Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Helmut - you wrote:

1] " I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked:
Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico."

What does 'IT' refer to? What worked? 

2] The Marxist-Leninist theory of linear socioeconomic phases is
simply a Seminar Room Theory. It's not a FACT. 

3] You wrote:

"Luther edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same
freedom, he advertised before for christian people, and he argued
with his theory of the two realms"

What freedom? 

And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?

4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'.
But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining
things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of
socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed
- will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on.

As is said: 'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'...

I think pragmatic realism is the sensible path..It doesn't dwell in
the land of 'If Only'. 

Edwina
 On Mon 26/06/17  6:14 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Edwina, Gary, List, I am against utopism too, but I do not see what
should be wrong with the Leap Manifesto: They are not propagating an
utopian regime, but a basic-democratic change. And that is not
utopian (no place), I spontaneously recall at least two places where
it has worked: Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico. In the
Spanish revolution 1936 the Soviet Union fought against the
revolutionists, because they had success in changing the politics too
fast for marxist theory, in a basic-democratic way, establishing a
socialism after feudalism, skipping capitalism, which is not allowed
by the marxist-leninist theory. In the 16nth century, Martin Luther
edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same freedom,
he advertised before for christian people, and he argued with his
theory of the two realms. With these two examples I want to say, that
I think, that a theory (neither the Peircean one) must be not
normative, but only explanatory. It should not forbid social
evolution (and evolution is not always continuous, but leaps
sometimes), but merely explain it afterwards. And if something
happens, that cannot be explained by an existing theory- Well, we are
good at making up new, suiting theories, aren´t we? Best, Helmut
26. Juni 2017 um 22:26 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
  Gary R, list: 

Yes, I think that any utopian regime, to maintain its 'purity of
type', must act as an Authoritarian regime to maintain the holistic
purity and prevent the natural dissipation of type that occurs within
the natural operations of both Secondness and Firstness. That is - it
must reject any incidents of Secondness and Firstness. [Entropy is a
natural law and utopias cannot function within entropy]. 

My own view of utopias is that there are two basic types. One
'yearns for' the assumed and quite mythic Purity-of-the-Past. The
image of this Past is pure romantic idyllic scenarios - purity of
behaviour, purity of genetic composition, purity of belief - This is
the utopia commonly known as Fascism where the idea is that If Only
we could go back to The Way We Were - then, all would be perfect.
That would be the Ernest Bloch one - and similar to that of Rousseau,
Mead etc -  which all focused around The Noble Savage or some notion
that early man was somehow 'in a state of physical and mental
purity'. Or course the most famous recent example is Nazism. 

The other utopia, equally mythic, sets up a Purity-of-the-Future.
The image of this Future is equally romantic and idyllic - where
no-one really has to work hard, where everyone collaborates and gets
along, where debate and discussion solves all issues; where such
psychological tendencies as jealousy, anger, lust, hatred etc - don't
exist. This utopia is commonly known as Communism. This is the LEAP
manifesto idea - where - If Only we all learn to behave in such and
such a way - then, we'll all have enough, won't have to work hard,
will all have loving families and etc. Equally naïve and mythic -
and ignorant of economics and human psychology. 

I don't agree that Peirce's philosophy involves any utopian ideas,
for the reasons I've outlined. Utopia is by definition 'no place';
and Peirce's phenomenology is deeply, thoroughly, pragmatic. That is,
it is enmeshed, rooted, in Secondness and the brute individual
realities of that category. Equally, it is rooted in Firstness and
the chance deviations, aberrations of that mode. Thirdness doesn't
exist 'per se' [which would make it utopian if it did] and exists
only within the hard-working dirt and dust and chances of Firstness
and Secondness. 

I feel that Peirce's agapasm is an outline of constant networking,
informational networking and collaboration - where for example,
plants will interact with 

Aw: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina, Gary, List,

I am against utopism too, but I do not see what should be wrong with the Leap Manifesto: They are not propagating an utopian regime, but a basic-democratic change. And that is not utopian (no place), I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked: Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico.

In the Spanish revolution 1936 the Soviet Union fought against the revolutionists, because they had success in changing the politics too fast for marxist theory, in a basic-democratic way, establishing a socialism after feudalism, skipping capitalism, which is not allowed by the marxist-leninist theory.

In the 16nth century, Martin Luther edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same freedom, he advertised before for christian people, and he argued with his theory of the two realms.

With these two examples I want to say, that I think, that a theory (neither the Peircean one) must be not normative, but only explanatory. It should not forbid social evolution (and evolution is not always continuous, but leaps sometimes), but merely explain it afterwards. And if something happens, that cannot be explained by an existing theory- Well, we are good at making up new, suiting theories, aren´t we?

Best,

Helmut

 

 26. Juni 2017 um 22:26 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
 




Gary R, list:

Yes, I think that any utopian regime, to maintain its 'purity of type', must act as an Authoritarian regime to maintain the holistic purity and prevent the natural dissipation of type that occurs within the natural operations of both Secondness and Firstness. That is - it must reject any incidents of Secondness and Firstness. [Entropy is a natural law and utopias cannot function within entropy].

My own view of utopias is that there are two basic types. One 'yearns for' the assumed and quite mythic Purity-of-the-Past. The image of this Past is pure romantic idyllic scenarios - purity of behaviour, purity of genetic composition, purity of belief - This is the utopia commonly known as Fascism where the idea is that If Only we could go back to The Way We Were - then, all would be perfect. That would be the Ernest Bloch one - and similar to that of Rousseau, Mead etc -  which all focused around The Noble Savage or some notion that early man was somehow 'in a state of physical and mental purity'. Or course the most famous recent example is Nazism.

The other utopia, equally mythic, sets up a Purity-of-the-Future. The image of this Future is equally romantic and idyllic - where no-one really has to work hard, where everyone collaborates and gets along, where debate and discussion solves all issues; where such psychological tendencies as jealousy, anger, lust, hatred etc - don't exist. This utopia is commonly known as Communism. This is the LEAP manifesto idea - where - If Only we all learn to behave in such and such a way - then, we'll all have enough, won't have to work hard, will all have loving families and etc. Equally naïve and mythic - and ignorant of economics and human psychology.

I don't agree that Peirce's philosophy involves any utopian ideas, for the reasons I've outlined. Utopia is by definition 'no place'; and Peirce's phenomenology is deeply, thoroughly, pragmatic. That is, it is enmeshed, rooted, in Secondness and the brute individual realities of that category. Equally, it is rooted in Firstness and the chance deviations, aberrations of that mode. Thirdness doesn't exist 'per se' [which would make it utopian if it did] and exists only within the hard-working dirt and dust and chances of Firstness and Secondness.

I feel that Peirce's agapasm is an outline of constant networking, informational networking and collaboration - where for example, plants will interact with insects and animals and vice versa - but- this complex adaptive system is not a utopia, but...a complex adaptive system, busily interacting and coming up with novel solutions to chance aberrations...etc.

Edwina

 

 



 

On Mon 26/06/17 4:00 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:


Edwina, list,
 

The LEAP manifesto sounds like North Korea? Well, while I agree with you that the manifesto is at least quasi-utopian, I think equating it with the brutal NK is way off the mark.

 

In any case, there was an op-ed piece today in The Stone, that section of the New York Times editorial page where philosophers comment on cultural, social, political, etc. issues. Today's piece, by Espen Hammer, a professor of philosophy at Temple University, is titled "A Utopia for a Dystopian Age."  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/a-utopia-for-a-dystopian-age.html?ref=opinion 

 


Hammer's piece concludes: 

 

Are our industrial, capitalist societies able to make the requisite changes? If not, where should we be headed? This is a utopian question as good as any. It is deep and universalistic. Yet it calls for neither a break with the past nor a headfirst dive into the future. The German thinker Ernst