All Edwina says is fine. My only caveat is that the tendency of what she calls utopianism (that assumption needs some proving I think) is not necessarily in a fascist direction. Fascism requires what she suggests -- a sort of blindness to reality. It's result is hate, irrationality, mob behavior and susceptibility to false promises. I believe that because of what Peirce rightly put together we can achieve incremental progress by means of reasonable moves forward. Based on a growing body of evidence. I do not as I have said before believe that we are condemned to repeat the past.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, thanks for your comments. > > With regard to the use of such terms as 'mystery, magical, and luck' when > referring to the rise of Hitler, I consider them all similar in that they > suggest some non-factual or illogical causality to his rise. My point is > that such explanations are, of course, not explanations and that Hitler's > rise to power - as well as that of any demagogue - is explicable. And - it > can happen again and elsewhere. > > In Canada, and I imagine in other countries, one does not register to > vote, and need not register for nor belong to any political party. Voting > 'registration' is primarily but not solely via taxation information. > > As for the rise of Hitler, as a nationalist fanatic, racist and demagogue, > (see his autobiography written at a young age!) ; i.e., his conversion as a > fascist, one can see in his early education and life (Wm. Shirer The Rise > and Fall of the Third Reich) his personal movement into this ideology. I > think the real focus is on the rise of fascism; it was by no means foreign > to the German/Austrian sentiments of the time. (eg, 1913 in Vienna). ; See > W. Shirer and see also R. Eatwell: Fascism, a History; and R. Evans, The > Coming of the Third Reich; and R. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism. See also > a discussion by Jean B. Elshtain, 'Sovereignty: God, State and Self. ). I'd > consider that F. Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom', another examination of how > and why people move into a utopian ideology. > > How could a majority of a population move into fascism, the utopian > ideology of a perfect *volk...*with its primordial, pure Will which, as > pure to the *volk*, *must triumph*. We see fascism in the preachings of > various political leaders of the current era both here and in other > countries. And people listen to and accept it! The question then becomes - > what is the critical threshold when fascism becomes dominant and drowns > out/prevents other discourse and the voice of established law and ongoing > critical reason? We see, in Germany, its rise due to many 'leaders' - not > just Hitler. > > And then, we must acknowledge that fascism is not unique to one era and > one man, but, we are all susceptible to a 'Fixation of Belief' by > irrational means. > > Edwina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ben Novak <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* PEIRCE-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 8:56 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Dear Edwina: > > You have made a number of interesting points. Most of them have been > addressed rather well by Ben Udell. But let me add a few points that I > think will be helpful to many others on the list. > > First, it is important that one read the book or dissertation, rather than > for summarizing its salient points, for one main reason. The book involves > the application of Peirce's theoretical structure of abduction to facts. > Therefore, the book is not the presentation of a theory, whose salient > points can be summarized and presented in bite-size form for others to > critique in theoretical terms and argue over principles, definitions, and > soundness of syllogisms. Rather, in this case, the "devil is in the > details." > > In this respect, I think that the work should be of particular interest to > the members of Peirce-L precisely because it involves the messy world of > facts, in other words, it is an experiment of seeing whether certain > theories can actually explain certain facts. It is like the situation when > a scientist claims to have established something by experimental methods; > one must meticulously go over each step of the experiments to see whether > the result holds. > > In this respect, Eco and Sebeok's *The Sign of Three *is very > instructive.They wrote that book because their studies of Peirce had > introduced them to several other scholars who noted the presence of > Peirce's adductive logic in the stories of Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Conan > Doyle. They therefore set out to show how this form of logic pervades the > work of these two giants of the detective story genre. In that case, in > order to see if their premise holds, one must not only read Eco and > Sebeok's book, but must also be familiar with the works of Poe and Doyle. A > lot of work. > > Second, I don't think that I am making more of a mystery of Hitler than is > warranted. Almost every major historian has shouted out that the facts of > Hitler so far constitute a major mystery. That was the thesis of Ron > Rosenbaum' book, *Explaining Hitler*, which he boldly states: "Hitler has > escaped explanation." > > I set out to deal with one part of the Hitler mystery, specifically, what > there was about him that enabled him to succeed. It seemed that simply to > say he was lucky is not an explanation. First because he was the most > unlikely of people to have any success in politics. He was a high school > dropout, a denizen of the poor houses of Vienna, had shown no signs of > leadership through four years of war in which any sign of leadership was > sought to replace the high mortality of line officers. More importantly, > however, one must keep in mind that he was not a citizen, and could neither > vote nor hold office. > > Finally, he built up his political movement from scratch not once, but > twice.He took the tiny DAP from a *stammtisch* organization and built it > into the largest force in Bavaria in four years. Then came the Putsch, and > he was imprisoned, the party declared illegal and all its assets seized, > and he was convicted of treason. No one believed that he could be any > further trouble. But he said he could be back on top in a few years, and > within five years after he was released, he was the leader of the second > largest party in Germany. To say it was luck alone is to believe that > lightning strikes twice in the same place.... > > This brings up another fact that is disconcerting. Many people believe > that Hitler succeeded because of his oratory. But he built up his party the > second time under a complete ban on public speaking, effectively from > November 1923 till spring of 1927 in Bavaria, and until 1928 throughout the > rest of Germany,during which he gave only one public speech in February > 1925, which is the speech that got him banned again from public speaking. > Yet his party grew by leaps and bounds during this period from a party of > one, to 49,000 dues-paying members in 1927, and to 78,000 members and > almost 3 percent of the vote in 1928. This calls out for explanation. > > (Understand that in Germany at this time, one did not register for a party > as we do in the US when one registers to vote. Every German was > automatically registered, but one had to actually go to Party headquarters > to join, and that meant paying dues and being required to perform > organizing services. So, building an army of 49,000 dues-paying, hard > working election organizers in two years was no small thing. My point it > that this was done when Hitler was forbidden to give public speeches, so it > cannot be because of his oratory.) > > Well, my point is that this process has not been explained. My book offers > to provide at least one part of an explanation. > > Again, I agree with you that this is different from the usual discussion > on Pierce-L where abstract issues can be discussed. My original > announcement was simply that there was now a book trying to apply Peirce's > theory of abduction to an historical event, with the idea that people on > the list might be interested to know that. Of course, I hoped that someone > would actually read it and critique it. But if you choose not to read it, > that is a fair choice. > > Thanks for responding, > > Ben > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>* > 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 > Telephones: > Magic Jack: (717) 826-5224 *Best to call and leave messages.* > Landline: 239-455-4200 *My brother's main phone line.* > Mobile (202) 509-2655* I use this only on trips--and in any event > messages arrive days late.* > Skype: BenNovak2 > > *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts > themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar > of Mozart will have ceased to be — **though possibly a colored canvas and > a sheet of notes may remain — **because the last eye and the last ear > accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tom, yes, this is the kind of thing where I speak of rephrasing. Fresh >> from a first reading of 3/4 of the thesis, my impression was that Ben N. >> was attributing more originality to Hitler than seems established. Still I >> think Ben N. is on to something. Mainstream German politicians were >> offering practical programs, while Hitler was offering a Big Explanation of >> Everything and avoiding proposing solutions to particular problems. >> >> Best, Ben U. >> >> On 7/9/2015 11:15 PM, Ozzie wrote: >> >> Ben ~ >> >> Thanks for your helpful summary ("Ben N. is saying that Hitler was the >> first leader to invite the public to follow a pattern of abductive >> inference like in a detective story ...") >> >> Both for sport and to attain positions of leadership, Greek orators at >> the time of the Peloponnesian Wars invited the general public to form, >> accept and act on abducted hypotheses. The logical tales spun by Hitler >> were based upon resentment, which places him among the demagogues. >> >> Regards - >> >> Tom Wyrick >> >> On Jul 9, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: >> >> Edwina, Ben N., list, >> >> I've been reading the online version of Ben N.'s thesis. I found that I >> could not save it to my computer without first opening it online, and in >> order to save it computer, one has to move one's mouse over some buttons in >> the upper right-hand corner of the view pane till a little tool tip says >> "Download". I'm convinced that visual design of computer programs these >> days is largely done by sadists. >> >> Anyway, I've been reading it, it's two PDFs, and I'm half-way through the >> second one. It really is very readable, and that involvement of Hitler does >> add a certain electric current to the discussion of abductive inference. >> It's not a labor to read, and it's quite interesting. There are a number of >> technical errors (as Ben N. warns) evident to a Peirce scholar, but these >> can be corrected without damaging the thesis. >> >> In response to Edwina, I'd say that Ben N. does not present Hitler's rise >> as having a magical or mystical element, rather a mysterious element that >> requires explanation. He makes a case that many scholars think that there >> are some very difficult questions as to who Hitler was and how did he get >> so far. I'm no historian and hadn't read a book on Hitler since I was a >> teenager. So far, I'd say that the case is not made clear enough to the >> general reader that Hitler didn't just get lucky in the sense that some >> party had to come out on top or, in the classic formulation, "somebody has >> to be the king of France." Ben N. outlines some argument that luck wasn't >> such a big part of it, but it's not clear to me yet. On the other hand, I >> don't think that Ben N. is relying on a "Great Men" theory of history - he >> says that Hitler might have made very little difference in other times and >> circumstances. >> >> Insofar as everybody uses abductive inference, Ben N. perhaps doesn't >> bring out clearly enough the difference between Hitler's use of it and >> others' use of it, instead he talks about how Hitler was the first leader >> to use it. I think I know what Ben N. is getting at, but I'd phrase it more >> carefully. Ben N. is saying that Hitler was the first leader to invite the >> public to follow a pattern of abductive inference like in a detective story >> (Who Murdered Germany?), and that Hitler relied for credibility on the >> justificatory plausibility and complex cohesion of an untested hypothesis >> that would take a long time to verify. Well, there's more to it, which it >> would be foolish of me to try to summarize. I'd ask, is Ben N. so sure that >> Hitler was the first such leader? Many other regimes have 'explanations' >> that they give to their people, sometimes involving the idea of hidden >> forces behind events. >> >> Anyway, I'm enjoying reading it. One can certainly say that Ben Novak has >> made a serious effort, deserving of more attention than what some rather >> pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey stuff has received occasionally on peirce-l. >> >> Best, Ben >> >> On 7/9/2015 7:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: >> >> Ben, I'm going to disagree with your view that in order to discuss the >> basic issue of your book, namely, your attempt to correlate the rise of >> Hitler with abductive logic - that it requires that we either buy your book >> or read it. >> >> I think that on a Peirce-list, the members ought to have a reasonable >> reading knowledge of Peirce's works, but I don't think that a research >> topic dealt with by a member requires that members of this list read that >> member's work. My view is that it is incumbent on YOU, to provide members >> with a reasonably thorough precis of the salient points of your argument. >> >> With regard to the points you have so far provided, my concern is that >> you seem to be trying to imbue Hitler's rise to power with some 'magical' >> or mystical element. >> >> For example, you claim that when his party took power, German politics >> consisted of 28 parties - why was Hitler's dominant? In Canada, at the >> federal level, there are 26 political parties - and there is nothing >> particularly magical or surprising that only three are dominant. There are >> about 30 minor political parties in the US. Only two-three are dominant. >> >> Second, my concern is your method of explaining this history. You seem to >> be using what is known as the 'Great Man Theory' of historical analysis, >> which examines history by focusing on the charisma or whatever of some >> singular causal individual. I consider this a weak analytic frame; I prefer >> the 'long duree' framework of the 'Annales' school (eg, Braudel), which >> considers infrastructural causality such as the population size, economic >> mode, technological capacity, trade relations etc...rather than individuals. >> >> As for fascism, it is an ideology of the mind, i.e., it is not rooted in >> pragmatic reality but in a notion of utopian purity of the past, such that >> 'if only we returned to that pure mode', then, all would be well. It is now >> rampant in the Al Qaeda (from the 19th c!) and ISIS of the MENA. There are, >> I maintain, population and economic reasons for the refusal of these >> populations and governments to deal with the pragmatic problems of the area >> and the resultant retreat into fascism. >> >> Same with Germany of the 1930s. And, once an infrastructure is set up, >> e,g, National Socialism's Third Reich, it is extremely difficult to move >> out of the rhetoric and back down to hard reality. That requires an >> external intervention. Certainly, internally, some tried to stop Hitler - >> >> As for Hitler being logical - what??? I think some examples would be >> helpful. His behaviour around Stalingrad was hardly logical. >> >> Is the popularity of various cult figures, of wealthy preachers, of due >> to their being logical? Or for some other reason(s)? >> >> What is abductive about Hitler's 'reasoning'? >> >> Again, my view - and I say it is my view - is that the onus for >> explanation of a topic is not to have readers buy your book or read it >> online, but for you to explain key points to us - and then, explain why you >> align it with Peircean theory. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Ben Novak <[email protected]> >> *To:* Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> ; Peirce List >> <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 09, 2015 5:12 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
