Edwina - I do consider Herr Hitler unique and likely skilled in certain things. It's just that his uniqueness would not have catapulted him to the top a "normally functioning" society. He was a man of and for his times. The same could probably be said of most leaders who gain office during a major crisis.
I think the historical lesson from the Hitler experience is that it is risky to humiliate a nation and stand by while its people sink deeper into poverty, with no hope in sight. Such people will follow a Hitler, an Osama or another violent demagogue. Eventually one will come along. Regards, Tom Wyrick > On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tom- I fully agree. I don't 'buy into' what I see as any romanticism of > Hitler that sees his rise as 'special' or 'a mystery'. Or that sees fascism > as dependent on a charismatic leader. And I don't accept the notion that the > German people and their history in itself had anything to do with the rise of > German fascism [this is a critique of the Sonderweg theory that Germany had a > particular propensity for fascism]. That is - given the situation of economic > depression, national isolation and a societal 'black hole' (no future for a > middle class), it could happen elsewhere. And as we see in Islamic fascism, > it isn't simply a reaction to failed democracy but to failed governments and > economies. > > There were many who did not support Hitler, both among the ordinary middle > class and certainly, among the old nobility. But his imposition of a brutal > military dictatorship, run outside any rule of law, and thus, run by thugs, > isolated dissent and criticism. And we shouldn't ignore the conflict with > communism as an 'alternative' to fascism - this debate was vital at the time. > > Right - the division of German into East and West didn't help Germany or > Europe; the impoverishment of the East is still quite something to see when > you cross the border between the two. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ozzie > To: Edwina Taborsky > Cc: Helmut Raulien ; <[email protected]> ; Peirce List > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:26 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > I believe that a society's shared beliefs are the outcome of a competitive > evolutionary process, where "the environment" rewards/favors certain traits > and punishes/rejects others. In this analysis Hitler is a "random variation" > of nature, and in some environments he would have been in jail, while in > others he would be elected dictator, etc. Every society has numerous > demagogues who would be dangerous if given the opportunity, and many of those > are silver-tongued speakers. > > This way of modeling the issue returns the focus to a question raised earlier > by Edwina: What characterized German society in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's > that made it susceptible to the message of a Hitler-type leader? Most > historians believe resentments following WW1 reparations, the crushing impact > and distraction of the Great Depression, and disarmament by other nations > played a decisive role in creating that climate. In that setting Hitler rose > to power, but if there had been no Hitler some other extremist leader/group > would likely have gained widespread support. > > According to this view, Hitler's "specialness" is the set of idiosyncratic > talents that set him above other would-be dictators he competed with for > power. Perhaps his abduction-type message is a big part of that success. > Yet,nwe do not credit Hitler for the larger environmental effects that set > the scene for a German dictator. > > This, I believe, represents the general view of most historians and US > foreign policy makers. They believed that by not imposing punishing > reparations after WW2 and helping Germany rebuild its economy, ordinary > German citizens would no longer support another Hitler, even though other > demagogues are available if called upon. Many of Germany's closest > neighbors, including the USSR, were not persuaded of that, however, and > sought instead to prevent Germany from becoming aggressive again (presumably > behind another Hitler) by dividing and weakening that nation. > > Regards, > > Tom Wyrick > > > >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Helmut - if you use the scientific method and lie about your data and >> conclusions then, you are NOT using the scientific method. >> >> Hitler used all three fallacious (and common to us all) methods of 'fixing >> belief'. The a priori emotional pure visceral appeal to the romantic >> idealism of the pure volk, the tenacity of repetition about the economic and >> political crisis of the time and the sense that Germans were victims; the >> tenacity of assurance that such a pure volk exists and the 'authority' of >> the past and the romanticism of the past heroes and era, and the yes, >> romanticism of violence - and eventually, of course, pure military and >> outside-of-the law authority. >> >> Nothing scientific at all about fascism or Hitler's political tactics. >> >> Edwina >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Helmut Raulien >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce List >> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 12:50 PM >> Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >> >> Now I am wondering, which of the four methods of fixating belief did Hitler >> use? According to Ben Novak it is like this, I think: He was tenacious, but >> that is not the main point. He used authority, but that is not the main >> point either. Also he took advantage of apriorian ituition and instincts, >> but neither that is the main point. The main point is, that he used the >> scientific method, but not in a proper, but in a mendacious way. And it is >> scary how it was working, how a false abduction is able to immunize itself >> against contradictions. So I think, that Ben N., by showing this mendacios >> mechanism, has contributed much to making the scientific method more secure. >> Edwina wrote about sweeping generalizations, which dont stand up to >> scientific scrutiny, but are widely believed. Perhaps people believe it, >> because they do not have the means or the energy for scientific scrutiny, >> and want to believe something. But if they would know about this mendacious >> mechanism, maybe they would stop to think before believing. The fact, that >> this mechanism exists, is not a proof against any conspiracy theory, but an >> abduction in this respect. But that does not matter, because if one >> abduction can make people believe, another abduction can keep them from >> believing the first, possibly false abduction. >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> >> "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> >> >> The fact that we disagree on the way things are is encouraging as I think we >> agree more than you might perceive on many basics. We have had different >> life experiences And nothing I suggest ever is more than about a degree or >> two removed from things that would contradict. Above all I believe in the >> power of conversation along with what I understand to be continuity and >> fallibility. >> >> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl >> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 >> >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Well, Stephen Rose, you are more 'rosy-viewing' than I am. I don't think >>> that the scientific method is any more secure now than in the past. Nor do >>> I see a general reduction in violence or poverty. Instead, I see an >>> increase in a sense of entitlement (which is utopian in itself!) and >>> sweeping generalizations about eg, the climate, diseases, and so on - which >>> don't stand up to scientific scrutiny but are widely believed. >>> >>> Edwina >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Stephen C. Rose >>> To: Edwina Taborsky >>> Cc: Peirce List >>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 11:44 AM >>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >>> >>> And scientific method's hold on the present is more secure than in the past >>> and there are arguments to suggest that there is a factual basis for >>> assuming both a general reduction of violence and a reduction of poverty. >>> Certainly both of these positives have been denoted utopian in the past, >>> but they should become more and more subject to the very method Peirce >>> venerated. Merely because Peirce adduced three modes of error does not >>> substantiate their capacity to overcome one mode which constitutes truth. >>> >>> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl >>> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> Utopianism, which is an imaginary perfection of life, is basic to the >>>> human imagination. You can see that in our fictional tales - whether from >>>> Homer to fairy tales to romance novels to Batman films to James Bond to >>>> our political and economic ideas of the current era. >>>> >>>> But fascism isn't the only type of utopianism. The other main type is >>>> socialism, which is equally focused on 'everyone behaving the same'. The >>>> difference from fascism is that socialism focuses on a future ideal, while >>>> fascism focuses on a past ideal (as in the pure volk of Germany and also, >>>> of current Islamic fascism)....and socialism focuses on a future state (if >>>> we all share everything and all have the same amount of wealth...). >>>> >>>> We are, as humans, all subject to hate, irrationality, mob behaviour and >>>> susceptibility to false promises. We've seen that in every nation on >>>> earth- and that includes our own and in recent times. Therefore - we are >>>> not 'condemned to repeat the past' for this behaviour is never confined to >>>> our past. We are condemned to be aware that irrationality is a basic >>>> emotional capacity in ourselves. There is only one scientific method, but >>>> there are three methods of irrational belief in Peirce's work. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Stephen C. Rose >>>> To: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce List >>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:18 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> To: Edwina Taborsky >>>>> Cc: PEIRCE-L >>>>> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>>> To: Stephen Jarosek >>>>>> Cc: Stephen C. Rose ; Peirce List >>>>>> 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 . >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
