[PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Jarosek]

List, here's an interesting article that resonates with ideas that I've
touched on in this forum (culture, neural plasticity, scaffolding,
bucket-of-bugs... no such thing as instinct, no such thing as a "blueprint"
that wires the brain). I'm not sure whether the author would take it as far
as I do, but definitely of direct semiotic/biosemiotic relevance:
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/

Barrett's paper also got me thinking about a point that I've been mulling
over recently... the importance of initial conditions (scaffolding in the
context of chaos theory)... the idea that experiences can never occur in
isolation (objectivity), but must build on prior experiences (subjectivity):

"This leads to another significant implication-that childrearing and
early childhood experiences are more important than we thought. Not only do
early experiences shape our personality and values, they also create the
wiring that will govern our perception of the world far into adulthood."

Initial conditions are particularly important in the cultural relativism
debate, for example, where the Left entertains nonsense about more than two
genders. Initial conditions based on childhood AND the body that you inhabit
lock you into a fairly narrow trajectory, with the implication that you
cannot just wake up one morning to decide that you're a special snowflake in
the wrong body, and that you need to change genders.

sj


-
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] Culture wires the brain

[Daniel L Everett]

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16611802.html

https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004132

Here are two recent works of mind on culture and cognition. I will be exploring 
these further in a specifically Peircean context in a book coming out next year 
from OUP. 

Dan Everett

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 8, 2018, at 06:12, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> List, here's an interesting article that resonates with ideas that I've
> touched on in this forum (culture, neural plasticity, scaffolding,
> bucket-of-bugs... no such thing as instinct, no such thing as a "blueprint"
> that wires the brain). I'm not sure whether the author would take it as far
> as I do, but definitely of direct semiotic/biosemiotic relevance:
> https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
> res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/
> 
> Barrett's paper also got me thinking about a point that I've been mulling
> over recently... the importance of initial conditions (scaffolding in the
> context of chaos theory)... the idea that experiences can never occur in
> isolation (objectivity), but must build on prior experiences (subjectivity):
> 
>"This leads to another significant implication-that childrearing and
> early childhood experiences are more important than we thought. Not only do
> early experiences shape our personality and values, they also create the
> wiring that will govern our perception of the world far into adulthood."
> 
> Initial conditions are particularly important in the cultural relativism
> debate, for example, where the Left entertains nonsense about more than two
> genders. Initial conditions based on childhood AND the body that you inhabit
> lock you into a fairly narrow trajectory, with the implication that you
> cannot just wake up one morning to decide that you're a special snowflake in
> the wrong body, and that you need to change genders.
> 
> sj
> 
> 
> -
> 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] Culture wires the brain

[John F Sowa]

On 8/8/2018 8:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black slate'


Both of the articles cited are contributions to the nature/nurture
debates that have been going on for centuries.  Neither one said
that the infant's mind or brain is a "blank slate" at birth.


our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires a long
nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language.
So- how do you get away from the notion that the requirement for
language is innate?


You need large numbers of researchers exploring the issues from
many points of view.  And as Peirce said, do not block the way
of inquiry.  Chomsky, for example, has spent the past 40 years in
blocking attempts to disprove his hypotheses from 60 years ago.

For example, consider "our type of socialization requires language."
That's true.  But what kind of language?  What kind of socialization?
And what aspects of each are required or optional?

Dan E. shows how a language and culture that developed in centuries
of isolation from "our type of socialization" can be radically
different from "our kind of language".

It's unethical to deprive infants of various stimuli to see what
happens, but there are naturally occurring situations that create
variations.  For an example from the other article:


So a child’s brain will develop differently depending on how
attentive her parents are, whether she lives in poverty, and
which culture she grows up in.

“Early infancy is a critical time for establishing the biology
of a healthy mind. You’re not born with a social brain, you
grow one.”


Another kind of study addresses the issues of infants raised
by parents with two different native languages, spoken and
signed.  (Not surprisingly, the study was done in Canada.)
See below.

John
___

From slide 14 of http://jfsowa.com/talks/vrmind.pdf

A study of bilingual infants whose parents speak or sign different
languages: *

● All six combinations of four languages: English, French, American
Sign Language (ASL), and Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ).

● Monolingual and bilingual babies go through the same stages and
at the same ages for both spoken and signed languages.

● Hearing babies born to profoundly deaf parents babble with their
hands, but not vocally.

● Babies bilingual in a spoken and a signed language babble in both
modalities – vocally and with their hands.

● And they express themselves with equal fluency in their spoken and
signed language at every stage of development.

The same brain areas that support spoken languages support
signed languages, but other areas are also involved. **

* Laura-Ann Petitto (2005) http://petitto.net/pubs/published

** R. Campbell, M. MacSweeney, & D. Waters (2007) Sign language
and the brain: A review.
https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/13/1/3/500594

-
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] Culture wires the brain

[John F Sowa]

On 8/8/2018 2:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I'd say this: the symbolic aspect and the agent/interaction aspect 
is required.


Yes.  And as Peirce would emphasize, there is a continuum.

That's the point of the vrmind slides:
http://jfsowa.com/talks/vrmind.pdf


I don't think that the nature/nurture question will ever be resolved!


That is a scientific question about a continuum.  And as Peirce
would say, there is a simple answer about which we can be
certain:  "Both are required to some extent."

But a more precise answer depends on a never ending search.
Science progresses by discovering more detail about the kinds
and a more quantitative answer about the extent.

And along the way we can expect many surprising new insights.
Note, for example, the infants that were bilingual  in both
a spoken and a signed language.  It's surprising that they
learned both in exactly the same stages at the same time and
with exactly the same expressive ability.

That indicates that any language of thought must be independent
of speech or gestures  --  or perhaps equally dependent on both.
Maybe, as Peirce said, the LoT is existential graphs.

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] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Jarosek]

> I don't think that the nature/nurture question will ever be resolved!

I think that imitation-as-pragmatism would go some ways towards supporting the 
nurture/blankslate hypothesis. Cats and dogs imitate the things that matter 
from their human masters to become very different, much more sociable, compared 
to their more feral predispositions... and they don't even share their masters' 
genes! Of course by imitation, I mean much more than blind copying... more like 
the sharing of assumptions (habits)... rather, imitation in the context of 
knowing how to be (Heidegger's Dasein). You don't need to have language 
"programmed" into your genetic profile... you merely need the bodily tools 
(hands, vocal chords) to predispose you to imitating your parents, and your 
neural plasticity does the rest automatically (Peirce's categories apply also 
at the cellular/neural level).

Also, how are we to interpret the role of DNA? The notion of DNA nonlocality 
(entanglement) still appeals to my gut instinct, despite the notion having been 
drummed out of "reputable" academic circles. If it's ever proven, it would 
solve a lot of concerns, for example, the binding problem.

And incidentally, both DNA nonlocality and imitation-as-pragmatism would solve 
also the entropy problem. By contrast, the notion of "instinct" (as an adaptive 
trait) does not.

Let us not underestimate imitation-as-pragmatism. Even Richard Dawkins 
appreciated the importance of imitation in his memetic theory... though the 
notion of imitation as an "adaptive trait" is certainly not what I have in 
mind. Imitation (knowing how to be) is integral to order that persists across 
time. People do it. Cats and dogs do it. Bees and ants do it. Neurons do it. 
And maybe even DNA molecules do it, too, when they entangle.

sj

-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 9:58 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

On 8/8/2018 2:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I'd say this: the symbolic aspect and the agent/interaction aspect is 
> required.

Yes.  And as Peirce would emphasize, there is a continuum.

That's the point of the vrmind slides:
http://jfsowa.com/talks/vrmind.pdf

> I don't think that the nature/nurture question will ever be resolved!

That is a scientific question about a continuum.  And as Peirce would say, 
there is a simple answer about which we can be
certain:  "Both are required to some extent."

But a more precise answer depends on a never ending search.
Science progresses by discovering more detail about the kinds and a more 
quantitative answer about the extent.

And along the way we can expect many surprising new insights.
Note, for example, the infants that were bilingual  in both a spoken and a 
signed language.  It's surprising that they learned both in exactly the same 
stages at the same time and with exactly the same expressive ability.

That indicates that any language of thought must be independent of speech or 
gestures  --  or perhaps equally dependent on both.
Maybe, as Peirce said, the LoT is existential graphs.

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] Culture wires the brain

[Eugene Halton]

John quoted the statement from an earlier article I believe:
> “Early infancy is a critical time for establishing the biology of a
healthy mind. You’re not born with a social brain, you grow one.”

 This statement seems to me to be patently false. Not only are there
socialization processes between the developing fetus and the mother's voice
in utero, but the human infant is born already with a social and
communicative brain.
 Colwyn Trevathan and Steven Malloch's research on what they term
communicative musicality shows that the newborn infant very quickly begins
to engage in dialogical banter with the mother. The banter from the infant
has the quality, phrasing, call and response timing, and narrative of
music. It is all coming from the subcortical brain of the newborn, because
the upper brain connections have not yet been made.
 That bantering interaction provides a basis for the later dialogical
interaction out of which language will develop.
 Gene H

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018, 1:45 PM John F Sowa  wrote:

> On 8/8/2018 8:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> > if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black slate'
>
> Both of the articles cited are contributions to the nature/nurture
> debates that have been going on for centuries.  Neither one said
> that the infant's mind or brain is a "blank slate" at birth.
>
> > our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires a long
> > nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language.
> > So- how do you get away from the notion that the requirement for
> > language is innate?
>
> You need large numbers of researchers exploring the issues from
> many points of view.  And as Peirce said, do not block the way
> of inquiry.  Chomsky, for example, has spent the past 40 years in
> blocking attempts to disprove his hypotheses from 60 years ago.
>
> For example, consider "our type of socialization requires language."
> That's true.  But what kind of language?  What kind of socialization?
> And what aspects of each are required or optional?
>
> Dan E. shows how a language and culture that developed in centuries
> of isolation from "our type of socialization" can be radically
> different from "our kind of language".
>
> It's unethical to deprive infants of various stimuli to see what
> happens, but there are naturally occurring situations that create
> variations.  For an example from the other article:
>
> > So a child’s brain will develop differently depending on how
> > attentive her parents are, whether she lives in poverty, and
> > which culture she grows up in.
> >
> > “Early infancy is a critical time for establishing the biology
> > of a healthy mind. You’re not born with a social brain, you
> > grow one.”
>
> Another kind of study addresses the issues of infants raised
> by parents with two different native languages, spoken and
> signed.  (Not surprisingly, the study was done in Canada.)
> See below.
>
> John
> ___
>
>  From slide 14 of http://jfsowa.com/talks/vrmind.pdf
>
> A study of bilingual infants whose parents speak or sign different
> languages: *
>
> ● All six combinations of four languages: English, French, American
> Sign Language (ASL), and Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ).
>
> ● Monolingual and bilingual babies go through the same stages and
> at the same ages for both spoken and signed languages.
>
> ● Hearing babies born to profoundly deaf parents babble with their
> hands, but not vocally.
>
> ● Babies bilingual in a spoken and a signed language babble in both
> modalities – vocally and with their hands.
>
> ● And they express themselves with equal fluency in their spoken and
> signed language at every stage of development.
>
> The same brain areas that support spoken languages support
> signed languages, but other areas are also involved. **
>
> * Laura-Ann Petitto (2005) http://petitto.net/pubs/published
>
> ** R. Campbell, M. MacSweeney, & D. Waters (2007) Sign language
> and the brain: A review.
> https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/13/1/3/500594
>

-
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] Culture wires the brain

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Interesting - but - if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind
of 'black slate' so to speak - then, how do you explain the fact that
the infant has to be socialized; i.e., our species is not born with
innate knowledge and requires a long nurturance period.  And our type
of socialization requires language. So- how do you get away from the
notion that the requirement for language is innate?

Edwina
 On Wed 08/08/18  5:14 AM , Daniel L Everett danleveret...@gmail.com
sent:

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16611802.html
[1]
 https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004132 [2]
 Here are two recent works of mind on culture and cognition. I will
be exploring these further in a specifically Peircean context in a
book coming out next year from OUP.  
 Dan Everett
 Sent from my iPhone
 On Aug 8, 2018, at 06:12, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
 List, here's an interesting article that resonates with ideas that
I've
 touched on in this forum (culture, neural plasticity, scaffolding,
 bucket-of-bugs... no such thing as instinct, no such thing as a
"blueprint" 
 that wires the brain). I'm not sure whether the author would take it
as far
 as I do, but definitely of direct semiotic/biosemiotic relevance:

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
[4]
 res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/
 Barrett's paper also got me thinking about a point that I've been
mulling 
 over recently... the importance of initial conditions (scaffolding
in the
 context of chaos theory)... the idea that experiences can never
occur in
 isolation (objectivity), but must build on prior experiences
(subjectivity):
 "This leads to another significant implication-that childrearing
and
 early childhood experiences are more important than we thought. Not
only do
 early experiences shape our personality and values, they also create
the 
 wiring that will govern our perception of the world far into
adulthood."
 Initial conditions are particularly important in the cultural
relativism
 debate, for example, where the Left entertains nonsense about more
than two
 genders. Initial conditions based on childhood AND the body that you
inhabit
 lock you into a fairly narrow trajectory, with the implication that
you
 cannot just wake up one morning to decide that you're a special
snowflake in 
 the wrong body, and that you need to change genders.
 sj
 -
 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 [5] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to  l...@list.iupui.edu [6] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [7] .


Links:
--
[1]
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16611802.html
[2] https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004132
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'sjaro...@iinet.net.au\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7] 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] Culture wires the brain

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list:

I would further say that our species requires language since our
knowledge is not innate and must be both developed and learned.

What kind of language? All language is primarily symbolic and all
language must acknowledge agents and interactions. Or subject/object
and verbs. Other aspects such as grammatical structure, numbers, etc
are variable. 

I'd say this: the symbolic aspect and the agent/interaction aspect
is required.

Socialization is simply based around the acknowledgement of others
and their, and your, role in the functioning in the group.

As far as bilingual and trilingual children [common in Europe]  - as
you note, there seems to be no problem. I'm aware of many such
families - and even more, how the infant connects the language to the
person. Such that - if Parent A is speaking Language Y most of the
time, and Parent B speaks Zthe child will get quite upset if the
languages are switched. 

I don't think that the nature/nurture question will ever be
resolved!

Edwina
 On Wed 08/08/18  1:44 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
 On 8/8/2018 8:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: 
 > if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black slate' 
 Both of the articles cited are contributions to the nature/nurture 
 debates that have been going on for centuries.  Neither one said 
 that the infant's mind or brain is a "blank slate" at birth. 
 > our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires a long 
 > nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires
language. 
 > So- how do you get away from the notion that the requirement for 
 > language is innate? 
 You need large numbers of researchers exploring the issues from 
 many points of view.  And as Peirce said, do not block the way 
 of inquiry.  Chomsky, for example, has spent the past 40 years in 
 blocking attempts to disprove his hypotheses from 60 years ago. 
 For example, consider "our type of socialization requires language."

 That's true.  But what kind of language?  What kind of
socialization? 
 And what aspects of each are required or optional? 
 Dan E. shows how a language and culture that developed in centuries 
 of isolation from "our type of socialization" can be radically 
 different from "our kind of language". 
 It's unethical to deprive infants of various stimuli to see what 
 happens, but there are naturally occurring situations that create 
 variations.  For an example from the other article: 
 > So a child’s brain will develop differently depending on how 
 > attentive her parents are, whether she lives in poverty, and 
 > which culture she grows up in. 
 >  
 > “Early infancy is a critical time for establishing the biology 
 > of a healthy mind. You’re not born with a social brain, you 
 > grow one.” 
 Another kind of study addresses the issues of infants raised 
 by parents with two different native languages, spoken and 
 signed.  (Not surprisingly, the study was done in Canada.) 
 See below. 
 John 
 ___ 
  From slide 14 of http://jfsowa.com/talks/vrmind.pdf [1] 
 A study of bilingual infants whose parents speak or sign different 
 languages: * 
 ● All six combinations of four languages: English, French,
American 
 Sign Language (ASL), and Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ). 
 ● Monolingual and bilingual babies go through the same stages and 
 at the same ages for both spoken and signed languages. 
 ● Hearing babies born to profoundly deaf parents babble with their

 hands, but not vocally. 
 ● Babies bilingual in a spoken and a signed language babble in
both 
 modalities – vocally and with their hands. 
 ● And they express themselves with equal fluency in their spoken
and 
 signed language at every stage of development. 
 The same brain areas that support spoken languages support 
 signed languages, but other areas are also involved. ** 
 * Laura-Ann Petitto (2005) http://petitto.net/pubs/published [2] 
 ** R. Campbell, M. MacSweeney, & D. Waters (2007) Sign language 
 and the brain: A review. 
 https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/13/1/3/500594 [3] 


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fjfsowa.com%2Ftalks%2Fvrmind.pdf
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fpetitto.net%2Fpubs%2Fpublished
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Facademic.oup.com%2Fjdsde%2Farticle%2F13%2F1%2F3%2F500594

-
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: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Helmut Raulien]

Eugene, List,

 

Thank you, Eugene! It is necessary to exactly distinguish, which parts of behaviour and intelligence are influenced by culture, and which not. One should not infer from differences regarding spatial orientation and awareness of specific environmental events (snakes, caimans) to social capabilities, predispositions, and behaviours.

 

Regarding language: What about body language, especially facial _expression_? It is the same with all humans, the remotest and most isolated ones too. You go visit a stone age tribe in Papua-New Guinea, who never have met other people before, and you can communicate with them using hands, feet, and facial expressions. And they love their babies too, and bury their deceased ones (ok, they eat their brains, which we don´t do, and sometimes they shoot each other with arrows, unlike us who kill each other by social marginalisation with poverty, but that is details cherry picking).

 

I wish, more experts such as you would intervene and put things right. Sociology and development psychology exists for centuries now. There is no justified space for ethnopluralism in a serious discussion I say.

 

Best,

Helmut
 

 

 08. August 2018 um 23:00 Uhr
 "Eugene Halton" 
 


John quoted the statement from an earlier article I believe:
> “Early infancy is a critical time for establishing the biology of a healthy mind. You’re not born with a social brain, you grow one.”

 

     This statement seems to me to be patently false. Not only are there socialization processes between the developing fetus and the mother's voice in utero, but the human infant is born already with a social and communicative brain. 

     Colwyn Trevathan and Steven Malloch's research on what they term communicative musicality shows that the newborn infant very quickly begins to engage in dialogical banter with the mother. The banter from the infant has the quality, phrasing, call and response timing, and narrative of music. It is all coming from the subcortical brain of the newborn, because the upper brain connections have not yet been made.

     That bantering interaction provides a basis for the later dialogical interaction out of which language will develop.

     Gene H 

 


On Wed, Aug 8, 2018, 1:45 PM John F Sowa  wrote:

On 8/8/2018 8:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black slate'

Both of the articles cited are contributions to the nature/nurture
debates that have been going on for centuries.  Neither one said
that the infant's mind or brain is a "blank slate" at birth.

> our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires a long
> nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language.
> So- how do you get away from the notion that the requirement for
> language is innate?

You need large numbers of researchers exploring the issues from
many points of view.  And as Peirce said, do not block the way
of inquiry.  Chomsky, for example, has spent the past 40 years in
blocking attempts to disprove his hypotheses from 60 years ago.

For example, consider "our type of socialization requires language."
That's true.  But what kind of language?  What kind of socialization?
And what aspects of each are required or optional?

Dan E. shows how a language and culture that developed in centuries
of isolation from "our type of socialization" can be radically
different from "our kind of language".

It's unethical to deprive infants of various stimuli to see what
happens, but there are naturally occurring situations that create
variations.  For an example from the other article:

> So a child’s brain will develop differently depending on how
> attentive her parents are, whether she lives in poverty, and
> which culture she grows up in.
>
> “Early infancy is a critical time for establishing the biology
> of a healthy mind. You’re not born with a social brain, you
> grow one.”

Another kind of study addresses the issues of infants raised
by parents with two different native languages, spoken and
signed.  (Not surprisingly, the study was done in Canada.)
See below.

John
___

 From slide 14 of http://jfsowa.com/talks/vrmind.pdf

A study of bilingual infants whose parents speak or sign different
languages: *

● All six combinations of four languages: English, French, American
Sign Language (ASL), and Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ).

● Monolingual and bilingual babies go through the same stages and
at the same ages for both spoken and signed languages.

● Hearing babies born to profoundly deaf parents babble with their
hands, but not vocally.

● Babies bilingual in a spoken and a signed language babble in both
modalities – vocally and with their hands.

● And they express themselves with equal fluency in their spoken and
signed language at every stage of development.

The same brain areas that support spoken languages support
signed languages, but other areas

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Eugene Halton]

Dear Helmut,
 Thank you for your comments Helmut. I have been trying to address some
of these issues in different writings. In a chapter published a few years
ago titled "From the Emergent Drama of Interpretation to Enscreenment" I
also made use of Peirce and pragmatist philosopher George Herbert Mead to
argue for a model of "dramatic evolution," as an aspect of the emergence of
human symboling capacities, an aspect which can involve both genetic and
cultural elements, and Peirce's idea of energetic projaculation. I can send
a copy of the chapter if you would like one. For example, in the context of
my previous post:
 "Though communicative cooperation is the starting point for Mead’s
model of the interactive situation, it begins even earlier than Mead
imagined, stemming from the subcortical infant brain from within hours of
birth, as Meltzoff and Moore (1977; Meltzoff 2002) and Trevarthen (1980),
have shown. Such communicative cooperation is possible in newborn and
infant interaction with mothers, a dramatic dialogue without the presence
of a fully organized object that can be responded to, yet an object
sufficiently co-present that dialogical interaction can occur. This
situation stems from genetically transmitted, physiological needs of the
infant, called out through call and response gestural repartee with the
mother/caretaker (Hrdy 2009). This dialogue illustrates one of the ways in
which nature and culture play, and how homo sapiens sapiens needs to be
understood not simply as homo competitor, but as what Johannes Huizinga
originally introduced as homo ludens, man playing."
 I also have been pursuing related ideas with others. I helped
co-organize a conference 2 years ago on issues of indigenous wisdom for
contemporary flourishing, that will be published in the next year as an
edited book.
 Gene Halton


On Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 5:22 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Eugene, List,
>
> Thank you, Eugene! It is necessary to exactly distinguish, which parts of
> behaviour and intelligence are influenced by culture, and which not. One
> should not infer from differences regarding spatial orientation and
> awareness of specific environmental events (snakes, caimans) to social
> capabilities, predispositions, and behaviours.
>
> Regarding language: What about body language, especially facial
> expression? It is the same with all humans, the remotest and most isolated
> ones too. You go visit a stone age tribe in Papua-New Guinea, who never
> have met other people before, and you can communicate with them using
> hands, feet, and facial expressions. And they love their babies too, and
> bury their deceased ones (ok, they eat their brains, which we don´t do, and
> sometimes they shoot each other with arrows, unlike us who kill each other
> by social marginalisation with poverty, but that is details cherry picking).
>
> I wish, more experts such as you would intervene and put things right.
> Sociology and development psychology exists for centuries now. There is no
> justified space for ethnopluralism in a serious discussion I say.
>
> Best,
> Helmut
>
>
>  08. August 2018 um 23:00 Uhr
>  "Eugene Halton" 
>
> John quoted the statement from an earlier article I believe:
> > “Early infancy is a critical time for establishing the biology of a
> healthy mind. You’re not born with a social brain, you grow one.”
>
>  This statement seems to me to be patently false. Not only are there
> socialization processes between the developing fetus and the mother's voice
> in utero, but the human infant is born already with a social and
> communicative brain.
>  Colwyn Trevathan and Steven Malloch's research on what they term
> communicative musicality shows that the newborn infant very quickly begins
> to engage in dialogical banter with the mother. The banter from the infant
> has the quality, phrasing, call and response timing, and narrative of
> music. It is all coming from the subcortical brain of the newborn, because
> the upper brain connections have not yet been made.
>  That bantering interaction provides a basis for the later dialogical
> interaction out of which language will develop.
>  Gene H
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018, 1:45 PM John F Sowa  wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2018 8:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>> > if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black slate'
>>
>> Both of the articles cited are contributions to the nature/nurture
>> debates that have been going on for centuries.  Neither one said
>> that the infant's mind or brain is a "blank slate" at birth.
>>
>> > our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires a long
>> > nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language.
>> > So- how do you get away from the notion that the requirement for
>> > language is innate?
>>
>> You need large numbers of researchers exploring the issues from
>> many points of view.  And as Peirce said, do not block the way
>> of inquiry.  Chomsky, for example, has spent the past 4

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,

I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts, but they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other instincts, which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and warrior instincts.

I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad predispositions, which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the purpose of surviving there too. But of course, a human always has choices.

The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.


A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture. In a war situation, bad instincts are awakened, up to making psychopaths out of people. A psychiatrist visiting a continuous war zone in Congo has said, the psychopaths ratio in the population was 70%. The other 30% remain, because people still have brains and choices.

All this may have to do with "brain wiring", ok, but not with cultural relativity, as "rigid", "liberal", "equality-supporting", and so on are universal terms.

Best,

Helmut


08. August 2018 um 14:41 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
wrote:


Interesting - but - if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black slate' so to speak - then, how do you explain the fact that the infant has to be socialized; i.e., our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires a long nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language. So- how do you get away from the notion that the requirement for language is innate?

Edwina

 

On Wed 08/08/18 5:14 AM , Daniel L Everett danleveret...@gmail.com sent:


https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16611802.html

 

https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004132

 

Here are two recent works of mind on culture and cognition. I will be exploring these further in a specifically Peircean context in a book coming out next year from OUP. 

 

Dan Everett

 
Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 8, 2018, at 06:12, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
 


List, here's an interesting article that resonates with ideas that I've
touched on in this forum (culture, neural plasticity, scaffolding,
bucket-of-bugs... no such thing as instinct, no such thing as a "blueprint"
that wires the brain). I'm not sure whether the author would take it as far
as I do, but definitely of direct semiotic/biosemiotic relevance:
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/

Barrett's paper also got me thinking about a point that I've been mulling
over recently... the importance of initial conditions (scaffolding in the
context of chaos theory)... the idea that experiences can never occur in
isolation (objectivity), but must build on prior experiences (subjectivity):

   "This leads to another significant implication-that childrearing and
early childhood experiences are more important than we thought. Not only do
early experiences shape our personality and values, they also create the
wiring that will govern our perception of the world far into adulthood."

Initial conditions are particularly important in the cultural relativism
debate, for example, where the Left entertains nonsense about more than two
genders. Initial conditions based on childhood AND the body that you inhabit
lock you into a fairly narrow trajectory, with the implication that you
cannot just wake up one morning to decide that you're a special snowflake in
the wrong body, and that you need to change genders.

sj
 




-
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 .




-
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 PEI

RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Jarosek]

HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than 
two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid 
anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, 
none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to 
them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of 
two labels is rigid.”

The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a 
problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they 
respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative” 
definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal at 
all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.

HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal 
culture.”

Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree. It is 
the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the Right 
their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with nazis. They 
want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their fascism 
masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the violence of their 
Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their hypocrisy. History is 
repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center of it, fascism red in 
hammer and sickle.

sj

 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

 

Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,

I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts, but 
they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other instincts, 
which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and warrior 
instincts.

I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and 
equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad predispositions, 
which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the purpose of surviving there 
too. But of course, a human always has choices.

The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two 
genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid 
anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, 
none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to 
them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of 
two labels is rigid.

A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture. In a 
war situation, bad instincts are awakened, up to making psychopaths out of 
people. A psychiatrist visiting a continuous war zone in Congo has said, the 
psychopaths ratio in the population was 70%. The other 30% remain, because 
people still have brains and choices.

All this may have to do with "brain wiring", ok, but not with cultural 
relativity, as "rigid", "liberal", "equality-supporting", and so on are 
universal terms.

Best,

Helmut

08. August 2018 um 14:41 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
wrote:

Interesting - but - if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black 
slate' so to speak - then, how do you explain the fact that the infant has to 
be socialized; i.e., our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires 
a long nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language. So- 
how do you get away from the notion that the requirement for language is innate?

Edwina

 

On Wed 08/08/18 5:14 AM , Daniel L Everett danleveret...@gmail.com sent:


https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16611802.html 

 

https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004132

 

Here are two recent works of mind on culture and cognition. I will be exploring 
these further in a specifically Peircean context in a book coming out next year 
from OUP. 

 

Dan Everett

  

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 8, 2018, at 06:12, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
 

List, here's an interesting article that resonates with ideas that I've
touched on in this forum (culture, neural plasticity, scaffolding,
bucket-of-bugs... no such thing as instinct, no such thing as a "blueprint"
that wires the brain). I'm not sure whether the author would take it as far
as I do, but definitely of direct semiotic/biosemiotic relevance:
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/

Barrett's paper also got me thinking about a point that I've been mulling
over recently... the importance of initial conditions (scaffolding in the
context of chaos theory)... the idea that experiences 

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give
of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering
post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are
nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if
they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a
democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not
sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to
apologize. Cheers, S

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek 
wrote:

> HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are
> more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not
> wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian,
> gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of
> those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that
> presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.”
>
> The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a
> problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they
> respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative”
> definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal
> at all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.
>
> HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal
> culture.”
>
> Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree.
> It is the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the
> Right their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with
> nazis. They want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their
> fascism masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the
> violence of their Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their
> hypocrisy. History is repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center
> of it, fascism red in hammer and sickle.
>
> sj
>
>
>
> *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
> *To:* tabor...@primus.ca
> *Cc:* Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L
> *Subject:* Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain
>
>
>
> Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,
>
> I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts,
> but they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other
> instincts, which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and
> warrior instincts.
>
> I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and
> equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad
> predispositions, which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the
> purpose of surviving there too. But of course, a human always has choices.
>
> The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two
> genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid
> anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both,
> none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better
> to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody
> one of two labels is rigid.
>
> A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture.
> In a war situation, bad instincts are awakened, up to making psychopaths
> out of people. A psychiatrist visiting a continuous war zone in Congo has
> said, the psychopaths ratio in the population was 70%. The other 30%
> remain, because people still have brains and choices.
>
> All this may have to do with "brain wiring", ok, but not with cultural
> relativity, as "rigid", "liberal", "equality-supporting", and so on are
> universal terms.
>
> Best,
>
> Helmut
>
> 08. August 2018 um 14:41 Uhr
>  "Edwina Taborsky" 
> wrote:
>
> Interesting - but - if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of
> 'black slate' so to speak - then, how do you explain the fact that the
> infant has to be socialized; i.e., our species is not born with innate
> knowledge and requires a long nurturance period.  And our type
> of socialization requires language. So- how do you get away from the notion
> that the requirement for language is innate?
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> *On Wed 08/08/18 5:14 AM , Daniel L Everett danleveret...@gmail.com
>  sent:*
>
>
> https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16611802.html
>
>
>
> https://ling.auf.ne

RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Jarosek]

The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to 
identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the 
liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me of 
the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J):
https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag

So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe in to 
apologize to you… or walk away.

sj

 

From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

 

Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give of 
fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering post-modernist 
French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are nonviolent, oppose 
war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if they are rabidly opposed 
to their opponents. They can embrace a democratic-socialist all the way to a 
necessarily blue dog type. I am not sure where the animus behind your words 
comes from but I am tempted to apologize. Cheers, S




amazon.com/author/stephenrose

 

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:

HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than 
two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid 
anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, 
none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to 
them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of 
two labels is rigid.”

The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a 
problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they 
respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative” 
definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal at 
all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.

HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal 
culture.”

Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree. It is 
the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the Right 
their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with nazis. They 
want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their fascism 
masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the violence of their 
Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their hypocrisy. History is 
repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center of it, fascism red in 
hammer and sickle.

sj

 

From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

 

Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,

I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts, but 
they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other instincts, 
which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and warrior 
instincts.

I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and 
equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad predispositions, 
which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the purpose of surviving there 
too. But of course, a human always has choices.

The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two 
genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid 
anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, 
none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to 
them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of 
two labels is rigid.

A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture. In a 
war situation, bad instincts are awakened, up to making psychopaths out of 
people. A psychiatrist visiting a continuous war zone in Congo has said, the 
psychopaths ratio in the population was 70%. The other 30% remain, because 
people still have brains and choices.

All this may have to do with "brain wiring", ok, but not with cultural 
relativity, as "rigid", "liberal", "equality-supporting", and so on are 
universal terms.

Best,

Helmut

08. August 2018 um 14:41 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
wrote:

Interesting - but - if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of 'black 
slate' so to speak - then, how do you explain the fact that the infant has to 
be socialized; i.e., our species is not born with innate knowledge and requires 
a long nurturance period.  And our type of socialization requires language. So- 
how do you get away from th

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the right
and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both
prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the
time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable
effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad
captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a
liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as
the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of
democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect
Peirce did.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek 
wrote:

> The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to
> identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the
> liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me
> of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J):
> https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag
>
> So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe in
> to apologize to you… or walk away.
>
> sj
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
> *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain
>
>
>
> Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give
> of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering
> post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are
> nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if
> they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a
> democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not
> sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to
> apologize. Cheers, S
>
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek 
> wrote:
>
> HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are
> more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not
> wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian,
> gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of
> those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that
> presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.”
>
> The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a
> problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they
> respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative”
> definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal
> at all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.
>
> HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal
> culture.”
>
> Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree.
> It is the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the
> Right their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with
> nazis. They want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their
> fascism masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the
> violence of their Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their
> hypocrisy. History is repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center
> of it, fascism red in hammer and sickle.
>
> sj
>
>
>
> *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
> *To:* tabor...@primus.ca
> *Cc:* Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L
> *Subject:* Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain
>
>
>
> Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,
>
> I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts,
> but they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other
> instincts, which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and
> warrior instincts.
>
> I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and
> equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad
> predispositions, which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the
> purpose of surviving there too. But of course, a human always has choices.
>
> The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two
> genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid
> anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both,
> none, or between man and woman...", if they feel on

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Helmut Raulien]

Stephen, Stephen, List,

 

I think it would be better, if in politics Peirce´s existential graphs would be applied. Then it would e.g. be clear, that if "liberal" is inside the cut, "fascist" , and "hammer and sickle" would be outside of it. Also quasi-fascists calling themselves liberals, and people claiming the existence of liberal fascists, would not work with EGs.

Also the sayings "The path should resemble the goal", and "the way to hell is paved with good intentions" could be easily sketched with EGs, I guess.

The kinds of weird double-negations that are used in politics instead of the Peircean cut should be analysed with Peirce, I think. Ok, who will do it?

 

Best,

Helmut

 

 10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
 "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
 


I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the right and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect Peirce did.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:




The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J):
https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag

So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe in to apologize to you… or walk away.

sj

 


From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain




 


Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to apologize. Cheers, S



 









amazon.com/author/stephenrose









 


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:



HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.”

The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative” definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal at all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.

HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture.”

Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree. It is the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the Right their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with nazis. They want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their fascism masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the violence of their Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their hypocrisy. History is repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center of it, fascism red in hammer and sickle.

sj

 



From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain



 




Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,



I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts, but they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other instincts, which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and warrior instincts.



I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and equality-supporting 

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

EGs are an acquired taste like frogs legs and kale. Words that survive have
many permutations. I would never use myth to mean something not real or a
lie. But there we have it. We are in a very binary phase. But when we come
out of it we need to suggest that some things are ontological -- true
regardless -- and liberal is not quite there but it is close because it is
tolerant, democratic and helpful and these are three ontological action
values that time will vindicate.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Stephen, Stephen, List,
>
> I think it would be better, if in politics Peirce´s existential graphs
> would be applied. Then it would e.g. be clear, that if "liberal" is inside
> the cut, "fascist" , and "hammer and sickle" would be outside of it. Also
> quasi-fascists calling themselves liberals, and people claiming the
> existence of liberal fascists, would not work with EGs.
> Also the sayings "The path should resemble the goal", and "the way to hell
> is paved with good intentions" could be easily sketched with EGs, I guess.
> The kinds of weird double-negations that are used in politics instead of
> the Peircean cut should be analysed with Peirce, I think. Ok, who will do
> it?
>
> Best,
> Helmut
>
>  10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
>  "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
>
> I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the right
> and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both
> prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the
> time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable
> effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad
> captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a
> liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as
> the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of
> democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect
> Peirce did.
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek 
> wrote:
>>
>> The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to
>> identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the
>> liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me
>> of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J
>> ):
>> https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag
>>
>> So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe
>> in to apologize to you… or walk away.
>>
>> sj
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
>> *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give
>> of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering
>> post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are
>> nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if
>> they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a
>> democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not
>> sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to
>> apologize. Cheers, S
>>
>>
>>
>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek 
>> wrote:
>>
>> HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are
>> more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not
>> wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian,
>> gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of
>> those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that
>> presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.”
>>
>> The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a
>> problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they
>> respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative”
>> definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal
>> at all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.
>>
>> HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal
>> culture.”
>>
>> Many of us observing proceedings taking place 

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Helmut Raulien]

Stephen C. R., List,

 

I agree with the action values. But aren´t EGs the proper tool for ontology? Because Ontology is about being, existence, what "is", but the term "is" is ambiguous, or polyguous, other than the "cut" of the EGs, which is well defined, and not culture- or taste-relative? I am not very much into EGs, especially not the beta- gamma- and so on graphs. Somebody else please say something.

 

Best,

Helmut

 

11. August 2018 um 13:30 Uhr
"Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
wrote:


EGs are an acquired taste like frogs legs and kale. Words that survive have many permutations. I would never use myth to mean something not real or a lie. But there we have it. We are in a very binary phase. But when we come out of it we need to suggest that some things are ontological -- true regardless -- and liberal is not quite there but it is close because it is tolerant, democratic and helpful and these are three ontological action values that time will vindicate.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:





Stephen, Stephen, List,

 

I think it would be better, if in politics Peirce´s existential graphs would be applied. Then it would e.g. be clear, that if "liberal" is inside the cut, "fascist" , and "hammer and sickle" would be outside of it. Also quasi-fascists calling themselves liberals, and people claiming the existence of liberal fascists, would not work with EGs.

Also the sayings "The path should resemble the goal", and "the way to hell is paved with good intentions" could be easily sketched with EGs, I guess.

The kinds of weird double-negations that are used in politics instead of the Peircean cut should be analysed with Peirce, I think. Ok, who will do it?

 

Best,

Helmut

 

 10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
 "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
 




I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the right and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect Peirce did.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:




The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J):
https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag

So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe in to apologize to you… or walk away.

sj

 


From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain




 


Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to apologize. Cheers, S



 









amazon.com/author/stephenrose









 


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:



HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.”

The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative” definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal at all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.

HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war tha

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

, I think. Ok, who will do
>>> it?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>>  10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
>>>  "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
>>>
>>> I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the right
>>> and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both
>>> prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the
>>> time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable
>>> effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad
>>> captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a
>>> liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as
>>> the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of
>>> democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect
>>> Peirce did.
>>>
>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used
>>>> to identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and
>>>> the liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds
>>>> me of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time
>>>> J):
>>>> https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag
>>>>
>>>> So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe
>>>> in to apologize to you… or walk away.
>>>>
>>>> sj
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
>>>> *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you
>>>> give of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering
>>>> post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are
>>>> nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if
>>>> they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a
>>>> democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not
>>>> sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to
>>>> apologize. Cheers, S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek <
>>>> sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are
>>>> more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not
>>>> wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian,
>>>> gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of
>>>> those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that
>>>> presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.”
>>>>
>>>> The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have
>>>> a problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as
>>>> they respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist
>>>> “alternative” definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed
>>>> are not liberal at all… they have an agenda and their demands are
>>>> propaganda.
>>>>
>>>> HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a
>>>> liberal culture.”
>>>>
>>>> Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would
>>>> disagree. It is the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to
>>>> deny the Right their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree
>>>> with nazis. They want to deny a president that was democratically elected.
>>>> Their fascism masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the
>>>> violence of their Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their
>>>> hypocrisy. History is repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center
>>>> of it, fascism red in hammer and sickle.
>>

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

phs
>>>> would be applied. Then it would e.g. be clear, that if "liberal" is inside
>>>> the cut, "fascist" , and "hammer and sickle" would be outside of it. Also
>>>> quasi-fascists calling themselves liberals, and people claiming the
>>>> existence of liberal fascists, would not work with EGs.
>>>> Also the sayings "The path should resemble the goal", and "the way to
>>>> hell is paved with good intentions" could be easily sketched with EGs, I
>>>> guess.
>>>> The kinds of weird double-negations that are used in politics instead
>>>> of the Peircean cut should be analysed with Peirce, I think. Ok, who will
>>>> do it?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>>  10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
>>>>  "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
>>>>
>>>> I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the
>>>> right and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both
>>>> prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the
>>>> time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable
>>>> effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad
>>>> captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a
>>>> liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as
>>>> the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of
>>>> democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect
>>>> Peirce did.
>>>>
>>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek >>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used
>>>>> to identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and
>>>>> the liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip 
>>>>> reminds
>>>>> me of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time
>>>>> J):
>>>>> https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag
>>>>>
>>>>> So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you
>>>>> believe in to apologize to you… or walk away.
>>>>>
>>>>> sj
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
>>>>> *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you
>>>>> give of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering
>>>>> post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are
>>>>> nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if
>>>>> they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a
>>>>> democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not
>>>>> sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to
>>>>> apologize. Cheers, S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek <
>>>>> sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are
>>>>> more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not
>>>>> wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like 
>>>>> "lesbian,
>>>>> gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of
>>>>> those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that
>>>>> presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.”
>>>>>
>>>>> The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not
>>>>> have a problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long
>>>>> as they respect others’ pe

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Helmut Raulien]

ho will do it?

 

Best,

Helmut

 

 10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
 "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
 




I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the right and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect Peirce did.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:




The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J):
https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag

So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe in to apologize to you… or walk away.

sj

 


From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain




 


Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to apologize. Cheers, S



 









amazon.com/author/stephenrose









 


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:



HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.”

The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative” definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal at all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda.

HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture.”

Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree. It is the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the Right their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with nazis. They want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their fascism masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the violence of their Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their hypocrisy. History is repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center of it, fascism red in hammer and sickle.

sj

 



From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain



 




Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List,



I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts, but they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other instincts, which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and warrior instincts.



I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad predispositions, which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the purpose of surviving there too. But of course, a human always has choices.



The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.




A rigid culture is more likely o

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

e the term triadic
>>> or the notion of semiotics. They gain some traction but NO. EGs will not
>>> have a chance in a million of doing what ontology does for free. It
>>> validates those values! If it can validate EGs more power to them. If we
>>> are not also communicators along with whatever else we say we do, we are
>>> whistling in the wind with Peirce notions. They will continue to languish
>>> in places few will ever be aware of. The Cosmos is an invitation to narrow
>>> our messaging. I see our role as fathoming what we can say about ourselves
>>> and reality as a whole. EG's -- even the word ontology -- is specialized in
>>> the climate of our world. Best we fight for things that have a chance of
>>> gaining a hearing and a seeing. We are fighting obsolescence that is
>>> formidable -- much of it in the realm of thought.
>>>
>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Helmut Raulien 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stephen C. R., List,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the action values. But aren´t EGs *the* proper tool for
>>>> ontology? Because Ontology is about being, existence, what "is", but the
>>>> term "is" is ambiguous, or polyguous, other than the "cut" of the EGs,
>>>> which is well defined, and not culture- or taste-relative? I am not very
>>>> much into EGs, especially not the beta- gamma- and so on graphs. Somebody
>>>> else please say something.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>> 11. August 2018 um 13:30 Uhr
>>>> "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> EGs are an acquired taste like frogs legs and kale. Words that survive
>>>> have many permutations. I would never use myth to mean something not real
>>>> or a lie. But there we have it. We are in a very binary phase. But when we
>>>> come out of it we need to suggest that some things are ontological -- true
>>>> regardless -- and liberal is not quite there but it is close because it is
>>>> tolerant, democratic and helpful and these are three ontological action
>>>> values that time will vindicate.
>>>>
>>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Helmut Raulien 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen, Stephen, List,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would be better, if in politics Peirce´s existential graphs
>>>>> would be applied. Then it would e.g. be clear, that if "liberal" is inside
>>>>> the cut, "fascist" , and "hammer and sickle" would be outside of it. Also
>>>>> quasi-fascists calling themselves liberals, and people claiming the
>>>>> existence of liberal fascists, would not work with EGs.
>>>>> Also the sayings "The path should resemble the goal", and "the way to
>>>>> hell is paved with good intentions" could be easily sketched with EGs, I
>>>>> guess.
>>>>> The kinds of weird double-negations that are used in politics instead
>>>>> of the Peircean cut should be analysed with Peirce, I think. Ok, who will
>>>>> do it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>
>>>>>  10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
>>>>>  "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
>>>>>
>>>>> I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the
>>>>> right and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both
>>>>> prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the
>>>>> time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable
>>>>> effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad
>>>>> captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a
>>>>> liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as
>>>>> the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of
>>>>> democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect
>>>>> Peirce did.
>>>>>
>>>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek <
>>>>> sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>>&

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain

[Helmut Raulien]

servative- There we have it, the complications and complexities).

 

Best,

Helmut

 

 11. August 2018 um 17:40 Uhr


"Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
wrote:






Here's the deal. I am a professional communicator with a broad knowledge of how this all works. The way Peirce is now done you are talking of something that exists in a thimble somewhere. We may like the term triadic or the notion of semiotics. They gain some traction but NO. EGs will not have a chance in a million of doing what ontology does for free. It validates those values! If it can validate EGs more power to them. If we are not also communicators along with whatever else we say we do, we are whistling in the wind with Peirce notions. They will continue to languish in places few will ever be aware of. The Cosmos is an invitation to narrow our messaging. I see our role as fathoming what we can say about ourselves and reality as a whole. EG's -- even the word ontology -- is specialized in the climate of our world. Best we fight for things that have a chance of gaining a hearing and a seeing. We are fighting obsolescence that is formidable -- much of it in the realm of thought.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:





Stephen C. R., List,

 

I agree with the action values. But aren´t EGs the proper tool for ontology? Because Ontology is about being, existence, what "is", but the term "is" is ambiguous, or polyguous, other than the "cut" of the EGs, which is well defined, and not culture- or taste-relative? I am not very much into EGs, especially not the beta- gamma- and so on graphs. Somebody else please say something.

 

Best,

Helmut

 

11. August 2018 um 13:30 Uhr
"Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
wrote:




EGs are an acquired taste like frogs legs and kale. Words that survive have many permutations. I would never use myth to mean something not real or a lie. But there we have it. We are in a very binary phase. But when we come out of it we need to suggest that some things are ontological -- true regardless -- and liberal is not quite there but it is close because it is tolerant, democratic and helpful and these are three ontological action values that time will vindicate.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:





Stephen, Stephen, List,

 

I think it would be better, if in politics Peirce´s existential graphs would be applied. Then it would e.g. be clear, that if "liberal" is inside the cut, "fascist" , and "hammer and sickle" would be outside of it. Also quasi-fascists calling themselves liberals, and people claiming the existence of liberal fascists, would not work with EGs.

Also the sayings "The path should resemble the goal", and "the way to hell is paved with good intentions" could be easily sketched with EGs, I guess.

The kinds of weird double-negations that are used in politics instead of the Peircean cut should be analysed with Peirce, I think. Ok, who will do it?

 

Best,

Helmut

 

 10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
 "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
 




I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the right and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect Peirce did.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:




The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J):
https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag

So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe in to apologize to you… or walk away.

sj

 


From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain




 


Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my e