subject:"RE\: \[PEIRCE\-L\] Democracy \(was The real environmental problems..."

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-22 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Helmut, list

We cannot assume that a Sign [the triad] is interpreting a Dynamic
Object 'correctly'. That is why the Scientific Method [Peirce's 4th
method of fixing belief] is necessary - since it is a process going
through many semiosic actions to, possibly, but not always, arrive at
'the truth'. And after all - when we are aware of the diverse opinions
that people have about everything...well, we have to acknowledge that
we don't all interpret things 'correctly' - even when they are in
direct contact with that object 'out there'. 

Investment isn't just about 'money that you own' individually.
Investment is also a collective action - when many shareholders
invest in a company. A society is a collection of shareholders as
well - when many people come together to work as a society. And there
is nothing wrong with investing with money that is loaned to you.
That's what banks do. When, for example, someone is attempting to
start up a small business, the bank will loan him the capital to get
that business started. Without such a loan - he'd have to save for 20
years to do it!!!

I don't think that you can say that 'most economies are not sincere
or just'. An economy, in its most basic definition, is simply: how we
extract and produce wealth [goods and services] to sustain ourselves.
That's food, housing, clothing etc. That's all. Does ethics come into
play? I think it does, in the ACTIONS of Investment, production,
consumption. That is - in these actions - we must not harm others.
But - 'harm' is an extremely vague and amorphous term - and can be
abused when we try to make it more specific. After all- there are
those who promote socialism as an economic method as 'least harmful',
while others consider it very harmful - and promote capitalism as an
economic method as 'least harmful'. So - it's not an easy conclusion.

Edwina
 On Fri 22/06/18  1:18 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Edwina, I see your points. Maybe we are talking about different
kinds of investment: Surely there are justful and sincere investors
and managers. But slavers are not, and often the land was and is not
bought, but stolen by bribing the authority officials, or conquered.
One might say, that a conquerer had to invest in soldiers fee and
weapons, but even that was not always the case: The spanish soldiers
in the conquering of the Inka empire had to buy the fare and their
equipment by subscribing debt papers. They had to pay back these
debts, that is why they were so greedy about collecting gold.
Nowadays too investors often deal with money they do not own. I
think, Donald Trump has been a few billon dollars in the minus,
sometimes.  In semiotics we mostly assume, that a sign is denoting
the object correctly, and false signs are regarded as a special case.
Seeing econonomy as a sign process, I think, we should distinguish
between correct (sincere) and incorrect economy from the start,
because maybe most economy is not sincere and just. So the thirdness
of economy also implies politics as a correcting institution.
Economists often deny that, and say, that economy has nothing to do
with ethics. Best, Helmut   21. Juni 2018 um 20:08 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
 wrote:  

Helmut - Remember the economic triad: Investment, Production,
Consumption.  

You could compare Investment to Thirdness. Production to the
actualities of Secondness. ...and Consumption to the immediacy of
Firstness. 

A slave merely picks the apples and potatoes. That's one of the last
steps in Production. But what about the other steps? 

 That is -- who has bought the land? Who keeps and maintains it as a
stable site? Who pays the mortgage and taxes? Who has bought the
wagons and trucks and equipment? Those 'capital objects' are
INVESTMENT! Investment is 'capital'..which you use to make goods and
services - but - it stays stable; it lasts for a long time. You need
it and use it to produce goods and services. 

Money is a Symbol of this capital Investment. So- when you buy a
pair of shoes, and give that person money - you are acknowledging the
many steps in the Economic Triad: the Investment in the factory and
machines that make the shoes; the Investment in the raw products to
make the shoes; then..the costs of actual Production: the
electricity, taxes, wages for workers, costs of delivery to shops.
The money that you hand over is a Symbol of all the Investment
capital and Production costs of that pair of shoes. 

As for H being 'free' - I suggest that you shouldn't romanticize
their lifestyle. Please remember - that this economic mode could only
support around 30 people in a band. And travelling to see the sights
of another city is not the same as having to migrate because you have
run out of food and water where you live. Plus- what if people in the
'other places' ...didn't want them intruding? What if the other
places didn't have enough food for both the H living there

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-22 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina,

I see your points. Maybe we are talking about different kinds of investment: Surely there are justful and sincere investors and managers. But slavers are not, and often the land was and is not bought, but stolen by bribing the authority officials, or conquered. One might say, that a conquerer had to invest in soldiers fee and weapons, but even that was not always the case: The spanish soldiers in the conquering of the Inka empire had to buy the fare and their equipment by subscribing debt papers. They had to pay back these debts, that is why they were so greedy about collecting gold.

Nowadays too investors often deal with money they do not own. I think, Donald Trump has been a few billon dollars in the minus, sometimes.

In semiotics we mostly assume, that a sign is denoting the object correctly, and false signs are regarded as a special case. Seeing econonomy as a sign process, I think, we should distinguish between correct (sincere) and incorrect economy from the start, because maybe most economy is not sincere and just. So the thirdness of economy also implies politics as a correcting institution. Economists often deny that, and say, that economy has nothing to do with ethics.

Best,

Helmut

21. Juni 2018 um 20:08 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Helmut - Remember the economic triad: Investment, Production, Consumption.

You could compare Investment to Thirdness. Production to the actualities of Secondness. ...and Consumption to the immediacy of Firstness.

A slave merely picks the apples and potatoes. That's one of the last steps in Production. But what about the other steps?

That is -- who has bought the land? Who keeps and maintains it as a stable site? Who pays the mortgage and taxes? Who has bought the wagons and trucks and equipment? Those 'capital objects' are INVESTMENT! Investment is 'capital'..which you use to make goods and services - but - it stays stable; it lasts for a long time. You need it and use it to produce goods and services.

Money is a Symbol of this capital Investment. So- when you buy a pair of shoes, and give that person money - you are acknowledging the many steps in the Economic Triad: the Investment in the factory and machines that make the shoes; the Investment in the raw products to make the shoes; then..the costs of actual Production: the electricity, taxes, wages for workers, costs of delivery to shops. The money that you hand over is a Symbol of all the Investment capital and Production costs of that pair of shoes.

As for H being 'free' - I suggest that you shouldn't romanticize their lifestyle. Please remember - that this economic mode could only support around 30 people in a band. And travelling to see the sights of another city is not the same as having to migrate because you have run out of food and water where you live. Plus- what if people in the 'other places' ...didn't want them intruding? What if the other places didn't have enough food for both the H living there - and the newcomers? What then?

Edwina

On Thu 21/06/18 1:30 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Supplement: I mean, imagine any image of a slave, and most likely it will be an image of a person producing food. About investment I recall a scene, ok, from a "Freak-brothers" comic, ok, not scientifical, but in which someone says that he has seen many things in his life, vomiting horses and else, but he has never seen money doing work.

Edwina, list,

I did not say, that slavery produces food, I said, that slaves produce food.

H/Gs did not work 40 hrs a week, but much less, so they had a lot of free time, so they were quite free. Ok, they had to travel, but why should they have disliked that? I like travelling.

I think, that values like liberty, equality, fraternity, dont come out of the blue, but are based on instincts. We instinctively want to be free, equal, and fraternal. Instincts are from the DNA, other than learned cultural concepts. If ants would become intelligent for some evolutionary opening of gaps, they would presumably not have these values.

In rigid cultures, like Rome, these values also appeared nevertheless: The Spartacus gang. Because you cannot extinguish the DNA.

And: Legality is not the same as justice. Laws may be unjust, and were and are, examples are galore.

Best,

Helmut

21. Juni 2018 um 18:28 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"

Helmut, list

I'm not sure what you mean by 'automatism'. Do you mean 'generalization'?

Slavery - which has been [and remains] worldwide, - does not 'produce the food. The owners of that-which-produces-the food - are functionally and legally 'those who produce the food. Therefore, whoever has INVESTED capital into ownership of food-production: land, equipment, animalswhoever buys and protects and nurtures this capital - they are politically dominant.

An economy is triadic [remember Peirce?!] It's made up of three phases: Investment/Production/Consumption. Whoever controls the first two- must be

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-21 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Helmut - Remember the economic triad: Investment, Production,
Consumption.  

You could compare Investment to Thirdness. Production to the
actualities of Secondness. ...and Consumption to the immediacy of
Firstness. 

A slave merely picks the apples and potatoes. That's one of the last
steps in Production. But what about the other steps?

 That is -- who has bought the land? Who keeps and maintains it as a
stable site? Who pays the mortgage and taxes? Who has bought the
wagons and trucks and equipment? Those 'capital objects' are
INVESTMENT! Investment is 'capital'..which you use to make goods and
services - but - it stays stable; it lasts for a long time. You need
it and use it to produce goods and services.

Money is a Symbol of this capital Investment. So- when you buy a
pair of shoes, and give that person money - you are acknowledging the
many steps in the Economic Triad: the Investment in the factory and
machines that make the shoes; the Investment in the raw products to
make the shoes; then..the costs of actual Production: the
electricity, taxes, wages for workers, costs of delivery to shops.
The money that you hand over is a Symbol of all the Investment
capital and Production costs of that pair of shoes.

As for H being 'free' - I suggest that you shouldn't romanticize
their lifestyle. Please remember - that this economic mode could only
support around 30 people in a band. And travelling to see the sights
of another city is not the same as having to migrate because you have
run out of food and water where you live. Plus- what if people in the
'other places' ...didn't want them intruding? What if the other
places didn't have enough food for both the H living there - and
the newcomers? What then?

Edwina
 On Thu 21/06/18  1:30 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Supplement: I mean, imagine any image of a slave, and most
likely it will be an image of a person producing food. About
investment I recall a scene, ok, from a "Freak-brothers" comic, ok,
not scientifical, but in which someone says that he has seen many
things in his life, vomiting horses and else, but he has never seen
money doing work.Edwina, list, I did not say, that slavery
produces food, I said, that slaves produce food. H/Gs did not work 40
hrs a week, but much less, so they had a lot of free time, so they
were quite free. Ok, they had to travel, but why should they have
disliked that? I like travelling. I think, that values like liberty,
equality, fraternity, dont come out of the blue, but are based on
instincts. We instinctively want to be free, equal, and fraternal.
Instincts are from the DNA, other than learned cultural concepts. If
ants would become intelligent for some evolutionary opening of gaps,
they would presumably not have these values. In rigid cultures, like
Rome, these values also appeared nevertheless: The Spartacus gang.
Because you cannot extinguish the DNA. And: Legality is not the same
as justice. Laws may be unjust, and were and are, examples are
galore. Best, Helmut 21. Juni 2018 um 18:28 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
Helmut, list 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'automatism'. Do you mean
'generalization'? 

Slavery - which has been [and remains] worldwide,  - does not
'produce the food. The owners of that-which-produces-the food - are
functionally and legally 'those who produce the food. Therefore,
whoever has INVESTED capital into ownership of food-production: land,
equipment, animalswhoever buys and protects and nurtures this
capital - they are politically dominant. 

An economy is triadic [remember Peirce?!] It's made up of three
phases: Investment/Production/Consumption. Whoever controls the first
two- must be politically dominant. 

You wrote:" liberty, equality, fraternity, genetically result from
the H/G-DNA. The H/Gs were free, equal, and had to rely on each
others. The H/G-era was so long, some 100,000 years, that it did
impress in the DNA." There is nothing genetic about beliefs or
behaviour; there is nothing genetic about such beliefs/ behaviour as
'liberty, equality, fraternity! Have you ever heard of such a
gene   The H/G were free? Of what? They were totally dependent on
nature; on what the land offered to them naturally - since they did
not domesticate either plants or animals. That's why they were also
migratory; when they 'ate what was there' - they had to move on. When
man began to domesticate plants and animals [agriculture]  then, he
GAINED freedom from this dependency on the 'whims of Nature' and the
need to migrate - and was able to support larger populations.
Admittedly, this agriculture takes a LOT of hard work - but- it
supports larger populations.   Just because a mode of behaviour has
been around for 100,000 years among mankind doesn't mean it is
genetic! Fire has been around for that long; it's not genetic.  
Edwina   
 On Thu 21/06/18 12:05 PM , "Helmut Raulien"

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-21 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina, list,

I did not say, that slavery produces food, I said, that slaves produce food.

H/Gs did not work 40 hrs a week, but much less, so they had a lot of free time, so they were quite free. Ok, they had to travel, but why should they have disliked that? I like travelling.

In rigid cultures, like Rome, these values also appeared nevertheless: The Spartacus gang. Because you cannot extinguish the DNA.

And: Legality is not the same as justice. Laws may be unjust, and were and are, examples are galore.

Best,

Helmut

21. Juni 2018 um 18:28 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"

Helmut, list

I'm not sure what you mean by 'automatism'. Do you mean 'generalization'?

An economy is triadic [remember Peirce?!] It's made up of three phases: Investment/Production/Consumption. Whoever controls the first two- must be politically dominant.

You wrote:" liberty, equality, fraternity, genetically result from the H/G-DNA. The H/Gs were free, equal, and had to rely on each others. The H/G-era was so long, some 100,000 years, that it did impress in the DNA."

There is nothing genetic about beliefs or behaviour; there is nothing genetic about such beliefs/ behaviour as 'liberty, equality, fraternity! Have you ever heard of such a gene

The H/G were free? Of what? They were totally dependent on nature; on what the land offered to them naturally - since they did not domesticate either plants or animals. That's why they were also migratory; when they 'ate what was there' - they had to move on. When man began to domesticate plants and animals [agriculture] then, he GAINED freedom from this dependency on the 'whims of Nature' and the need to migrate - and was able to support larger populations. Admittedly, this agriculture takes a LOT of hard work - but- it supports larger populations.

Just because a mode of behaviour has been around for 100,000 years among mankind doesn't mean it is genetic! Fire has been around for that long; it's not genetic.

Edwina

On Thu 21/06/18 12:05 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Edwina, list,

I mostly agree with you, save that there is an automatism, like in what you wrote:

"Again, the basic view is that 'whoever provides the sustenance and protection of the food for the group - is politically dominant.", and:

"If crafts bring in more economic wealth for the community than administration - then, it will be socially valued."

I guess, that in the early years of the "new world" America it first was like that, the farmers who had fled economic and religious opression in Europe, self-organized their politics. But then there was slavery. Slaves mainly produced food. In Europe the farmers (peasants), the ones who produced the food, were also opressed by the landlords, and very poor, even serf, in Russia until the 1860 s. Under Stalin it was even worse. And today, managers who burn money get high bonuses, and lawyers earn scaleswise more than farmers, and many people who work in the food business get minimum wage. Or less, as there still is some sort of slavery in food production, like illegal immigrants from northern Africa in the Spanish greenhouses in Almeria. So I think that there is no just automatism, so there is a need for politics to provide that justice. My opinion is neither anarchistic, because anarchists believe in an automatism I dont believe in, nor communist, nor communitarist, as I rather am an individualist. Nor liberal, nor conservative, I dont know how to call it.

I guess, that the ideals of the French revolution (which soon were destroyed by the Jakobiners) liberty, equality, fraternity, genetically result from the H/G-DNA. The H/Gs were free, equal, and had to rely on each others. The H/G-era was so long, some 100,000 years, that it did impress in the DNA.

Best,

Helmut

20. Juni 2018 um 20:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Helmut, list

I don't think that the Indus

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-21 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina, list,

I did not say, that slavery produces food, I said, that slaves produce food.

H/Gs did not work 40 hrs a week, but much less, so they had a lot of free time, so they were quite free. Ok, they had to travel, but why should they have disliked that? I like travelling.

In rigid cultures, like Rome, these values also appeared nevertheless: The Spartacus gang. Because you cannot extinguish the DNA.

And: Legality is not the same as justice. Laws may be unjust, and were and are, examples are galore.

Best,

Helmut

21. Juni 2018 um 18:28 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"

Helmut, list

I'm not sure what you mean by 'automatism'. Do you mean 'generalization'?

An economy is triadic [remember Peirce?!] It's made up of three phases: Investment/Production/Consumption. Whoever controls the first two- must be politically dominant.

There is nothing genetic about beliefs or behaviour; there is nothing genetic about such beliefs/ behaviour as 'liberty, equality, fraternity! Have you ever heard of such a gene

Just because a mode of behaviour has been around for 100,000 years among mankind doesn't mean it is genetic! Fire has been around for that long; it's not genetic.

Edwina

On Thu 21/06/18 12:05 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Edwina, list,

I mostly agree with you, save that there is an automatism, like in what you wrote:

"Again, the basic view is that 'whoever provides the sustenance and protection of the food for the group - is politically dominant.", and:

"If crafts bring in more economic wealth for the community than administration - then, it will be socially valued."

Best,

Helmut

20. Juni 2018 um 20:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Helmut, list

I don't think that the Indus Valley societies were matriarchal! There is no evidence of that.

Indeed, there is essentially no evidence of any society being matriarchal [ political governance by the women]. This is differentiated from matrilineal, which means that descent is defined by the women. In Judaism, you are not consider a member of the Jewish faith unless your mother was

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-21 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Helmut, list

I'm not sure what you mean by 'automatism'. Do you mean
'generalization'?

Slavery - which has been [and remains] worldwide,  - does not
'produce the food. The owners of that-which-produces-the food - are
functionally and legally 'those who produce the food. Therefore,
whoever has INVESTED capital into ownership of food-production: land,
equipment, animalswhoever buys and protects and nurtures this
capital - they are politically dominant.

An economy is triadic [remember Peirce?!] It's made up of three
phases: Investment/Production/Consumption. Whoever controls the first
two- must be politically dominant. 

You wrote:" liberty, equality, fraternity, genetically result from
the H/G-DNA. The H/Gs were free, equal, and had to rely on each
others. The H/G-era was so long, some 100,000 years, that it did
impress in the DNA."There is nothing genetic about beliefs or
behaviour; there is nothing genetic about such beliefs/ behaviour as
'liberty, equality, fraternity! Have you ever heard of such a
gene
 The H/G were free? Of what? They were totally dependent on nature;
on what the land offered to them naturally - since they did not
domesticate either plants or animals. That's why they were also
migratory; when they 'ate what was there' - they had to move on. When
man began to domesticate plants and animals [agriculture]  then, he
GAINED freedom from this dependency on the 'whims of Nature' and the
need to migrate - and was able to support larger populations.
Admittedly, this agriculture takes a LOT of hard work - but- it
supports larger populations.
 Just because a mode of behaviour has been around for 100,000 years
among mankind doesn't mean it is genetic! Fire has been around for
that long; it's not genetic.
 Edwina
 On Thu 21/06/18 12:05 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Edwina, list, I mostly agree with you, save that there is an
automatism, like in what you wrote:   "Again, the basic view is that
'whoever provides the sustenance and protection of the food for the
group -  is politically dominant.", and:"If crafts bring in more
economic wealth for the community than administration - then, it will
be socially valued."   I guess, that in the early years of the "new
world" America it first was like that, the farmers who had fled
economic and religious opression in Europe, self-organized their
politics. But then there was slavery. Slaves mainly produced food. In
Europe the farmers (peasants), the ones who produced the food, were
also opressed by the landlords, and very poor, even serf, in Russia
until the 1860 s. Under Stalin it was even worse. And today, managers
who burn money get high bonuses, and lawyers earn scaleswise more than
farmers, and many people who work in the food business get minimum
wage. Or less, as there still is some sort of slavery in food
production, like illegal immigrants from northern Africa in the
Spanish greenhouses in Almeria. So I think that there is no just
automatism, so there is a need for politics to provide that justice.
My opinion is neither anarchistic, because anarchists believe in an
automatism I dont believe in, nor communist, nor communitarist, as I
rather am an individualist. Nor liberal, nor conservative, I dont
know how to call it. I guess, that the ideals of the French
revolution (which soon were destroyed by the Jakobiners) liberty,
equality, fraternity, genetically result from the H/G-DNA. The H/Gs
were free, equal, and had to rely on each others. The H/G-era was so
long, some 100,000 years, that it did impress in the DNA. Best,
Helmut  20. Juni 2018 um 20:43 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
 wrote:  
 Helmut, list 

I don't think that the Indus Valley societies were matriarchal!
There is no evidence of that. 

Indeed, there is essentially no evidence of any society being
matriarchal [ political governance by the women]. This is
differentiated from matrilineal, which means that descent is defined
by the women. In Judaism, you are not consider a member of the Jewish
faith unless your mother was Jewish. That's matrilineal not
matriarchal. A number of tribes are matrilineal. 

Among the Hopi - where much of the agricultural work was done by
women, where there was no war [and no need for warriors], women were
dominant in the household; men were dominant in the clan/tribe.
Similar to the Iroquois - 

Again, the basic view is that 'whoever provides the sustenance and
protection of the food for the group -  is politically dominant. 

Edwina
 On Wed 20/06/18 2:15 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:   
Supplement: And I think, but I dont know how certain this is, that
there have been matriarchalic societies that were not H/G, but already
agricultural, e.g. the Indus- culture.Édwina, list, I see, but I
think that division of labour is something else than power hierarchy.
Like with the shaman who is not a leader, but a servant to the
community, doing

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-21 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina, list,

I mostly agree with you, save that there is an automatism, like in what you wrote:

"Again, the basic view is that 'whoever provides the sustenance and protection of the food for the group - is politically dominant.", and:

"If crafts bring in more economic wealth for the community than administration - then, it will be socially valued."

Best,

Helmut

20. Juni 2018 um 20:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Helmut, list

I don't think that the Indus Valley societies were matriarchal! There is no evidence of that.

Among the Hopi - where much of the agricultural work was done by women, where there was no war [and no need for warriors], women were dominant in the household; men were dominant in the clan/tribe. Similar to the Iroquois -

Again, the basic view is that 'whoever provides the sustenance and protection of the food for the group - is politically dominant.

Edwina

On Wed 20/06/18 2:15 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Supplement: And I think, but I dont know how certain this is, that there have been matriarchalic societies that were not H/G, but already agricultural, e.g. the Indus- culture.

Édwina, list,

I see, but I think that division of labour is something else than power hierarchy. Like with the shaman who is not a leader, but a servant to the community, doing spiritual psychotherapy for them. Or the women who care for the children and gather, while the men hunt. And I do not see a natural reason, why admistrative work should be better paid and held in higher esteem than crafts or agriculture. People are different and want to do different jobs, but should (and can) be equal regarding their status, wealth and esteemedness, I think. But of course, someone who works in administration has more opportunities to misuse his/her work for gaining power over others than a peasant has. But that is what democracy is for, to have the governing process controlled by the people to avoid misuse and nonequality.

Best,

Helmut

20. Juni 2018 um 19:36 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"

Helmut, list:

No - I very much disagree with you. We are not 'genetically H/G'. We are genetically- as far as social organization is concerned -- -nothing -- which means, that our mode of life is entirely socially or intellectually constructed.

Our social organization has absolutely nothing to do with genes - but - as I keep saying - with our economic mode. And our economic mode is directly linked to our environment; - which is to say - with what our environment has, naturally, in it [temperature, soil type and fertility, water source, seasons, plants and animals]...and what we can introduce that will grow/live there. For example - we can't grow wheat in the arctic; we can't farm milk cows in the rain forest etc.

Animals in herds have a ranking order - and that is meant to keep the herd safe. And a human society - MUST have normative rules of 'how to live' [remember Thirdness??]. And since our rules are not genetic - then - we must develop them. And we develop them to enable a certain size population to live - to obtain food and shelter, to reproduce in security and health.

So- in a H/G society - there may be no leader because the population is too small for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-20 Thread Stephen Curtiss Rose

I think it is simpler than that. But I agree that past ethics does not cut
it. Harm is harm and can be measured. So can its absence. That we fail to
perform or act on these measurements is a fault of a system that delivers
political power to special interests that themselves bear the brunt of
responsibility. The resolution of the ethical problem will be delayed until
an intelligent majority rectifies things at the polls and in the offices of
those who make laws.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Clark Goble  wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 20, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose 
> wrote:
>
> The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses
> on the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated
> aesthetics and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core
> understanding of things. This suggests he would have had little interest in
> parsing the merits of groups and religions but would have focused instead
> on the fruits of their thinking.
>
>
> Many elements of the maxim as applied in this way arise out of Stoic
> ethics we should note. John Shook has a good article on this, “Peirce’s
> Pragmatic Theology and Stoic Religious Ethics.” Although much of what he
> discusses are parallels rather than evidence for direct influence.
>
> While the agapaic element obviously comes from Christianity, particularly
> the fairly platonic Gospel of John, the Stoic elements can’t be neglected.
> While Stoicism sees this through reason rather than love, the reasoning out
> the place of the individual in terms of the whole through self-reflection
> is significant. As is the rather pantheistic conception of God. (Here
> meaning how individual signs are parts of the whole)
>
> Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a
> blind spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have
> vanished. And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of
> the degree to which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be
> measured. It is not beyond the province of science which is also universal.
>
>
> Sadly blind spots in ethics towards slavery were nothing new. Again this
> was a constant problem in Roman ethics I’d say. It is one reason why Stoic
> ethics remain somewhat problematic IMO.
>
>
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-20 Thread Clark Goble

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 10:49 PM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
>> "Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different 
>> movement less tied to Christianity? Probably."
> 
> I say probably not. And certainly not Islam.

I guess it depends upon what one sees as important and/or essential in the 
Renaissance. Certainly painting development would have been difficult under 
Islam given the very different restrictions on art and different visual 
emphasis. But that’s rather the issue I am getting at. What’s significant about 
the Renaissance?

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 10:49 PM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> Yes, communism and other religions do indeed talk about a higher purpose. As 
> do other aggregations of society. Social obligation is fairly standard in 
> almost any culture. But it generally expresses itself in the context of 
> groupthink and the need to belong. Christianity is different, because it 
> synthesizes a kind of individualism with higher purpose.

Hmm. I’m a bit nervous there. Here thinking of say Charles Taylor’s _A Secular 
Age_. I’m just not sure that individualism of the sort we think of as 
individualism is characteristic of pre-modern Christianity. There’s no doubt 
that starting with the Reformation that Protestants quickly move in that 
direction - primarily due to the hermeneutic shifts where the individual and 
the Bible become authority rather than the Catholic Church. But I’m not sure 
I’d attribute that to Christianity in general. Further even in the origins of 
modernism is precisely the re-introduction of pagan texts during the 
Renaissance that arguably enables this shift. Here’s thinking of the role of 
people like Giordano Bruno in enabling a shift. Now of course we can debate how 
significant that loose hermetic tradition that arises in the Renaissance really 
is for the rise of individualism in modernism. I think it’s sometimes 
overstated. But I think it’s more of an influence than broad Christianity 
beyond the break that happens with the printing press in Christianity leading 
to the form the Reformation takes. Although clearly there were many issues 
leading to the Reformation.

But again the real issue is the question of counterfactuals. If we rewound 
history to say 100 BCE and replayed things, are there worlds without 
Christianity that would give us individualism arising out of say paganism? It’s 
pretty hard to know. (Which makes the question really unanswerable) My guess 
though is that many would. There’s no intrinsic reason why say Platonism with 
the emphasis on the One in late antiquity necessarily is the only dominate form 
of paganism. Indeed many might argue that type of Platonism arises precisely 
due to conflict and competition with Christianity as the latter becomes 
popular. Without Christianity who’s to say something else doesn’t develop?

> The notion of Christian love enters the narrative. The courage to sacrifice 
> for what you believe in. Does Hinduism do this? Maybe. But its historical 
> context is different. Buddhism? Buddhism is more secular, less 
> individualistic, and constrained by filial piety, though they still are 
> inspired by love of truth.

Individualism certainly is taken as absent from the ancient world. Not just the 
ancient near east but around the world. So I’d agree that at least historically 
neither Hinduism nor Buddhism have individualism. I’m just skeptical 
Christianity did either. While Stoicism is anything but individualistic, it is 
interesting that the self-control and self-reflective nature of Stoic ethics do 
put an emphasis on the individual. It’s not hard to imagine that developing 
over time into something more akin to modern individualism.

To my eyes the key move in modern individualism is the shift in hermeneutics 
primarily due to the rise of the textual tradition of interpreting the Bible. 
That then quickly added to scientific hermeneutics and legal hermeneutics with 
a complex interplay between the three. Could that have arisen in other 
traditions like say a hypothetic Stoic one? It’s hard to say. There’s no Stoic 
corpus although there are the dialogs of Plato. Yet that individual 
self-reflection seems to at least possibly allow an individual hermeneutic to 
develop. At least I’m loath to say why it couldn’t, even if one sees it as less 
likely than within Christianity.

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-20 Thread Clark Goble

> On Jun 20, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose  wrote:
> 
> The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses on 
> the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated aesthetics 
> and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core understanding of 
> things. This suggests he would have had little interest in parsing the merits 
> of groups and religions but would have focused instead on the fruits of their 
> thinking. 

Many elements of the maxim as applied in this way arise out of Stoic ethics we 
should note. John Shook has a good article on this, “Peirce’s Pragmatic 
Theology and Stoic Religious Ethics.” Although much of what he discusses are 
parallels rather than evidence for direct influence. 

While the agapaic element obviously comes from Christianity, particularly the 
fairly platonic Gospel of John, the Stoic elements can’t be neglected. While 
Stoicism sees this through reason rather than love, the reasoning out the place 
of the individual in terms of the whole through self-reflection is significant. 
As is the rather pantheistic conception of God. (Here meaning how individual 
signs are parts of the whole)

> Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a blind 
> spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have vanished. 
> And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of the degree to 
> which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be measured. It is 
> not beyond the province of science which is also universal.

Sadly blind spots in ethics towards slavery were nothing new. Again this was a 
constant problem in Roman ethics I’d say. It is one reason why Stoic ethics 
remain somewhat problematic IMO.

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-20 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina, list,

Thank you! I think it is very important, that H/G- societies donot have a leader, because we are genetically H/G. The short time afterwards has not yet relevantly shaped our DNA.

And most other mammals, primates too, have a ranking order. So I think that it is a great achievement of humankind to have overcome that. Something we can be proud of.

And the ranking orders we have in our civilisation, in politics, work situations like companies, and also the gender hierarchy that favours men over women, is a lamentable retrograde into prehuman, animalic times.

Best,

Helmut

19. Juni 2018 um 22:22 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Helmut, list:

Yes, that's right. Hunter-gatherer societies do not have a leader. There is no such thing as 'early' or 'late' H/G societies! A good set of books on the H/G peoples are - by Richard Lee [who studied, in particular, the Dobe !Kung], Also Lee and Irven Devore, Man the Hunter]. There are quite a few good books on this economic mode - which examine their economy and societal organization and belief systems.

I wouldn't take popular literature or TV shows as accurate - and that includes stories about the 'king' being killed as a sacrifice.

Edwina

On Tue 19/06/18 4:02 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

I have read, that the early hunter/gatherer communities were "acephal", they had no leader. The role of the medicine man or woman (shaman) in popular literature about shamans is often described of being rather a servant to the people than a leader, and that the shaman first didnt want to become one, but has followed a call from the otherworld and its inhabitants, first being reluctant, and gotten into a shamanic crisis, before finally accepting his/her job. About the time of beginning agriculture I have seen in TV something about a king of a small community in England, whose role was not a good job either: He had to symbolically marry mother earth, and convince her to give good harvest. If then the harvest was not good, he was killed and thrown into the swamp, and a new king was elected.

Helmut

19. Juni 2018 um 16:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am assuming a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the individual psychological level, where the individual becomes aware of his own finite nature and lack of power to 'make things happen'. AND - his awareness that, despite his best intentions, 'the best laid plans gang oft awry'.

Then, there is a second reality, which is that we, as a species, are necessarily social. We can live only as a collective; our brains - and physique - require a long nurturing period and this necessitates a 'family' situation. Plus, since our knowledge base is primarily learned rather than innate - it is stored within the community. So- to even learn how to live requires that socialization and community.

Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of behaviour and belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with others. So- we develop shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what happens when we die'; why do bad/good things happen'.

I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or medicine man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger populations where specialization of tasks does take place. But in small bands [about 30 people] - there will rarely be a spiritual leader, much less a military!! Again - it depends on the size of the population which is itself dependent on the economic mode which is itself dependent on the ecological viability of the land to support large populations.

As for corruption - that's also basic to our species, unfortunately.

Edwina

On Tue 19/06/18 9:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:

On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> Groupthink is the problem...
> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.

All the religions of the world began at the village level,
usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as
the social-religious leader who shares power with the
military leader.

Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain
social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on
normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies;
ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of
history, medicine, and good counsel.

But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.

John

- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-20 Thread Stephen Jarosek

>” but would have focused instead on the fruits of their thinking.”

Exactly my point. Relates to the cultural narratives that trickle down 
throughout culture.

From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Clark Goble; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses on the 
practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated aesthetics and 
ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core understanding of 
things. This suggests he would have had little interest in parsing the merits 
of groups and religions but would have focused instead on the fruits of their 
thinking. 

Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a blind 
spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have vanished. 
And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of the degree to 
which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be measured. It is not 
beyond the province of science which is also universal.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:

> "Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different 
> movement less tied to Christianity? Probably."

I say probably not. And certainly not Islam.

> "I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all 
> they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism."

This occurred to me as I made my point, but in the interests of brevity, I 
thought I'd leave it till someone asked. You asked. Yes, communism and other 
religions do indeed talk about a higher purpose. As do other aggregations of 
society. Social obligation is fairly standard in almost any culture. But it 
generally expresses itself in the context of groupthink and the need to belong. 
Christianity is different, because it synthesizes a kind of individualism with 
higher purpose. The notion of Christian love enters the narrative. The courage 
to sacrifice for what you believe in. Does Hinduism do this? Maybe. But its 
historical context is different. Buddhism? Buddhism is more secular, less 
individualistic, and constrained by filial piety, though they still are 
inspired by love of truth. Could Hinduism (or even Buddhism) rise up as a 
religion of an advanced future? Maybe. Watch this space. Islam not. The 
European renaissance was inspired by something different. If some 
Middle-Eastern cultures have shown signs of advancement, as they have on 
occasion, that's because they've piggybacked on Christian-European influences.

Bottom line... this all revolves around the problem of groupthink. Yes, other 
systems talk of higher purpose and social obligation. But Christianity 
synthesizes its higher purpose with individualism and the love of truth. I 
think that this is the distinction between Christianity/Hinduism and the rest. 
The individualism that has within it the cure for groupthink. Groupthink is the 
disease you get when imitation (knowing how to be) turns pathological. 
Christianity's individualistic Jesus introduced a very different template for 
knowing how to be. Ultimately, this relates to the distinction between the 
cowardice of groupthink and the courage of higher purpose.

Groupthink is a very real problem. A large part of what we are witnessing in 
the messy politics of today is the battle between the groupthink of gullible 
liberalism versus the conservatism that has only recently begun to see through 
liberalism's masquerade of moral superiority. Groupthink needs an antidote, and 
for renaissance Europe, Christianity met that need.

sj

-Original Message-
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:48 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why?

Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different movement 
less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect it was 
primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance started. But 
say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from Constantinople 
primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different reasons a stronger 
economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different sort of “renaissance.” 
So while the form the renaissance took was very Christian, I tend to see that 
as tied to historic accident. For that matter had Islam not arisen and 
Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a Renaissance? Probably not although 
likely many similar developments in the technique of art or thought may well 
have happened. Or perhaps they wouldn’t have happened at all and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-20 Thread Stephen Curtiss Rose

The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses on
the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated aesthetics
and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core understanding
of things. This suggests he would have had little interest in parsing the
merits of groups and religions but would have focused instead on the fruits
of their thinking.

Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a blind
spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have
vanished. And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of
the degree to which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be
measured. It is not beyond the province of science which is also universal.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Jarosek 
wrote:

> > "Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different
> movement less tied to Christianity? Probably."
>
> I say probably not. And certainly not Islam.
>
> > "I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity.
> After all they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like
> Marxism."
>
> This occurred to me as I made my point, but in the interests of brevity, I
> thought I'd leave it till someone asked. You asked. Yes, communism and
> other religions do indeed talk about a higher purpose. As do other
> aggregations of society. Social obligation is fairly standard in almost any
> culture. But it generally expresses itself in the context of groupthink and
> the need to belong. Christianity is different, because it synthesizes a
> kind of individualism with higher purpose. The notion of Christian love
> enters the narrative. The courage to sacrifice for what you believe in.
> Does Hinduism do this? Maybe. But its historical context is different.
> Buddhism? Buddhism is more secular, less individualistic, and constrained
> by filial piety, though they still are inspired by love of truth. Could
> Hinduism (or even Buddhism) rise up as a religion of an advanced future?
> Maybe. Watch this space. Islam not. The European renaissance was inspired
> by something different. If some Middle-Eastern cultures have shown signs of
> advancement, as they have on occasion, that's because they've piggybacked
> on Christian-European influences.
>
> Bottom line... this all revolves around the problem of groupthink. Yes,
> other systems talk of higher purpose and social obligation. But
> Christianity synthesizes its higher purpose with individualism and the love
> of truth. I think that this is the distinction between
> Christianity/Hinduism and the rest. The individualism that has within it
> the cure for groupthink. Groupthink is the disease you get when imitation
> (knowing how to be) turns pathological. Christianity's individualistic
> Jesus introduced a very different template for knowing how to be.
> Ultimately, this relates to the distinction between the cowardice of
> groupthink and the courage of higher purpose.
>
> Groupthink is a very real problem. A large part of what we are witnessing
> in the messy politics of today is the battle between the groupthink of
> gullible liberalism versus the conservatism that has only recently begun to
> see through liberalism's masquerade of moral superiority. Groupthink needs
> an antidote, and for renaissance Europe, Christianity met that need.
>
> sj
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:48 PM
> To: Peirce-L
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek 
> wrote:
> >
> > Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why?
>
> Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different
> movement less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect
> it was primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance
> started. But say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from
> Constantinople primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different
> reasons a stronger economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different
> sort of “renaissance.” So while the form the renaissance took was very
> Christian, I tend to see that as tied to historic accident. For that matter
> had Islam not arisen and Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a
> Renaissance? Probably not although likely many similar developments in the
> technique of art or thought may well have happened. Or perhaps they
> wouldn’t have happened at all and Europe would have been stuck in a
> situation more akin to the prior thousand years.
>
> If we talk evolution

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Stephen Jarosek

> "Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different 
> movement less tied to Christianity? Probably."

I say probably not. And certainly not Islam.

> "I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all 
> they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism."

This occurred to me as I made my point, but in the interests of brevity, I 
thought I'd leave it till someone asked. You asked. Yes, communism and other 
religions do indeed talk about a higher purpose. As do other aggregations of 
society. Social obligation is fairly standard in almost any culture. But it 
generally expresses itself in the context of groupthink and the need to belong. 
Christianity is different, because it synthesizes a kind of individualism with 
higher purpose. The notion of Christian love enters the narrative. The courage 
to sacrifice for what you believe in. Does Hinduism do this? Maybe. But its 
historical context is different. Buddhism? Buddhism is more secular, less 
individualistic, and constrained by filial piety, though they still are 
inspired by love of truth. Could Hinduism (or even Buddhism) rise up as a 
religion of an advanced future? Maybe. Watch this space. Islam not. The 
European renaissance was inspired by something different. If some 
Middle-Eastern cultures have shown signs of advancement, as they have on 
occasion, that's because they've piggybacked on Christian-European influences.

Bottom line... this all revolves around the problem of groupthink. Yes, other 
systems talk of higher purpose and social obligation. But Christianity 
synthesizes its higher purpose with individualism and the love of truth. I 
think that this is the distinction between Christianity/Hinduism and the rest. 
The individualism that has within it the cure for groupthink. Groupthink is the 
disease you get when imitation (knowing how to be) turns pathological. 
Christianity's individualistic Jesus introduced a very different template for 
knowing how to be. Ultimately, this relates to the distinction between the 
cowardice of groupthink and the courage of higher purpose.

Groupthink is a very real problem. A large part of what we are witnessing in 
the messy politics of today is the battle between the groupthink of gullible 
liberalism versus the conservatism that has only recently begun to see through 
liberalism's masquerade of moral superiority. Groupthink needs an antidote, and 
for renaissance Europe, Christianity met that need.

sj

-Original Message-
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:48 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why?

Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different movement 
less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect it was 
primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance started. But 
say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from Constantinople 
primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different reasons a stronger 
economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different sort of “renaissance.” 
So while the form the renaissance took was very Christian, I tend to see that 
as tied to historic accident. For that matter had Islam not arisen and 
Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a Renaissance? Probably not although 
likely many similar developments in the technique of art or thought may well 
have happened. Or perhaps they wouldn’t have happened at all and Europe would 
have been stuck in a situation more akin to the prior thousand years.

If we talk evolution I think we have to recognize the place of chance in all of 
this. There may well be potential forms that are very useful that would be 
incentivized to arise. Yet the broader issues seem much more arbitrary.

> But Christianity introduces another dimension that is alien to the secular 
> Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of religions)... commitment 
> to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly benefits that may or may not 
> accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a fundamental cultural 
> principle?

I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all 
they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism. Now you 
could argue that Marxism can arise only because Christianity already sets the 
stage. However I think this is biasing things too much to a Eurocentric view of 
civilization. 

> Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but 
> the "higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality 
> that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks 
> the s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Clark Goble

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why?

Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different movement 
less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect it was 
primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance started. But 
say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from Constantinople 
primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different reasons a stronger 
economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different sort of “renaissance.” 
So while the form the renaissance took was very Christian, I tend to see that 
as tied to historic accident. For that matter had Islam not arisen and 
Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a Renaissance? Probably not although 
likely many similar developments in the technique of art or thought may well 
have happened. Or perhaps they wouldn’t have happened at all and Europe would 
have been stuck in a situation more akin to the prior thousand years.

If we talk evolution I think we have to recognize the place of chance in all of 
this. There may well be potential forms that are very useful that would be 
incentivized to arise. Yet the broader issues seem much more arbitrary.

> But Christianity introduces another dimension that is alien to the secular 
> Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of religions)... commitment 
> to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly benefits that may or may not 
> accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a fundamental cultural 
> principle?

I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all 
they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism. Now you 
could argue that Marxism can arise only because Christianity already sets the 
stage. However I think this is biasing things too much to a Eurocentric view of 
civilization. 

> Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but 
> the "higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality 
> that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks 
> the same language, and it looks like its shelf-life will be limited. Their 
> fates are determined by the entropy of self-interest.

I’m not sure that’s true. I think Burkeanism can be reduced to “don’t change 
too fast and too radically because of unintended consequences.” Higher purposes 
seem orthogonal to that concern.

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Stephen Jarosek

Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why? How 
has Christianity impacted on the phenomenology/ontology that enables positive 
cultural evolution? Both the Left and the Right have different ways of 
prioritizing self-interest. But Christianity introduces another dimension that 
is alien to the secular Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of 
religions)... commitment to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly 
benefits that may or may not accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a 
fundamental cultural principle?

Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but the 
"higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality that 
maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks the 
same language, and it looks like its shelf-life will be limited. Their fates 
are determined by the entropy of self-interest.

Of the trillions of billions of planets that exist, at least a tiny proportion 
must surely contain advanced cultures that do not follow the history template 
that we are familiar with. Expect the unexpected. The only constant is 
semiotics... what are the possibilities bound within semiotic constraints? And 
this brings us back to this notion of commitment to a higher purpose.

-Original Message-
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 9:18 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

It’s worth noting that most evolutionary views of religion see much of it 
evolving intertwined with the evolution of government. To the point that it’s 
hard to separate the two. It’s true that particularly in evolutionary 
psychology religion has some key differences such as focus on the cognition of 
agency detection and so forth. Yet as a practical social organization the 
separation between government and religion is fairly recent. And arguably still 
incomplete (if it’s even possible to really separate the two)

>From a Peircean view with its emphasis on common sense as heavily tested 
>practices in a somewhat narrow environment it’s worth considering how these 
>social practices would evolve. And perhaps offer some more Burkean like 
>conservative reasons for worrying about the widespread abandonment of many 
>tested social practices.

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:53 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
>> Groupthink is the problem...
>> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.
> 
> All the religions of the world began at the village level, usually as 
> a social group with a guru or medicine-man as the social-religious 
> leader who shares power with the military leader.
> 
> Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain social power 
> by persuasion.  That means an emphasis on normative values:  
> aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; ethics by morality and justice; 
> and truth by knowledge of history, medicine, and good counsel.
> 
> But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
> It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.
> 
> John
> 
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Edwina Taborsky

Helmut, list:

Yes, that's right. Hunter-gatherer societies do not have a leader.
There is no such thing as 'early' or 'late' H/G societies! A good set
of books on the H/G peoples are - by Richard Lee [who studied, in
particular, the Dobe !Kung], Also Lee and Irven Devore, Man the
Hunter]. There are quite a few good books on this economic mode -
which examine their economy and societal organization and belief
systems.

I wouldn't take popular literature or TV shows as accurate - and
that includes stories about the 'king' being killed as a sacrifice. 

Edwina
 On Tue 19/06/18  4:02 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  I have read, that the early hunter/gatherer communities were
"acephal", they had no leader. The role of the medicine man or woman
(shaman) in popular literature about shamans is often described of
being rather a servant to the people than a leader, and that the
shaman first didnt want to become one, but has followed a call from
the otherworld and its inhabitants, first being reluctant, and gotten
into a shamanic crisis, before finally accepting his/her job. About
the time of beginning agriculture I have seen in TV something about a
king of a small community in England, whose role was not a good job
either: He had to symbolically marry mother earth, and convince her
to give good harvest. If then the harvest was not good, he was killed
and thrown into the swamp, and a new king was elected. Helmut19.
Juni 2018 um 16:43 Uhr
  "Edwina Taborsky" 
 wrote:  

  Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am
assuming a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the
individual psychological level, where the individual becomes aware of
his own finite nature and lack of power to 'make things happen'. AND -
his awareness that, despite his best intentions, 'the best laid plans
gang oft awry'. 

Then, there is a second reality, which is that we, as a species, are
necessarily social. We can live only as a collective; our brains - and
physique - require a long nurturing period and this necessitates a
'family' situation. Plus, since our knowledge base is primarily
learned rather than innate - it is stored within the community. So-
to even learn how to live requires that socialization and community. 

Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of
behaviour and belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with
others. So- we develop shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what
happens when we die'; why do bad/good things happen'. 

I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or
medicine man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger
populations where specialization of tasks does take place. But in
small bands [about 30 people] - there will rarely be a spiritual
leader, much less a military!! Again - it depends on the size of the
population which is itself dependent on the economic mode which is
itself dependent on the ecological viability of the land to support
large populations. 

As for corruption - that's also basic to our species, unfortunately.

Edwina 
 On Tue 19/06/18 9:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent: On
6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
 > Groupthink is the problem... 
 > I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. 
 All the religions of the world began at the village level,
 usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as
 the social-religious leader who shares power with the
 military leader.
 Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain
 social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on
 normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies;
 ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of
 history, medicine, and good counsel.
 But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
 It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.
 John
 - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [1] .

Links:
--
[1] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Edwina Taborsky

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

Your comment points to some basic differences in societal analysis.
You are taking a view that societies 'evolve' from, presumably, the
simple to the complex - and therefore, assuming that beliefs and
behaviour also 'evolve'. That includes religion and governance.

A different perspective, which I follow, is that societies - and
this includes their organizational modes [including religion and
governance]  do not 'evolve'; that is, there is no original either
Eden or 'brute savage' [two views of 'the origin]. Equally, there is
no Final State - whether this Final State be a utopian
communism/fascism - or even - the complex adaptive system that is
democracy. ...Although, I tend to think that the only possible mode
of organization for very large populations is democracy, simply
because it enables rapid and non-violent adaptation. 

In my view and research, societal modes of organization are strictly
correlated to the size of the population. And, the population is
equally correlated to the sustenance capacity of that particular
environment. As the old saying goes: 'You can't grow wheat in the
arctic' - and so, a population living in such an environment would
not be agricultural, but would be a sustenance mode based on hunting
and gathering. Such an economic mode is migratory and also, can
support only a small population.

As for the separation between religion and governance - that is
found only when the power to govern has moved from a hereditary or
authoritarian mode to a democratic mode. I don't think it has
anything to do with 'evolution' - but again - with the size of the
population. The hereditary modes of governance - which were
agricultural [because wealth production was in the land, and land
production required stability]..required a metaphysical agency to
validate this societal mode. I think this connection between religion
and governance [God says this is the best way to live and we must
listen to our betters]….provided a stability of life, and kept
dissent to a minimum without a heavy authoritarian police. 

BUT - when the populations grew beyond the carrying capacity of the
old technology - and new methods of food and housing and market
production were required - then, stability became a problem. Dissent,
doubters, questioners were required - and the separation between
church and state began to emerge. In Europe - this began in the 12th,
13th centuries [Abelard's 'dubitando']..Chretien de Troyes 'Perceval'
- and gathered power over the next centuries. Of course, the Church
fought back - very hard; and the Rulers, linked to the Church, fought
equally hard. But- the requirement for the use of individual reason
and flexibility of thought - and the use of the scientific method of
observation and  experiment rather than belief...was too economically
necessary - …

Edwina
 On Tue 19/06/18  3:17 PM , Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com sent:
 It’s worth noting that most evolutionary views of religion see
much of it evolving intertwined with the evolution of government. To
the point that it’s hard to separate the two. It’s true that
particularly in evolutionary psychology religion has some key
differences such as focus on the cognition of agency detection and so
forth. Yet as a practical social organization the separation between
government and religion is fairly recent. And arguably still
incomplete (if it’s even possible to really separate the two) 
 From a Peircean view with its emphasis on common sense as heavily
tested practices in a somewhat narrow environment it’s worth
considering how these social practices would evolve. And perhaps
offer some more Burkean like conservative reasons for worrying about
the widespread abandonment of many tested social practices. 
 > On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:53 AM, John F Sowa  wrote: 
 >  
 > On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: 
 >> Groupthink is the problem... 
 >> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. 
 >  
 > All the religions of the world began at the village level, 
 > usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as 
 > the social-religious leader who shares power with the 
 > military leader. 
 >  
 > Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain 
 > social power by persuasion.  That means an emphasis on 
 > normative values:  aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; 
 > ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of 
 > history, medicine, and good counsel. 
 >  
 > But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power. 
 > It's important to keep the guru poor and honest. 
 >  
 > John 
 >  
 > - 
 > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [2] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [3] with the line

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread John F Sowa


On 6/19/2018 1:35 PM, Jack Ring wrote:

Our blessing is fragile. We have devolved from a nation of laws
to a nation of lawyers.


Believing in the teachings of Christ doth not a religion make. 


I agree with both points.  I wanted to generalize the issues without
getting into a debate with a "Christian".

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Helmut Raulien

Helmut

19. Juni 2018 um 16:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:

As for corruption - that's also basic to our species, unfortunately.

Edwina

On Tue 19/06/18 9:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:

On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> Groupthink is the problem...
> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.

All the religions of the world began at the village level,
usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as
the social-religious leader who shares power with the
military leader.

But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Clark Goble

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
> 
> Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am assuming a belief 
> in metaphysical powers, begins first at the individual psychological level, 
> where the individual becomes aware of his own finite nature and lack of power 
> to 'make things happen'. AND - his awareness that, despite his best 
> intentions, 'the best laid plans gang oft awry'.

It seems to me that viewing religion in terms of metaphysical claims ends up 
with a rather meager conception of religion. It’s true that some religions, 
medieval Christianity in particular, tended to emphasize belief. However many 
didn’t and even within pre-modern Christianity belief was only a component of 
the religion. For many religions practices rather than belief - particularly 
metaphysical claims - is the main focus. One can draw out metaphysics, but that 
tends to be rather distortive since it’s arguably not the focus of the 
religion. You then have in some religions, like Buddhism, the idea that 
metaphysics is at best serves an instrumental rather than literal function. 
(Here thinking of the Lotus Sutra and the allegory of the children in the 
burning building) Even within Christianity liberal theology tends to reject 
most of the traditional metaphysical claims as myths at best and elevates 
instead ethical duty or perhaps a more foundational sense of Being. (Here 
thinking of Tillich although heaven knows one can critique his ethical behavior)

All that said I think most evolutionary psychology does emphasize basic 
psychological behaviors such as agency detection along with the incentives of 
false positives versus false negatives as leading to religious comportments. 
(Atran’s In Gods We Trust is particularly good here although many other books 
analyze the subject)

It’s interesting again from a Peircean conception of common sense and its 
conservative nature to analyze these. Even if the beliefs are false (and some 
must be false given the varieties of religious belief) the underlying “common 
sense” makes sense. i.e. it’s better to be wrong about a predator being there 
than a predator not being there. What’s changed - and changed rapidly in the 
modern era - is that the context it which we live is radically different. Put 
an other way, the costs of being wrong about agents is simply quite different. 
(And I say that as a religious believer - but I think the underlying logic is 
quite interesting)

> Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of behaviour and 
> belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with others. So- we develop 
> shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what happens when we die'; why do 
> bad/good things happen'.

This is true. And of course there are instrumentalist values to these beliefs 
to the community. Although one might also say that purported encounters also 
are reasonably common at the community level even if not the individual level. 
i.e. people who claim encounters with the dead souls. While especially in our 
“disenchanted world” we tend to dismiss such claims, they are quite widespread 
and thus have a social effect.
> I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or medicine 
> man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger populations where 
> specialization of tasks does take place. But in small bands [about 30 people] 
> - there will rarely be a spiritual leader, much less a military!! Again - it 
> depends on the size of the population which is itself dependent on the 
> economic mode which is itself dependent on the ecological viability of the 
> land to support large populations. 
> 
This seems right. Again many religious experiences are happening on the 
individual level and are quite common. That’s not to dismiss the role of 
religious leaders - particularly in terms of transmitting religious 
interpretations of common phenomena. It matters whether your expectations of a 
phenomena is of false agency inference or a ghost. That in turn affects how 
stable the interpretations of phenomena are in a given community.

Again from a purely economical and evolutionary perspective though, communities 
that can get people to self-regulate are apt to be more successful at large 
sizes than those who don’t. So if you can convince people that someone is 
watching them and judging their actions, that allows for larger stable 
societies. Therefore there is an evolutionary value in such beliefs to make a 
community more successful than what government regulation and punishment alone 
can accomplish.

What’s interesting is to ask from a Peircean perspective how such things should 
be viewed. The way Peirce normally talks about critical common sensism tends to 
downplay, I think, the distinction between the instrumental value of a belief 
from its actual truth. That’s of course famously the difference Peirce has from 
James and to a degree Dewey. James I’d argue actually ends

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Clark Goble

It’s worth noting that most evolutionary views of religion see much of it 
evolving intertwined with the evolution of government. To the point that it’s 
hard to separate the two. It’s true that particularly in evolutionary 
psychology religion has some key differences such as focus on the cognition of 
agency detection and so forth. Yet as a practical social organization the 
separation between government and religion is fairly recent. And arguably still 
incomplete (if it’s even possible to really separate the two)

>From a Peircean view with its emphasis on common sense as heavily tested 
>practices in a somewhat narrow environment it’s worth considering how these 
>social practices would evolve. And perhaps offer some more Burkean like 
>conservative reasons for worrying about the widespread abandonment of many 
>tested social practices.

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:53 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
>> Groupthink is the problem...
>> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.
> 
> All the religions of the world began at the village level,
> usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as
> the social-religious leader who shares power with the
> military leader.
> 
> Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain
> social power by persuasion.  That means an emphasis on
> normative values:  aesthetics by stories and ceremonies;
> ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of
> history, medicine, and good counsel.
> 
> But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
> It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.
> 
> John
> 
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am assuming
a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the individual
psychological level, where the individual becomes aware of his own
finite nature and lack of power to 'make things happen'. AND - his
awareness that, despite his best intentions, 'the best laid plans
gang oft awry'. 

Then, there is a second reality, which is that we, as a species, are
necessarily social. We can live only as a collective; our brains - and
physique - require a long nurturing period and this necessitates a
'family' situation. Plus, since our knowledge base is primarily
learned rather than innate - it is stored within the community. So-
to even learn how to live requires that socialization and community.

Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of
behaviour and belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with
others. So- we develop shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what
happens when we die'; why do bad/good things happen'. 

I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or
medicine man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger
populations where specialization of tasks does take place. But in
small bands [about 30 people] - there will rarely be a spiritual
leader, much less a military!! Again - it depends on the size of the
population which is itself dependent on the economic mode which is
itself dependent on the ecological viability of the land to support
large populations. 

As for corruption - that's also basic to our species, unfortunately.

Edwina
 On Tue 19/06/18  9:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
 On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: 
 > Groupthink is the problem... 
 > I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers. 
 All the religions of the world began at the village level, 
 usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as 
 the social-religious leader who shares power with the 
 military leader. 
 Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain 
 social power by persuasion.  That means an emphasis on 
 normative values:  aesthetics by stories and ceremonies; 
 ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of 
 history, medicine, and good counsel. 
 But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power. 
 It's important to keep the guru poor and honest. 
 John 

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread John F Sowa


On 6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:

Groupthink is the problem...
I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.


All the religions of the world began at the village level,
usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as
the social-religious leader who shares power with the
military leader.

Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain
social power by persuasion.  That means an emphasis on
normative values:  aesthetics by stories and ceremonies;
ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of
history, medicine, and good counsel.

But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Edwina Taborsky

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

I disagree with your 'natural progression'. In my view, there isn't
any such natural 'social evolution'. The cause, so to speak, of
political and social organization is: Population size. And population
size is dependent on the ecology; on the pragmatic reality of the
plants and animals that either are natural or can be raised in that
area. 

So-called 'original or direct democracy'; i.e., where all members of
the tribe shared decisions [and food, etc] is only found in extremely
small hunting and gathering populations [about 30 members in the
normal band size]. Once you get a larger population - and a larger
population is ONLY possible in ecological areas where the land can
produce more food - then, this basic democracy is impossible - and
decision-making becomes invested in different modes.

The next step, so to speak, based on population size, is also based
on economics; whatever set of families provide the most food for
their family- an extended family of course - becomes politically
dominant. So  you get what is called 'Big Man' authority and a family
might be dominant. But - only if they produce the food!

 Then - once you move into an economic system based on staying-put,
so to speak; i.e., agriculture - then, political authority becomes
invested in hereditary control of 'capital' - i.e., the land. That's
when you will get an aristocracy.  The aristocracy protects the land.
This ensures economic stability for the population.

You can't have huge tracts of food producing land broken up into
small plots; you have to maintain economic food production stability
- and that was the role of the aristocracy...and that need for
stability required that they were hereditary rather than elected.
Emotional voting - has no role in this economy. 

And of course - this would emerge ONLY in areas, ecologically, which
could produce this kind of surplus farming produce [particularly the
Western European biomes which are the most fertile in the world].

An oligarchy is a corruption of an aristocracy. This would emerge
when, politically, one member of an aristocratic family, tries to
control other families...Again - this would be possible only in
biomes where food production permitted large populations. But - it
can't last because the focus of an oligarchy is psychological, i.e.,
power-for-the-person/family...and not the people. 

A single monarch only develops in even larger populations - which
removes the supreme power of the aristocracy [see the Magna Carta] -
and unites the country, for market economic purposes, under one
political authority and set of laws. This can continue on
indefinitely - I'm sure you are aware of the Constitutional
Monarchies around the world - where the supreme power of the
individual monarch is removed - and power is given to a Constitution
rather than a person.

The point of such a constitutional 'evolution' is that  violent
revolution is no longer necessary; you vote the 'bad guys out'; you
vote to amend the constitution and so on. Democracy in this format,
in large, large populations, is representational rather than direct -
and is messy and slow - but - it's the only way to deal with
populations in the millions.

A key problem with modern democracies, I think, is the emotional
nature of decision-making. Voters can be totally ignorant of the
basic economic realities - and vote only because 'he's cute' [as was
done in the last Canadian election - which has resulted in a Canadian
Prime Minister who has to be one of the dumbest and most ignorant
'cuties' we've ever had]. Our media systems instead of providing
facts - provide us with opinions.

AND - because of political parties. When governmental power becomes
focused within political parties - where one or the other political
party 'wins power' - then, this is akin to an oligarchy. The
political party - whether Republican or Democrat - becomes a TRIBE -
and the focus of all its members and supporters is
Power-For-The-Tribe. The people in the other tribe are viewed, not as
co-citizens, but as enemies [deplorables]. This reduction of the
people - into tribes - is a key problem for our democracies. 

Edwina
 On Tue 19/06/18  9:02 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
 On 6/19/2018 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: 
 > to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven,  
 > corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the
efficiencies to  
 > which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed.
Not to  
 > mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the
peer-review  
 > process as identified by the likes of... 
 Fundamental principle:  There is no difference in the kinds of
people 
 who go into business, government, academia, and religious orgs. 
They 
 come from the same backgrounds and go to the same schools.   Their 
 ethics,

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread Stephen Jarosek

You are also right. Groupthink is the problem. Corporatism (e.g., Nazism)
creates its own groupthink. Groupthink is dumb imitation without questioning
what one is imitating. Pragmatism, and the need to "know how to be." The
question is, is there a way of controlling for groupthink? How might one
reconcile individualism with "knowing how to be?" I believe that
Christianity might provide some pointers.

-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 3:03 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

On 6/19/2018 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven, 
> corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies 
> to which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not 
> to mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review 
> process as identified by the likes of...

Fundamental principle:  There is no difference in the kinds of people who go
into business, government, academia, and religious orgs.  They
come from the same backgrounds and go to the same schools.   Their
ethics, morals, and political acumen are similar -- for better or worse.

Big orgs of any kind -- governments, industries, academics, and religions
have power -- for good or evil.  The amount of power is proportional to the
amount of money they have to throw around
*and* to the their political connections to other orgs.

The biggest businesses are more powerful than all but a few of the
governments in the world.  In the US, only the federal gov't is bigger than
the biggest, and only 3 or 4 states can stand up to them.

In recent years, the oligarchs, whose wealth and power has been increasing
exponentially since the 1980s, are wielding enormous power with their own
wealth and the wealth of the businesses they control.  They can buy
politicians and collude with other oligarchs to dictate policies to the
politicians they bought.

The cry for "states rights" is loudest from the oligarchs, because state
politicians are cheaper than federal politicians.
If they buy up enough state gov'ts, they can control the feds.

If you look at history, starting with the Sumerians, democracies are
fragile.  Only the smallest gov'ts, starting at the village level are true
democracies.  Larger city-states (Athens for
example) could have democracies controlled by the non-slave populations.
But eventually, oligarchs (AKA dukes, counts, or
billionaires) set up a feudal system to control their city-states.
Eventually one of the oligarchs gains enough power to become monarch.

Natural progression:  Democracy -> Oligarchy -> Monarchy -> Revolution ->
Reign of Terror -> Repeat at one of the previous steps.

Question:  Democracy in the US is in peril.  Can it survive?
If democracy in the US collapses, what happens to the world?

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

2018-06-19 Thread John F Sowa


On 6/19/2018 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven, 
corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies to 
which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not to 
mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review 
process as identified by the likes of...


Fundamental principle:  There is no difference in the kinds of people
who go into business, government, academia, and religious orgs.  They
come from the same backgrounds and go to the same schools.   Their
ethics, morals, and political acumen are similar -- for better or worse.

Big orgs of any kind -- governments, industries, academics, and
religions have power -- for good or evil.  The amount of power is
proportional to the amount of money they have to throw around
*and* to the their political connections to other orgs.

The biggest businesses are more powerful than all but a few of the
governments in the world.  In the US, only the federal gov't is
bigger than the biggest, and only 3 or 4 states can stand up to them.

In recent years, the oligarchs, whose wealth and power has been
increasing exponentially since the 1980s, are wielding enormous
power with their own wealth and the wealth of the businesses
they control.  They can buy politicians and collude with other
oligarchs to dictate policies to the politicians they bought.

The cry for "states rights" is loudest from the oligarchs,
because state politicians are cheaper than federal politicians.
If they buy up enough state gov'ts, they can control the feds.

If you look at history, starting with the Sumerians, democracies
are fragile.  Only the smallest gov'ts, starting at the village
level are true democracies.  Larger city-states (Athens for
example) could have democracies controlled by the non-slave
populations.  But eventually, oligarchs (AKA dukes, counts, or
billionaires) set up a feudal system to control their city-states.
Eventually one of the oligarchs gains enough power to become monarch.

Natural progression:  Democracy -> Oligarchy -> Monarchy ->
Revolution -> Reign of Terror -> Repeat at one of the
previous steps.

Question:  Democracy in the US is in peril.  Can it survive?
If democracy in the US collapses, what happens to the world?

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...

27 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information