Then the proper response is to ask the writer how she or he thinks their concern is Peirce related. Allowing the writer the leeway to say how. In my case I would say my mother's family lived in Watertown when Peirce's family did, that I share his prodigal tendencies, that I anticipate many of his conclusions in published texts written 20 years prior to when I turned a page of Peirce, and so forth.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stephen, list, > > I'm glad you got that off your chest. You are hardly going to "get into > trouble" for expressing your opinion here. Indeed, a group of us are > working on preparing a survey of Peirce forum members in consideration of > how we might move forward in the interest of increasing quality > participation, choosing future works for 'slow read' and seminars, etc. So > I will reflect on your criticisms in precisely that spirit. But for now I > will address only one point--that of Peirce-relatedness. > > In writing that I thought that the discussion in question was not > Peirce-related, I was simply following what I consider to be Joseph > Ransdell's sound thinking on the matter. On the PEIRCE-L page at Arisbe > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM Joe wrote: > > WHAT IS RELEVANT TO POST AND DISCUSS HERE? > ------------------------------ > > Since PEIRCE-L is best thought of as a public forum, which is primarily a > place rather than a discussion group, people contribute or not as they > think best, and come and go freely, as is taken for granted in public > forums wherever they occur. There is no standing agenda except the > promotion of philosophical conversation of the sort which one would expect > from people with a special interest in Peirce and of other communication in > support of that. Thus discussion should be Peirce-related but not > necessarily on Peirce, and the working test for relevance would simply be a > plausible explanation of why the topic in question should be under > discussion on a list called "PEIRCE-L: The Philosophy of Charles Peirce", > given that people subscribe to such lists with some more or less definite > expectations about subject-matter in mind. > > > Best, > > Gary > > > > [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 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Do I really want to get into trouble? Why not? At 79 I'm not counting the >> years. >> >> I think anything here is pertinent and that Peirce-related as a sort of >> litmus-test is among the more subjective things that has passed before me >> in recent years. I have weathered months of discussion here which has >> utterly no interest to me because it is mathematical and I have no capacity >> for it though I like Godel and other stellar math thinkers. I have been >> distanced from this list by a direct attack (apparently acceptable) and by >> moderatorial cautions and I have noticed that people I respect seem no >> longer to post here. John Deely is among them. Anyone who cannot detect >> Peirce-relatedness or who insists upon it seems to me insecure and a mite >> defensive. That may be unfair but this is an argument I have been wanting >> to have at least as a flash in the pan for some time. I think Peirce is up >> for serious criticism notably for his unconscionable meta concerns (must we >> pass through him to get to his jewels?) and his understanding of reality. >> But I have no desire to discuss these matters here because of the >> atmosphere of repression I feel. I do not know whether the other Stephen or >> Steven who was also read out or Helmut or Sung whose posts are too profuse >> and math related to do much for me, but who seems to have preempted the >> list understand where I am coming from. I happen to think I do Peirce a >> favor by stressing his relevance as I do. People I respect have let me know >> that I am OK which accords with my own self-evaluation. But evidently not >> OK enough to be included in Peirce circles including one which apparently >> meets in my home town of Manhattan. I am not an easy person and I am >> writing more to fight than to achieve anything. Consider this a post that >> has been welling up for a while and which I am steamed enough to send >> regardless of the consequences. >> >> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl >> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
