Perhaps I'm more cynical but I don't see that we are that different from 100 and 1,000 and more years ago. Technologically we have advanced in our capacities to interact with the envt and support larger populations. Societally we are more complex but this is due, I suggest, to increased populations. And we have moved - at least parts of the world - have moved from tribalism to a civic model of societal organization, i.e., within the rule of law rather than the power of kinship and custom. Again, this is due to population size in my view. But psychologically, I think we are no more and no less ethical and moral than we ever were. We have only to consider our political dancers to see this; we have only to consider that, as always, crime and anti-social behaviour is still a vital part of human behaviour.
Helmut - I don't see that an orchid's flower that looks (to us) like a female bee has anything to do with ethics. I do agree, however, that evolution or the development of CAS (complex adaptive systems/networks) have a moral intention, in that they MUST be functional for their members. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Helmut Raulien To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:18 PM Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] THIRD? REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN I dont think, that ethics or morality is just a matter of "technically speaking", ie. language. For example, we can see unethical behaviour in evolution too: An orchid that has a flower looking like a female bee is deceiving male bees. So there is deception without language. Is there ethical behaviour too in languageless nature, eg. an expression of Kants categorical imperative, that he said, is apriori? Like eg. in a ecosystem all members of it contributing to its benefit? Of course, these antimorality or morality is not intended by the orchid or the ecosystem members, but evolution as a whole, or subsystems within evolution, may be supposed of having a (moralic?) intention. Gesendet: Donnerstag, 05. Juni 2014 um 16:12 Uhr Von: "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> An: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> Cc: "Gary Moore" <[email protected]>, "Peirce List" <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] THIRD? REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN Lynching was a habit that was broken by social intervention and we would only go back to it in he event of an unprecedented regression. We do inch along ethicaly extendingi the reach of tolerance, helpfulness, democracy and non-idolatry. Progress is breaking bad habits. @stephencrose On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: Hmm - I think that concepts such as 'all the verbally obvious is a myth' and 'linguistic knowledge' moves us into nominalism and rejects objective reality. Your reference to Lakoff's 'loosely speaking', 'strictly speaking' and 'technically speaking' has comparisons to Peirce's 'Fixation of Belief' within, in the same order, 'a priori, tenacity and authority'. Despite the prevalence and the almost eternal existence of the above three modes of fixation of belief, I still think that the scientific mode also exists and indeed, has little to do with language. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Moore To: [email protected] [email protected] ; [email protected] [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 9:05 AM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] THIRD? REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN All the verbally obvious is a myth. Myth is the socially acceptable and society’s self-contradictory justification. It is the reason why it was acceptable to lynch black people in the 1920s and, for the same reason, not to lynch black people now. Ergo, since there is no rational basis for one or the other, they can switch back tomorrow. Vague as hell, empty of all demonstrable content, not researched competently at all, not even dependent on one’s known personal feelings, this is perfectly exemplified in George Lakoff distinctions of linguistic knowledge as “loosely speaking”, “strictly speaking”, and “technically speaking”. I think Peirce would have thoroughly appreciated that. “Loosely speaking” is dominant because it can momentarily justify murder – and is the justification of every criminal act. “Strictly speaking” has to do with the control of “loosely speaking” that is literally dictated by the text of the law and has absolutely nothing to do with morality foundationally. “Technically speaking” researches itself as in ontology, philosophy, metaphysics, and evidential objectivity as in physiology, chemistry, physics, subatomic and astrophysics, mathematics, logic, linguistics – and reveals itself UNFOUNDED, that is, it can only answer particular questions about itself and its objects while the overall why & wherefore is wholly unknown and utterly ambiguous. -x- But in modern media society and practical metaphysics off the cuff, “ontology” which is meant to study the fundament of “reality” is diminished in practical computer-talk into “ontologies” where “content” is strictly and deliberately limited to a fixed and closed-in content so as not to distract one with irrelevant knowledge and get one’s mind “off the job” of immediate concern. This is much like George Orwell’s 1984 where a fundamental social definition is “War is peace”. Rational people, therefore, in the name of practicality, become wholly irrational because they only need to practice their “reason” in a deliberately limited field. This is playing all three of George Lakoff’s distinctions against each other where, in the end, the only one that comes out on top is the totalitarianism of “loosely speaking” lynching people in the name of justice and making war to establish democracy. In WWII, when who the “unjust” were was perfectly clear to everyone, one side destroyed everyone and everything they could of the “unjust enemy”. Now we fight for their “rights” so they are able to shoot us in the back. And why shouldn’t they – “loosely speaking”? We have violated all aspects of lawful “strictly speaking” – both ours AND theirs. We may not like their kind of “strictly speaking” but, to them, it was theirs and not ours to judge. No one understands why the North Koreans hate us so much since they do not bother to learn the irrelevancies of the Korean War where we leveled their cities to the ground like we did Germany and Japan, whereas they had done absolutely nothing to us whatsoever except try to get us out of their country. This is how “precise” computer-thinkers compartmentalize their thoughts in “ontologies” instead of “ontology” so one thought does not have to associate with another. -x- Yes, the “self” and “nothing” are myths “loosely speaking”. But as “strictly speaking” or “technically speaking” within those limitations they can be relatively precise tools. “Truth” is a myth “loosely speaking”, but, again, in “strictly speaking” and “technically speaking”, within their limitations, “truth” can be a very precise tool even when studying itself. You then say, “Is this not also the kind of blind compartmentalization of computerese “ontologies”? No, because, as George Lakoff explains, all three distinctions are fundamentally part of one existential fact right at hand, “speaking” or language AS A WHOLE which can only be analyzed from WITHIN itself and never “as a whole” as an external object. Hence, the primary question still is, as Martin Heidegger would say, “What is language?” -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- 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 .
