I do not see how this discussion concerns anything Peirce-related. If it cannot be moved in that direction, then perhaps it would be best to take it off-list.
Best, Gary (writing as list moderator) [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Stephen, > I like very much the book by Jean Liedloff: "The continuum concept". By > this book and other books about psychology I have adopted the idea, that > bad psychological effects (such as matriarchalic or patriarchalic > ideologies) do not occur, if the baby recieves a satisfying primary > symbiosis, as long as the baby demands it by his/her natural desire > (programmed in the DNA as an instinct, which Liedloff calls "mammal > continuum"). So I think, that rivalry between men and women in the sense of > matriarchalic and patriarchalic thinking rather occurs, if the symbiosis > with the final nurturer is disturbed or cancelled too early, esp. if it is > not granted unquestioningly, so long, until the child crawls away from the > mother by own impulse. But if this symbiosis is somehow combined with > conditions- only then the pawlovian reflex you have mentioned starts: The > baby is learning, that women are passive, demanding, those to be > pampered,... So, just the facts that a woman is the primal nurturer, and a > man the second, does not educate a baby towards the idea, that women are > passive, and men are active. At least this is how I have read it, and how > it makes sense to me. I think I must read some more books about this, how > in other cultures babies are treated, and whether these cultures have a > rivalry between men and women, or a distinction of passive/active between > men and women. Maybe Levi-Strauss has something about it? > Best, > Helmut > > > "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > > > >” But is patriarchalism a myth? I think: Patriarchalism as a phenomenon > is not a myth, because of the history in which mostly men have ruled- in an > unjust way.” > > Helmut, a patriarchy emerging magically from a vacuum to oppress > womankind, as if it has no matriarchy to answer to, is a fairytale for > children... the part that is missing from “The Patriarchy” myth is > non-trivial: > > > http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/transcending-the-matriarchy/ > > sj > > > > *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de <http://h.raul...@gmx.de>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 July 2015 6:12 PM > *To:* Stephen Jarosek > *Cc:* 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee > *Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, > projection > > > > > > Thank you, Stephen! Now I see your point and have read it, and do not feel > offended. But I would say, that projection is something everybody does, not > only the feminists. Also manipulation using shaming strategies, I guess, is > applied by most other political parties too. Manipulating and lying to > political opponents is even regarded as good and useful eg. in the Quran, > in ancient Chinese texts, in Macchiavellis "The Prince". That does not > mean, that I personally like it, I just want to say, that it is typical for > particularist (in contrast to universalist) political parties. Well, > "feminism" is particularist by name- but I know, that in spite of this > particularist name, there are many feminists (percentage I dont know), who > are not particularist, but see emancipation as a benefit for both men and > women. To the term "collective cultural hallucination" I would say: Culture > is exactly that, a collective hallucination, a set of collusions- but we > need it, otherwise there would be no understanding, like in the story of > the babylon tower in the bible. Again, I am not saying that I personally > like it. I think, collective hallucinations (myths) should be analysed and > talked about: Do we need them to avoid total anarchy, or can we replace > them by something more senseful. About myths, I think, it is the best to > uncover them. But is patriarchalism a myth? I think: Patriarchalism as a > phenomenon is not a myth, because of the history in which mostly men have > ruled- in an unjust way. But to say: "Unjust ruling, manipulation and > suppression are things only men and not women are capable and eager of" is > a myth, I would say. > > Very best, > > Helmut > > > "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > > Es tut mir lied, Helmut, aber ich habe nicht stimt verstanden was sie > wolten sagen J > > But hey, if I read you correctly, rest assured that I only strive to state > things as they are. However, it is a necessary warning to include. I don’t > want to create the impression that I am trying to “trick” anyone into > reading something that they ultimately won’t want to read. sj > > > > *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 July 2015 12:38 PM > *To:* sjaro...@iinet.net.au > *Cc:* 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee > *Subject:* Aw: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection > > > > Stephen, > > How should one know whether he/she would be offended without having read > it? I think, critique is always justified, about anything. The only > offending is that what sometimes comes along with the critique and is more > than critique: For example striking back by applying similar methods to the > methods the critcized apply: For example, when a feminist, who is > criticizing the discrimination in patriarchalism, becomes discriminating > herself. I think this has often happened in feminism, so why not criticize > it. To me, what would also be offending, would be role-assignment, for > instance to say, that women should have this or that role in society (in > addition to the naural thing (which thus is not a role) of bearing > children). I would always answer, that, if I wanted me or others to play a > role, then I would have become an actor in a theater, but this is real > life. The offense thus would be, that someone who is trying to assign roles > to somebody, is trying to keep that person away from real life: Offense as > deprivation, a form of suppression. But I am looking forward, that your > text is not containing such things. So- Do you think I could read your > text? > > Best, > > Helmut > > > > > *Von:* "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > > > Lists, > > > > Another article of mine that is informed by semiotic-biosemiotic theory. > Emphasis here is on culture and projection, especially from the perspective > of firstness, secondness. Knowing how to be also relates. Again, same > warning applies as last time... critical of feminism (please don’t read if > such criticism offends): > > http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/shaming-as-the-narrative-of-hate/ > > > > sj > > ----------------------------- 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 . > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
