Re: RE: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisite
Edwina, Stephen J., List, Edwina, thanks for your good wishes for my travels. I'll be heading to the airport soon, but before I left I wanted to suggest that since your present discussion on patriarchy/matriarchy seems not at all Peirce-related that if you want to continue it that you consider taking it off-list. Best, Gary R (writing as list moderator) *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:32 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Stephen, list > > I disagree; I think that there are both matriarchal [very few] and > patriarchal cultures - and I don't define them as you do, based on the > educational role of each gender, but on the economic role of that gender in > the society. > > That is, the society must politically privilege the gender that provides > the economic wealth and sustenance of the society. By politically > privilege, I mean that this gender is given the social authority to 'make > decisions'. As I outlined, a population whose economic sustenance is based > on the hard work of agriculture and domestication of animals, will > privilege the male - and give men the legal authority to make economic and > legal decisions. > > Our modern economy no longer requires the physical strength of the male > and therefore, privileging the male is no longer functional. Changing the > mindset of the population, however, takes time. That is, the cultural mores > and attitudes that supported this basic economic decision last longer than > the economic function. I usually say that it takes three generations to > change a cultural belief! But I don't think that there is anything 'more > moral' about gender equality in a society - because, as I said, it's really > an economic function and not an issue of 'the best moral way to behave'. We > humans ADD all this moral and cultural rhetoric to an economic function - > to make that function stable. But 'morally' - I don't think that this is > the issue. > > My concern now is the disappearance of the functional nuclear family. That > has far-reaching social implications which I suspect most of us aren't even > aware of. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Fri 31/05/19 7:36 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: > > Mary, list > > I am of the view that there is no such thing as patriarchal culture. The > role of Culture is to process the relationship between the known and the > unknown. Hence all cultures are comprised of the duality that is > matriarchal-patriarchal. [This relates to my interest in the concept of > "knowing how to be" (Dasein)]. > > The focus of the matriarchal role is the cultural known, and emphasis is > on maintaining traditions, security, cohesion. It is the mother that > introduces the child to the cultural known. It is from the mother that the > child first learns to define the things that matter (pragmatism). The > matriarchal role resists entropy. > > The focus of the patriarchal role is the cultural unknown, and emphasis is > on evolution, change, direction. It is the father that teaches the child > about transcendence (or otherwise) beyond the cultural known. The > patriarchal role confronts entropy, and tests the limits of the cultural > known. > > Another way of stating all of this. At the gates to the cultural known > stands the mother. At the gates to the unknown beyond culture stands the > father. THIS is why the spiritual role, throughout all of history's > sustainable religions, has always been governed by the patriarchal > dimension, and why the nurturing role, throughout all cultures, has been > governed by the matriarchal dimension. > > The tragedy of feminism is its trivialization of the all-important > matriarchal dimension. Inequality is that which forces people into roles > that they are not naturally predisposed to playing out. Only equal > opportunity is fair and just. Equal outcome, by contrast, is bias. The > inequality that today most urgently needs to be addressed is the forced > inequality of equal outcome. > > Regards > sj > > > From: Mary Libertin [mary.liber...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:52 AM > To: tabor...@primus.ca > Cc: Gary Richmond; Peirce-L > Subject: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, > [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisite > > Edwina, Gary R, Gene, list, > > The usage of the term *patriarchy* in our recent posts fascinates me. Gene > and I state the fact that we live in a patriarchy. Saying that does not > elevate us any more than do the excellent arguments of Edwina and Richard > elevate themselves. > > Tone is a Peircean concept and one which could be well used. I don’t know > how to do so effectively, (insert smiley face ) I would have hoped the > tone in my comments early on would have led others to accept/be more aware > of my feelings about my being more comfortable as a Peircean than a > theological trinitarian. I am working within the
Re: RE: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisite
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen, list
I disagree; I think that there are both matriarchal [very few] and
patriarchal cultures - and I don't define them as you do, based on
the educational role of each gender, but on the economic role of that
gender in the society.
That is, the society must politically privilege the gender that
provides the economic wealth and sustenance of the society. By
politically privilege, I mean that this gender is given the social
authority to 'make decisions'. As I outlined, a population whose
economic sustenance is based on the hard work of agriculture and
domestication of animals, will privilege the male - and give men the
legal authority to make economic and legal decisions.
Our modern economy no longer requires the physical strength of the
male and therefore, privileging the male is no longer functional.
Changing the mindset of the population, however, takes time. That is,
the cultural mores and attitudes that supported this basic economic
decision last longer than the economic function. I usually say that
it takes three generations to change a cultural belief! But I don't
think that there is anything 'more moral' about gender equality in a
society - because, as I said, it's really an economic function and
not an issue of 'the best moral way to behave'. We humans ADD all
this moral and cultural rhetoric to an economic function - to make
that function stable. But 'morally' - I don't think that this is the
issue.
My concern now is the disappearance of the functional nuclear
family. That has far-reaching social implications which I suspect
most of us aren't even aware of.
Edwina
On Fri 31/05/19 7:36 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au
sent:
Mary, list
I am of the view that there is no such thing as patriarchal culture.
The role of Culture is to process the relationship between the known
and the unknown. Hence all cultures are comprised of the duality that
is matriarchal-patriarchal. [This relates to my interest in the
concept of "knowing how to be" (Dasein)].
The focus of the matriarchal role is the cultural known, and
emphasis is on maintaining traditions, security, cohesion. It is the
mother that introduces the child to the cultural known. It is from
the mother that the child first learns to define the things that
matter (pragmatism). The matriarchal role resists entropy.
The focus of the patriarchal role is the cultural unknown, and
emphasis is on evolution, change, direction. It is the father that
teaches the child about transcendence (or otherwise) beyond the
cultural known. The patriarchal role confronts entropy, and tests the
limits of the cultural known.
Another way of stating all of this. At the gates to the cultural
known stands the mother. At the gates to the unknown beyond culture
stands the father. THIS is why the spiritual role, throughout all of
history's sustainable religions, has always been governed by the
patriarchal dimension, and why the nurturing role, throughout all
cultures, has been governed by the matriarchal dimension.
The tragedy of feminism is its trivialization of the all-important
matriarchal dimension. Inequality is that which forces people into
roles that they are not naturally predisposed to playing out. Only
equal opportunity is fair and just. Equal outcome, by contrast, is
bias. The inequality that today most urgently needs to be addressed
is the forced inequality of equal outcome.
Regards
sj
From: Mary Libertin [mary.liber...@gmail.com [1]]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:52 AM
To: tabor...@primus.ca [2]
Cc: Gary Richmond; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was,
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisite
Edwina, Gary R, Gene, list,
The usage of the term *patriarchy* in our recent posts fascinates
me. Gene and I state the fact that we live in a patriarchy. Saying
that does not elevate us any more than do the excellent arguments of
Edwina and Richard elevate themselves.
Tone is a Peircean concept and one which could be well used. I
don’t know how to do so effectively, (insert smiley face ) I
would have hoped the tone in my comments early on would have led
others to accept/be more aware of my feelings about my being more
comfortable as a Peircean than a theological trinitarian. I am
working within the system to change it, as Gary eloquently and
hopefully leads by example. My wife and I will be introduced as new
members of our local episcopal church on Sunday. We are not only
working within religion but also within patriarchy.
I am cavalier with the word *patriarchy*, perhaps, but inequality
needs to be addressed. Isn’t that either a Christian and/or a
Peircean? I feel so much more hopeful and grounded because of your
comments. I’ll not post again on this topic.
Cheers, Mary Libertin
Thanks for the
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:16 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
RE: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisite
Mary, list I am of the view that there is no such thing as patriarchal culture. The role of Culture is to process the relationship between the known and the unknown. Hence all cultures are comprised of the duality that is matriarchal-patriarchal. [This relates to my interest in the concept of "knowing how to be" (Dasein)]. The focus of the matriarchal role is the cultural known, and emphasis is on maintaining traditions, security, cohesion. It is the mother that introduces the child to the cultural known. It is from the mother that the child first learns to define the things that matter (pragmatism). The matriarchal role resists entropy. The focus of the patriarchal role is the cultural unknown, and emphasis is on evolution, change, direction. It is the father that teaches the child about transcendence (or otherwise) beyond the cultural known. The patriarchal role confronts entropy, and tests the limits of the cultural known. Another way of stating all of this. At the gates to the cultural known stands the mother. At the gates to the unknown beyond culture stands the father. THIS is why the spiritual role, throughout all of history's sustainable religions, has always been governed by the patriarchal dimension, and why the nurturing role, throughout all cultures, has been governed by the matriarchal dimension. The tragedy of feminism is its trivialization of the all-important matriarchal dimension. Inequality is that which forces people into roles that they are not naturally predisposed to playing out. Only equal opportunity is fair and just. Equal outcome, by contrast, is bias. The inequality that today most urgently needs to be addressed is the forced inequality of equal outcome. Regards sj From: Mary Libertin [mailto:mary.liber...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 4:52 AM To: tabor...@primus.ca Cc: Gary Richmond; Peirce-L Subject: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisite Edwina, Gary R, Gene, list, The usage of the term *patriarchy* in our recent posts fascinates me. Gene and I state the fact that we live in a patriarchy. Saying that does not elevate us any more than do the excellent arguments of Edwina and Richard elevate themselves. Tone is a Peircean concept and one which could be well used. I don’t know how to do so effectively, (insert smiley face ) I would have hoped the tone in my comments early on would have led others to accept/be more aware of my feelings about my being more comfortable as a Peircean than a theological trinitarian. I am working within the system to change it, as Gary eloquently and hopefully leads by example. My wife and I will be introduced as new members of our local episcopal church on Sunday. We are not only working within religion but also within patriarchy. I am cavalier with the word *patriarchy*, perhaps, but inequality needs to be addressed. Isn’t that either a Christian and/or a Peircean? I feel so much more hopeful and grounded because of your comments. I’ll not post again on this topic. Cheers, Mary Libertin Thanks for the On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:16 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: Gary R, Gene, Mary, list I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the 'we are now superior to this idea' sneers and condescension one sometimes associates with the term. I think one should look at the system-of-patriarchy as a rational means of organizing a population of a particular size and a particular economic mode. That is - hunting and gathering economies are SMALL - around 30 people in a band. Their economic mode is just that: hunting 'what is there' and gathering 'what is there'. These people do not own the land or its goods. When they've 'eaten their way out of a terrain', they must migrate. The metaphysical or religious ideology is animism - with multiple spirits and multiple gods. And, neither patriarch or matriarchy - because, again, this economic mode is not based on land or goods ownership or production. And it can only support SMALL populations. Horticulture and pastoral nomadism - emerges in biomes where the land enables SOME agriculture and SOME small scale ownership of animals. The populations remain small but are larger than the H - possibly in the hundreds and thousands. Patriarchy is found among pastoral nomadism. Why? Because the economy is based around the work-of-the-men. And that's the key. Any society must socially and politically privilege whichever gender or group provides the economic infrastructure of the group. So- a pastoral nomadic economy, which requires the men to herd and control the animals - will be patriarchal. It will also be patrilineal - for the, eg, cattle, must be passed on to the next generation 'as a whole', not split up into one cow here and one cow there. So, the eldest son will inherit the whole herd. Religious? Multiple gods. Polytheism. The next larger societal mode will be settled
RE: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited
EDWINA >"I'm only interested in a merit-based authority." As it should be. This is equal opportunity. Equal outcome, on the other hand, is bias. Equal outcome requires equal opportunity to be denied. Equal outcome, for example, allocates victim credits to people based on skin color or racial background and/or gender, as what is happening in many university-admissions throughout the anglosphere, whilst weighting admissions against those who are considered more "gifted" in some way. Regards sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:18 AM To: Peirce-L; Gary Richmond Subject: Re: Re: Re: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was, [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited Gary R, list First - enjoy your trip to Italy. And second, as a woman - I am utterly indifferent to whether or not 'the ruler' is male or female. I'm not for 'gender equality' in committees - or any type of visible 'equality' [eg, racial, religious, ethnic]. I'm only interested in a merit-based authority. I don't think women have any superior or inferior understanding to men and I don't see why some people 'insist' that women MUST be on such and such a committee. So- I wouldn't want a 'stable female-dominated power structure' - because I don't want power decided by gender, race, religion, ethnicity etc - but only by merit. And that's hard to do, since we seem to focus only on these more visible attributes as if they were also linked to mind/intellect/capacity to think. Again - the power structure of societies has always been based on the economic mode - and which gender or clan or family provided the wealth-producing methods. We are now in an economic mode where the physical strength of the male isn't a necessary component of the economic mode - and so- we move into gender 'equality'. But even so, the facts of biology [pregnancy, child rearing etc] affect the work -place. I think it's strange that as we moved into gender equality in the work place, the family structure weakened - with children put in the care of nurseries and day care - rather as the aristocrats did in the 19th century. Edwina On Thu 30/05/19 9:00 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: Edwina, List, Just a word for now since, as I just wrote to Jon, I've run out of time before I set off for my trip abroad. You wrote: ET: I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the 'we are now superior to this idea' sneers and condescension one sometimes associates with the term. I think one should look at the system-of-patriarchy as a rational means of organizing a population of a particular size and a particular economic mode. I don't think the issue here is the origins of patriarchy, which I think you've nicely outlined in the remainder of your post. Rather, the concern is what patriarchy has wrought in our times. I obviously can't get into this now, but will offer for now this quote from a widely cited article on the topic. https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/america-is-still-a-patriarchy/265428/ In fact—my interpretation of the facts—the United States, like every society in the world, remains a patriarchy: they are ruled by men. That is not just because every country (except Rwanda) has a majority-male national parliament, and it is despite the handful of countries with women heads of state. It is a systemic characteristic that combines dynamics at the level of the family, the economy, the culture and the political arena. Top political and economic leaders are the low-hanging fruit of patriarchy statistics. But they probably are in the end the most important—the telling pattern is that the higher you look, the maler it gets. If a society really had a stable, female-dominated power structure for an extended period of time even I would eventually question whether it was really still a patriarchy. Best, Gary Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:16 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: Gary R, Gene, Mary, list I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the 'we are now superior to this idea' sneers and condescension one sometimes associates with the term. I think one should look at the system-of-patriarchy as a rational means of organizing a population of a particular size and a particular economic mode. That is - hunting and gathering economies are SMALL - around 30 people in a band. Their economic mode is just that: hunting 'what is there' and gathering 'what is there'. These people do not own the land or its goods. When they've 'eaten their way out of a terrain', they must migrate. The metaphysical or religious ideology is animism - with multiple spirits and multiple gods. And, neither patriarch or matriarchy - because, again, this economic mode is not based on land or goods ownership or production. And it can only support SMALL
