation. That is, IO refers to the identity and the reference to the > object
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
Supplement: And I think, but I dont know how certain this is, that there have been matriarchalic societies that were not H/G, but already agricultural, e.g. the Indus- culture. Édwina, list, I see, but I think that division of labour is something else than power hierarchy. Like with the shaman who is not a leader, but a servant to the community, doing spiritual psychotherapy for them. Or the women who care for the children and gather, while the men hunt. And I do not see a natural reason, why admistrative work should be better paid and held in higher esteem than crafts or agriculture. People are different and want to do different jobs, but should (and can) be equal regarding their status, wealth and esteemedness, I think. But of course, someone who works in administration has more opportunities to misuse his/her work for gaining power over others than a peasant has. But that is what democracy is for, to have the governing process controlled by the people to avoid misuse and nonequality. Best, Helmut 20. Juni 2018 um 19:36 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" Helmut, list: No - I very much disagree with you. We are not 'genetically H/G'. We are genetically- as far as social organization is concerned -- -nothing -- which means, that our mode of life is entirely socially or intellectually constructed. Our social organization has absolutely nothing to do with genes - but - as I keep saying - with our economic mode. And our economic mode is directly linked to our environment; - which is to say - with what our environment has, naturally, in it [temperature, soil type and fertility, water source, seasons, plants and animals]...and what we can introduce that will grow/live there. For example - we can't grow wheat in the arctic; we can't farm milk cows in the rain forest etc. Animals in herds have a ranking order - and that is meant to keep the herd safe. And a human society - MUST have normative rules of 'how to live' [remember Thirdness??]. And since our rules are not genetic - then - we must develop them. And we develop them to enable a certain size population to live - to obtain food and shelter, to reproduce in security and health. So- in a H/G society - there may be no leader because the population is too small for that and because the economic mode is based around sharing. But there is no such thing as 'gender equality' - whatever that means. Men hunt; women gather. Do you know why? Does a crying baby frighten away the prey? But- when you get into any type of agriculture - even the most basic/smallest [eg, swidden] - then, there MUST be leaders. Why? First, because the 'capital' or 'wealth producing goods'...i.e., the LAND and the domesticated plants and animals - can't be allowed to be split up into bits. Do you know what happens when you split up 10 cows among 5 brothers? Who gets the bull? Who gets the possibility of future cattle? Instead - to secure the viability of the family, the 'capital' [the land, the cattle, the pigs whatever]...must be kept 'as one set'. That - is the duty and responsibility of The Leader. This will almost always be a man. That's also because once you get settled food production, rather than Hunting/Gathering...then, you have to protect this land and the domesticated animals - not merely from other tribes but from prey animals. You need warriors. That's always - men...and do I have to explain why? In even larger agricultural societies - where the food is produced on large acres - again, heredity rights and duties are paramount - for the same reason. To ensure the security and ongoing capacity of the food production system. And there will be a need for security as well. And that's why - in all agricultural economic modes ...as well as pastoral nomadic -..men will be privileged over the women. Why? Because they do all the hard work in agricultural food production and also, the hard work of the military. It's as simple and basic commonsense as that. In large populations - of course there must be a hierarchy of legal authority. Without it - it's called anarchy. There must be a set of common rules - and a means to enforce these rules. That's where you get hierarchical authority, where a policeman has more authority than the kid on his skateboard. And a premier has more authority than the policeman..etc. Equally- we have ranking orders of laws - where a federal law takes precedence over a municipal law. As for gender equality- as a woman - I think it's a load of semantic BS. Each gender is biologically and physiologically different and has different capacities. We can certainly be intellectually equal - but - I don't see a pregnant woman out in the 5 am fields with a plough; or scaling a castle wall - no matter what our video games show us. In our economic mode of industrialism - where the heavy work is done by machines rather than human labour - we can indeed say that our work is equal. BUT - this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or advancement -
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
Édwina, list, I see, but I think that division of labour is something else than power hierarchy. Like with the shaman who is not a leader, but a servant to the community, doing spiritual psychotherapy for them. Or the women who care for the children and gather, while the men hunt. And I do not see a natural reason, why admistrative work should be better paid and held in higher esteem than crafts or agriculture. People are different and want to do different jobs, but should (and can) be equal regarding their status, wealth and esteemedness, I think. But of course, someone who works in administration has more opportunities to misuse his/her work for gaining power over others than a peasant has. But that is what democracy is for, to have the governing process controlled by the people to avoid misuse and nonequality. Best, Helmut 20. Juni 2018 um 19:36 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" Helmut, list: No - I very much disagree with you. We are not 'genetically H/G'. We are genetically- as far as social organization is concerned -- -nothing -- which means, that our mode of life is entirely socially or intellectually constructed. Our social organization has absolutely nothing to do with genes - but - as I keep saying - with our economic mode. And our economic mode is directly linked to our environment; - which is to say - with what our environment has, naturally, in it [temperature, soil type and fertility, water source, seasons, plants and animals]...and what we can introduce that will grow/live there. For example - we can't grow wheat in the arctic; we can't farm milk cows in the rain forest etc. Animals in herds have a ranking order - and that is meant to keep the herd safe. And a human society - MUST have normative rules of 'how to live' [remember Thirdness??]. And since our rules are not genetic - then - we must develop them. And we develop them to enable a certain size population to live - to obtain food and shelter, to reproduce in security and health. So- in a H/G society - there may be no leader because the population is too small for that and because the economic mode is based around sharing. But there is no such thing as 'gender equality' - whatever that means. Men hunt; women gather. Do you know why? Does a crying baby frighten away the prey? But- when you get into any type of agriculture - even the most basic/smallest [eg, swidden] - then, there MUST be leaders. Why? First, because the 'capital' or 'wealth producing goods'...i.e., the LAND and the domesticated plants and animals - can't be allowed to be split up into bits. Do you know what happens when you split up 10 cows among 5 brothers? Who gets the bull? Who gets the possibility of future cattle? Instead - to secure the viability of the family, the 'capital' [the land, the cattle, the pigs whatever]...must be kept 'as one set'. That - is the duty and responsibility of The Leader. This will almost always be a man. That's also because once you get settled food production, rather than Hunting/Gathering...then, you have to protect this land and the domesticated animals - not merely from other tribes but from prey animals. You need warriors. That's always - men...and do I have to explain why? In even larger agricultural societies - where the food is produced on large acres - again, heredity rights and duties are paramount - for the same reason. To ensure the security and ongoing capacity of the food production system. And there will be a need for security as well. And that's why - in all agricultural economic modes ...as well as pastoral nomadic -..men will be privileged over the women. Why? Because they do all the hard work in agricultural food production and also, the hard work of the military. It's as simple and basic commonsense as that. In large populations - of course there must be a hierarchy of legal authority. Without it - it's called anarchy. There must be a set of common rules - and a means to enforce these rules. That's where you get hierarchical authority, where a policeman has more authority than the kid on his skateboard. And a premier has more authority than the policeman..etc. Equally- we have ranking orders of laws - where a federal law takes precedence over a municipal law. As for gender equality- as a woman - I think it's a load of semantic BS. Each gender is biologically and physiologically different and has different capacities. We can certainly be intellectually equal - but - I don't see a pregnant woman out in the 5 am fields with a plough; or scaling a castle wall - no matter what our video games show us. In our economic mode of industrialism - where the heavy work is done by machines rather than human labour - we can indeed say that our work is equal. BUT - this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or advancement - but strictly - with our economic mode. That's just basic commonsense. Edwina On Wed 20/06/18 12:19 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, list, Thank you! I
[PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
Helmut, list: No - I very much disagree with you. We are not 'genetically H/G'. We are genetically- as far as social organization is concerned -- -nothing -- which means, that our mode of life is entirely socially or intellectually constructed. Our social organization has absolutely nothing to do with genes - but - as I keep saying - with our economic mode. And our economic mode is directly linked to our environment; - which is to say - with what our environment has, naturally, in it [temperature, soil type and fertility, water source, seasons, plants and animals]...and what we can introduce that will grow/live there. For example - we can't grow wheat in the arctic; we can't farm milk cows in the rain forest etc. Animals in herds have a ranking order - and that is meant to keep the herd safe. And a human society - MUST have normative rules of 'how to live' [remember Thirdness??]. And since our rules are not genetic - then - we must develop them. And we develop them to enable a certain size population to live - to obtain food and shelter, to reproduce in security and health. So- in a H/G society - there may be no leader because the population is too small for that and because the economic mode is based around sharing. But there is no such thing as 'gender equality' - whatever that means. Men hunt; women gather. Do you know why? Does a crying baby frighten away the prey? But- when you get into any type of agriculture - even the most basic/smallest [eg, swidden] - then, there MUST be leaders. Why? First, because the 'capital' or 'wealth producing goods'...i.e., the LAND and the domesticated plants and animals - can't be allowed to be split up into bits. Do you know what happens when you split up 10 cows among 5 brothers? Who gets the bull? Who gets the possibility of future cattle? Instead - to secure the viability of the family, the 'capital' [the land, the cattle, the pigs whatever]...must be kept 'as one set'. That - is the duty and responsibility of The Leader. This will almost always be a man. That's also because once you get settled food production, rather than Hunting/Gathering...then, you have to protect this land and the domesticated animals - not merely from other tribes but from prey animals. You need warriors. That's always - men...and do I have to explain why? In even larger agricultural societies - where the food is produced on large acres - again, heredity rights and duties are paramount - for the same reason. To ensure the security and ongoing capacity of the food production system. And there will be a need for security as well. And that's why - in all agricultural economic modes ...as well as pastoral nomadic -..men will be privileged over the women. Why? Because they do all the hard work in agricultural food production and also, the hard work of the military. It's as simple and basic commonsense as that. In large populations - of course there must be a hierarchy of legal authority. Without it - it's called anarchy. There must be a set of common rules - and a means to enforce these rules. That's where you get hierarchical authority, where a policeman has more authority than the kid on his skateboard. And a premier has more authority than the policeman..etc. Equally- we have ranking orders of laws - where a federal law takes precedence over a municipal law. As for gender equality- as a woman - I think it's a load of semantic BS. Each gender is biologically and physiologically different and has different capacities. We can certainly be intellectually equal - but - I don't see a pregnant woman out in the 5 am fields with a plough; or scaling a castle wall - no matter what our video games show us. In our economic mode of industrialism - where the heavy work is done by machines rather than human labour - we can indeed say that our work is equal. BUT - this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or advancement - but strictly - with our economic mode. That's just basic commonsense. Edwina On Wed 20/06/18 12:19 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, list, Thank you! I think it is very important, that H/G- societies donot have a leader, because we are genetically H/G. The short time afterwards has not yet relevantly shaped our DNA. And most other mammals, primates too, have a ranking order. So I think that it is a great achievement of humankind to have overcome that. Something we can be proud of. And the ranking orders we have in our civilisation, in politics, work situations like companies, and also the gender hierarchy that favours men over women, is a lamentable retrograde into prehuman, animalic times. Best, Helmut 19. Juni 2018 um 22:22 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: 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
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
> On Jun 19, 2018, at 10:49 PM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > >> "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 guess it depends upon what one sees as important and/or essential in the Renaissance. Certainly painting development would have been difficult under Islam given the very different restrictions on art and different visual emphasis. But that’s rather the issue I am getting at. What’s significant about the Renaissance? > On Jun 19, 2018, at 10:49 PM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > > 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. Hmm. I’m a bit nervous there. Here thinking of say Charles Taylor’s _A Secular Age_. I’m just not sure that individualism of the sort we think of as individualism is characteristic of pre-modern Christianity. There’s no doubt that starting with the Reformation that Protestants quickly move in that direction - primarily due to the hermeneutic shifts where the individual and the Bible become authority rather than the Catholic Church. But I’m not sure I’d attribute that to Christianity in general. Further even in the origins of modernism is precisely the re-introduction of pagan texts during the Renaissance that arguably enables this shift. Here’s thinking of the role of people like Giordano Bruno in enabling a shift. Now of course we can debate how significant that loose hermetic tradition that arises in the Renaissance really is for the rise of individualism in modernism. I think it’s sometimes overstated. But I think it’s more of an influence than broad Christianity beyond the break that happens with the printing press in Christianity leading to the form the Reformation takes. Although clearly there were many issues leading to the Reformation. But again the real issue is the question of counterfactuals. If we rewound history to say 100 BCE and replayed things, are there worlds without Christianity that would give us individualism arising out of say paganism? It’s pretty hard to know. (Which makes the question really unanswerable) My guess though is that many would. There’s no intrinsic reason why say Platonism with the emphasis on the One in late antiquity necessarily is the only dominate form of paganism. Indeed many might argue that type of Platonism arises precisely due to conflict and competition with Christianity as the latter becomes popular. Without Christianity who’s to say something else doesn’t develop? > 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. Individualism certainly is taken as absent from the ancient world. Not just the ancient near east but around the world. So I’d agree that at least historically neither Hinduism nor Buddhism have individualism. I’m just skeptical Christianity did either. While Stoicism is anything but individualistic, it is interesting that the self-control and self-reflective nature of Stoic ethics do put an emphasis on the individual. It’s not hard to imagine that developing over time into something more akin to modern individualism. To my eyes the key move in modern individualism is the shift in hermeneutics primarily due to the rise of the textual tradition of interpreting the Bible. That then quickly added to scientific hermeneutics and legal hermeneutics with a complex interplay between the three. Could that have arisen in other traditions like say a hypothetic Stoic one? It’s hard to say. There’s no Stoic corpus although there are the dialogs of Plato. Yet that individual self-reflection seems to at least possibly allow an individual hermeneutic to develop. At least I’m loath to say why it couldn’t, even if one sees it as less likely than within Christianity. - 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 20, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote: > > The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses on > the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated aesthetics > and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core understanding of > things. This suggests he would have had little interest in parsing the merits > of groups and religions but would have focused instead on the fruits of their > thinking. Many elements of the maxim as applied in this way arise out of Stoic ethics we should note. John Shook has a good article on this, “Peirce’s Pragmatic Theology and Stoic Religious Ethics.” Although much of what he discusses are parallels rather than evidence for direct influence. While the agapaic element obviously comes from Christianity, particularly the fairly platonic Gospel of John, the Stoic elements can’t be neglected. While Stoicism sees this through reason rather than love, the reasoning out the place of the individual in terms of the whole through self-reflection is significant. As is the rather pantheistic conception of God. (Here meaning how individual signs are parts of the whole) > Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a blind > spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have vanished. > And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of the degree to > which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be measured. It is > not beyond the province of science which is also universal. Sadly blind spots in ethics towards slavery were nothing new. Again this was a constant problem in Roman ethics I’d say. It is one reason why Stoic ethics remain somewhat problematic IMO. - 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: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
Edwina, list, Thank you! I think it is very important, that H/G- societies donot have a leader, because we are genetically H/G. The short time afterwards has not yet relevantly shaped our DNA. And most other mammals, primates too, have a ranking order. So I think that it is a great achievement of humankind to have overcome that. Something we can be proud of. And the ranking orders we have in our civilisation, in politics, work situations like companies, and also the gender hierarchy that favours men over women, is a lamentable retrograde into prehuman, animalic times. Best, Helmut 19. Juni 2018 um 22:22 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: 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. 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
RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
>” but would have focused instead on the fruits of their thinking.” Exactly my point. Relates to the cultural narratives that trickle down throughout culture. From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:31 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: Clark Goble; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems... The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses on the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated aesthetics and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core understanding of things. This suggests he would have had little interest in parsing the merits of groups and religions but would have focused instead on the fruits of their thinking. Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a blind spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have vanished. And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of the degree to which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be measured. It is not beyond the province of science which is also universal. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > "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
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses on the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated aesthetics and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core understanding of things. This suggests he would have had little interest in parsing the merits of groups and religions but would have focused instead on the fruits of their thinking. Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a blind spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have vanished. And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of the degree to which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be measured. It is not beyond the province of science which is also universal. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > > "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
