Dear Stephen
I agree that the problem of truth is an ongoing quest, which is also the way I
understand Peirce's pragmaticism and his call for a more systematic analysis of
metaphysics. This is why I am fascinated by Nicolescu's work 'From Modernity to
Cosmodernity' on p. 14 he writes: " The problem of the sacred, understood as
the presence of something of irreducibly real in the world, is unavoidable for
any rational approach to knowledge. One can deny or affirm the presence of the
sacred in the world and in ourselves, but in the view of elaborating a coherent
discourse on Reality, one is always obliged to refer to it. The sacred is that
which connects..... Mircea Eliade once stated in an interview:" The sacred does
not imply belief in God, in gods, or spirits. It is ...the experience of
reality and the source of the consciousness of existing in the world."
Very close to NA?
Best
Søren
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:[email protected]]
Sendt: 3. juni 2014 20:48
Til: 'Helmut Raulien'; [email protected]
Emne: RE: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
>"What determines what "real world" is, and what is the basis of the authority
>of that "what" and how is it established?"
Thanks Helmut. I interpret this question in the context of the
subjectivity/objectivity debate and the question as to what is "real". This is
an interesting and important question. Soren's diagram seems to be consistent
with where I am taking this. He factors phenomenology into the pragmatic
semiotics corner of his diagram, and this suggests the boostrapping of mind
(experience, behaviour) with body and society.
I've raised this subjectivity/objectivity theme in the past in the biosemiotics
forum, when I tried to distil the most "universally objective" thing that one
can possibly imagine... the empty space in front of our noses. The question
being along the lines, does a spider, an eagle, a snail, a mole-rat and a human
perceive the empty space in front of their noses differently? The basic idea
being that empty space itself is contingent on the type of mind-body that is
negotiating it. This was a topic that didn't seem to interest anyone though, as
the only response was the sound of crickets chirping. If this interests anyone
further, I'll see if I can find said biosemiotics post in my archives.
My humble conclusion was that there can never be a universal authority to
establish "real world". This is the infuriating nature of subjectivity...
that's all there ever is. It is even contingent on which sex you are. If you
have a mind-body, you are trapped within it, you cannot step outside of your
mind-body's experiences to establish reality as it really is... it's a
nonsense. You can, however, establish an axiomatic framework to bring order to
the chaos... but that in itself also is not truth... it can only ever be a best
guess.
sj
-----Original Message-----
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 2:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Dear Gary,
Of course, Stephen should answer this question, because the headline is from
him, but I say something too, because this question is relevant in systems
theories, that are often subsumed under "ontology". Ontology suggests an
all-knowing observer. This is a precarious thing to suggest, so for example
Luhmann also looks at the "interpenetration" of two systems in two ways: One
time the one is the system and the other environment, and the other time vice
versa. So, when there are many systems, all having something to do with each
other, one will have to look at each of them with each at a time being the
interpreting system (the subject, the observer). The systems means for
interpretation is the thirdness (structure) of the looked-at system. Here I
already have mixed in some Peirce terminology, Luhmann rather calls it
interpenetration and structural coupling. But i am not a Luhmann expert now, I
will have to read some more first.
Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juni 2014 um 11:35 Uhr
Von: "Gary Moore" <[email protected]>
An: "Helmut Raulien" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "John N. Deely" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems What
determines what "real world" is, and what is the basis of the authority of that
"what" and how is it established?
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 4:07 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
for me systems theory is very attractive, because I think, that it opens a way
of reflection of why things are the way they are. And when people see that,
they can take measures to change things they do not like. Luhmann says, that
systems act intentionally, draw distinctions between themselves and their
environment, and reenter these distinctions into themselves. And for social
systems the people are environment. So, social systems distinguish also between
people and sort them out. I think, that can be called discrimination, and for
the sorted out ones it is oppression. Though Lumann always took care to be
non-normative and non-humanist, I think, that his theory can be used for
humanism, ie. for emancipation from the systems dictate. Social systems are
much less rigid than other systems: One can define the structure and extension
of a social system he or she wants to be in. With the communication system of
one self (mind, body, mind related behaviour) this is not so. So, I see great
hope in systems theory, it can be for example like a therapy even to overcome
the influence of the primal nurturer. So, because I think, that oppression is
reality, I agree with feminism too (except the mentioned anti-instinct-party).
That is because I think, that there still is a lot more misogyny than misandry
in the world: I even would call myself a feminist, if I knew, whether I could
do that, not being a woman. I think, Luhmanns theory can be combined with
Peirces very well. My choice for systems theory rather than for developmental
psychology is based on the fact, that it is less frustrating and thus more fun
for me. But that is just my way, I do not like astrology either, for example,
because it is too determining, and therefore creepy to me. Systems are creepy
too, but only until they are understood, I hope.
Best regards,
Helmut
Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juni 2014 um 08:37 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
An: "'Helmut Raulien'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Betreff: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems Hi Helmut,
It seems that we are more or less on the same page... yes, the problem IS a
systemic one. I say "more or less" because I do not subscribe to the notion of
instinct (as genetically determined) at all. My own thesis is that it is ALL
mind-stuff in humans and non-humans and this establishes an important
relationship between the cultural known and the cultural unknown (to which
gender roles are related). But I digress.
People need to resist the "oppression narrative" because that is not a
principle relevant to how cultures work. "Knowing how to be" is a much more
important mechanism. It wires brains. And 90% of a human brain's wiring is said
to be accomplished within the first four years of life. Clearly, this time
period falls well within the influence of the primary nurturer. It is the
primary nurturer that first establishes the things that matter in the child's
rapidly developing brain. Thus the primary nurturer's role is particularly
important from the perspective of pragmatism.
Consider the potential for how invisible the primary nurturer's role can be in
first defining the things that matter. It establishes the givens in our minds.
Men are providers, women are provided-for. "It’s just how it is" goes the
given. It is the fact that is accepted at face value and promulgated every time
mom buys Jenny a doll and Johnny a toy truck. And as Jenny and Johnny grow up
and attend school, their "givens" are looking for a cause, and that's where
feminism comes in. "The provider/provided-for roles matter... but don't blame
poor mom, she's just an innocent stay-at-home."
The oppression narrative is a childish, solipsistic one that has no place in
any intelligent conversation. A living system (culture) is comprised of many
agents, and everyone is an accomplice in how culture evolves.
Indeed, consider the domestic violence propaganda that is hitting the
mainstream media in many countries. It's the same, one-dimensional narrative of
man-versus-woman. But what about the children? What about the child abuse to
which children are first exposed, and in which women are the primary
perpetrators? The man-versus-woman narrative ignores the original source of the
violence that a child first learns from their primary nurturer.
sj
-----Original Message-----
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 2 June 2014 8:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems
Dear Stephen, List,
I think, that misogyny and misandry have systemic reasons: A human body is
secondness of two (or more) systems: The thinking/communication system, in
which the mind is thirdness (structure), and the self and species preserving
system, in which epigenes and genes are the structure (genes being a
superstructure for the self preserving subsystem, because they cannot be
changed within one person). Now these two systems have two separate firstnesses
(behaviours): The mind controlled behaviour and the instinctive (eg. sexual)
behaviour. Now, in a mind focussed society, especially when it has a God
associated merely with logos and mind, people are scared, when they, observing
their own behaviour, see, that there is a part of their own behaviour which is
not controlled by the holy mind. Now the psychological mechanisms defence and
projection are at hand: The slightly stronger (with regards to communication)
group (men) apply these mechanisms on the slightly weaker (off-times due to
pregnancy and intensive child care) group (women). Women are said to be the
reason for this scary thing, easily being obsessed by the devil, and to be the
ones to stone in case of adultry. Best to keep them in the kitchen. But women
who fight against this patriarchalism often also defend and project the
instincts: Some say, that sexuality is an instrument of power men use to opress
women. This anti-instinct fraction within feminism make the same mistakes, men
have made, and are misandric. So I think, that the solution to all this might
be, that women and men together analyze all this by systems theory, see, that
the bogeyman is neither the women nor the men, but the logic of systems, and
discuss what to do. The good news in this thread of reasoning is: The ground
(bogeyman) for misandry/misogyny is not cultural tradition (which is said hard
to overcome), but systems logic. With this we can cope easily, once we have
uncovered its mechanisms.
Best,
Helmut
Gesendet: Montag, 02. Juni 2014 um 07:53 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]>
An: [email protected]
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld solutions to realworld problems Greetings everyone
The ultimate test of a successful paradigm is its ability to provide real-world
solutions to real-world problems. My posts on AVFM do not specifically spell
out semiotic or cybernetic or systems-theoretical principles, but they are
there, always informing me of the interweaved layers of meaning that are
ultimately bound together into a cultural whole.
There is a paradigm-shift in the making. In this spirit, I provide my latest
contribution:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-violence/the-misandry-behind-m
isogyny/
As you could imagine, these ideas are heretical to the Church of the
Establishment and its followers:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/dont-let-them-silence-us-international-
conference-on-mens-issues/
History repeats. Does it, or what?
Stephen Jarosek
Budapest, Hungary
+36 20 5168350
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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
[email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected] 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
