Words are a large step from the signs that give rise to speech. That is one reason I feel we are surrounded by mysteries even within our own reach and sight and certainly beyond the reach of both. That we speak of ourselves as distinct elements of reality is useful but all life can be said to show a will to live or exist. One of my attractions to Peirce is that he places a high valuation on the individual and in the same breath acknowledges that the notion of a distinct self is a stretch. Vagueness is to me synonymous with much that we call reality.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> wrote: > Dear Helmut, > > Yes, and I think Aldous Huxley put it well in his little book > *Brave > New World Revisited*, where he said: > > "Biologically speaking, man is a moderately gregarious, not a completely > social animal -- a creature more like a wolf, let us say, or an elephant, > than like a bee or an ant. In their original form human societies bore no > resemblance to the hive or the ant heap; they were merely packs. > Civilization is, among other things, the process by which primitive packs > are transformed into an analogue, crude and mechanical, of the social > insects' organic communities. At the present time the pressures of > over-population and technological change are accelerating this process. The > termitary has come to seem a realizable and even, in some eyes, a desirable > ideal. Needless to say, the ideal will never in fact be realized. A great > gulf separates the social insect from the not too gregarious, big-brained > mammal; and even though the mammal should do his best to imitate the > insect, the gulf would remain. However hard they try, men cannot create a > social organism, they can only create an organization. In the process of > trying to create an organism they will merely create a totalitarian > despotism." > > > > Gene > > > > *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:30 PM > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Aw: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on "Peirce's > Questions, i.e. "icon" and Destiny? > > > > Dear Gene, > > I agree. The self concept is the opposite of a potato. But I must revise > what I wrote, that intelligence helps social competence, because ants are > socially very competent, but not intelligent and have no self > consciousness. I rather think, that reflection can disintegrate one from > the social context, and social systems "know" that, so they produce myths > and "consensus trance" (Charles Tart), to keep people from thinking and in > agreement with the system. > > > > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2014 um 17:34 Uhr > *Von:* "Eugene Halton" <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> > *An:* "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Betreff:* RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on "Peirce's > Questions, i.e. "icon" and Destiny? > > Dear Helmut, > > Or maybe rather: Die Quantität der Potate ist indirekt proportional zur > Intelligenskapazität ihres Kultivators! (Or, as it is put in the south: > Der Dümmste Bauer hat die grösste' Kartoffel'!). > > Loosely translated: "The size of the potato is indirectly proportional to > the IQ of the farmer; or, the dumbest hick has the biggest spud." > > Gene > > > > *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de <h.raul...@gmx.de>] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:14 AM > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on "Peirce's > Questions, i.e. "icon" and Destiny? > > Maybe the ability of having a self concept is proportional with the > intelligence or the well functioning of the mind, because the mind is a > reflecting system, and also self-reflecting, if it is highly developed. But > intelligence does not guarantee social competence: Asperger people and are > often very intelligent, but lack social competence. I like the term "social > agreement", though many agreements have been established long before a > human was born, and are eg. present in the epigenes and genes. Social > agreements, I think, are the structure of a social system (Luhmann said, > expectations and expectations of expectations are the structure). And the > more one shares these agreements or expectations, the more social > competence he or she has. Intelligence, of course, helps too, but not > alone. And a trauma, like having been neglected as a child, or experience > of violence, like in a war, can destroy or block social agreements and with > it social competence. > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
