Ben N ~ I tried several times to download your dissertation, but the website was unresponsive. So I gave up. Regards, Tom Wyrick
> On Jul 11, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Ben Novak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Ben U: > > I see that the discussion is going in a very different direction than what I > hoped for by introducing my book on this thread. However, I would like to > engage with Ben Udell who has seriously attempted to engage with the book and > lead the discussion back to matters of relevance to Peirce-L. > > Allow me to thank Ben U actually reading the dissertation; for his comments > encouraging others to read the book; and for stressing its direct relevance > to Peirce and the purpose of the Peirce-L discussion list. > > First, thanks for the complimentary comments: > (Methological note: I put quotes from previous emails in red; quotes from > other sources in blue) > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Ben N. is on to something. > > > > There's no requirement, only an invitation, for peirce-listers to read Ben > N.'s book. I do like the idea that a thesis should be summarizable during an > elevator ride but sometimes, for whatever one reason, such a summary isn't > available. But the difficulty of reading at least some of the thesis is > mainly computer-technical, the writing itself is very readable. > > > > Next, I thank Ben U for his comments relative to the relevance of the the > work to Peirce scholars: > > I should add, just to be sure, that there is a significant amount of > explicitly Peirce-related material in Ben N.'s book. > > > To be clear, a good deal of the book consists in Ben N.'s explicit and > detailed application of Peirce's theory of abductive inference (especially as > outlined by Peirce in "The Logic of Drawing History from Ancient Documents, > especially Testimonies") to facts of Hitler's life. That procedure makes the > book particularly Peirce-related. > > Finally, since Ben U has been kind enough to read the book, I will gladly > engage the critical questions he raises. > > His most important questions relate to whether any explanation at all is > necessary, which he states this way: > > 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." > > > > Allow me to answer that from a historiographical perspective, i.e., the > frustrations of historians at attempting to understand the rise of > Hitler--and the uniqueness of their felt inability to understand him and what > he did and how he did it. Attached is a 22-page compilation of quotations > from historians and observers about the mystery Hitler presents. I urge you > to peruse it. Hopefully it may convince you that, at least from the point of > view of historians (if not laypeople,) the mystery of Hitler and especially > his rise to power is huge and disturbing. I tried to discuss this in my first > chapter, but could not reasonably include all the materials in this > compilation. > > > > Now, it is only when one realizes the extent of the sense of mystery among > historians that one can appreciate the task my dissertation study undertakes. > For example, Robert G. L. Waite who writes: "My own approach about this > matter can be simply stated. I welcome any methodological approach to Hitler > that gives me a better understanding of him." > > > If the identification of adductive logic is shown to help in any way to solve > this problem, it would be a big event for Peirce scholars. > > > > Finally, I would like to respond especially to your expressed doubts as to > whether Hitler is unique or in any way the first political leader to use > adductive logic, which you raise this way: > > > > As to how unique Hitler was or wasn't in this, maybe I'll have more to say > later. > > > > 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. > > > > You raise a good question that I did not address in my book, though I have > given it considerable thought. The more complete answer is that while Hitler > may not have been the first to use adductive logic, he was the first to use > it when there was a public familiarity with it, and a public receptivity for > it. > > > > It is difficult for us, particularly Peirceans, to recall how new the use of > adductive logic is among the public. Peirce writes somewhere that each age is > determined by its dominant form of logic. Abductive logic really entered the > popular consciousness with the advent of Sherlock Holmes and Karl May. Prior > to that, the dominant logic used by people was inductive, while prior to the > advent of the Enlightenment it was deductive. I have come across several > sources describing the difficulty of getting police forces in the US to look > for clues to crimes as Sherlock Holmes did--as late as the 1930s!!! > > > > If I may be allowed a broad general statement as an hypothesis that I have > not proved but think can be well established: that adductive logic has become > the dominant form of logic today, and that that is a relatively recent > occurrence, within the last century. Now, it was only the spreading of this > form of logic, and the public's familiarity with the detective story/murder > mystery form, that made it possible for a political leader to craft a > political approach based on adductive logic as I have outlined it in the > book. For me personally, it makes all the sense in the world that Hitler rose > to power in the "Golden Age of the Detective Novel/Murder Mystery > > > > This is a broad statement, but I ask you to consider it in determining for > yourself whether, and in what way, Hitler might be at least relatively unique > in applying adductive logic, in the particular age in which he did it. > > > > Thanks, Ben Udell, for taking the time to read the dissertation, and also for > your efforts--so far unsuccessful--to guide the discussion toward the Peirce > related aspects of the book. > > > > Sincerely, > > Ben N. > > > > > > 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 Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ben, Edwina, List, >> I think, you both are right: Edwina, your analysis is correct, and Ben, what >> you have said about the mentality of just taking orders, too. Already Martin >> Luther had said: "Be underlings of authority"- in a theological context ok, >> but the statement as a sign is a general one. Also, the Germans had not had >> the experience of having successfully fought for liberty (such as the French >> and the Americans with their revolutions). This is a strong sign too: "we >> are different". All these representamens had worked together in a synergy. >> So these causes have not competed with each other. The competition lies in >> the question, at which cause of fascism to put the lever at first, to help >> people liberate themselves from a fascism-like sytem. On the other hand: >> Representamens do not synergically work together in one Sign, but each one >> in one Sign, and the Signs follow each other up. So it cannot be excluded, >> that there might be a first cause of fascism, and your discussion is >> important. I guess, that a thorough analysis of the semiotics of fascism is >> required. >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> "Benjamin Udell" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Having grown up in the 1960s on Manhattan's West Side, when WWII wasn't so >> long ago and a German accent was immediately associated to movies and TV >> series about Nazis, I admit that I may be unduly predisposed to regard >> certain strains of militarism, morality by government fiat, and 'just taking >> orders' as problematic aspects of the early-20th-Century German culture. >> Also I read _Roots of the Nazi Mentality_ when I was an impressionable kid. >> >> But I don't think that power affairs (military+politics) and economics are >> everything against culture (glamour!) and society (status!) as some sort of >> zero. You've a case to make there, Edwina, if you wish to convince people. >> The problematic character of early-20th-Century German attitudes - >> militarism, morality by government fiat, 'just taking orders' - have not >> gone unnoticed by anybody around Germany. The reunification of Germany in >> the 1990s involved US guarantees of maintaining military bases in Germany, >> guarantees sought by the French and other governments. >> >> Best, Ben >> >> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: >> >> No, Helmut, I don't think that the German people 'had more barbaric >> instincts than other people'. We are all similar in our capacity for >> emotional irrationality and violence. When a societal system of law and >> order breaks down for various reasons, i.e., is not providing security, is >> not functioning in a just and fair manner, is corrupt, , is subverted by a >> higher authority - then, the 'cooling off' phase of rational examination of >> the situation is rejected - and we get either a mob, or a 'controlled mob, >> i.e., a band of thugs'. >> >> Democracy is not, in itself, a barrier against barbarism. As Tolstoy said, >> 'Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority shares in it'. >> Democracy, to be just, requires a constitution and the rule of law, set up >> as created by men, and capable of change by men, but applicable to all. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Helmut Raulien >> To: Ozzie >> Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; <[email protected]> ; Peirce List >> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:51 PM >> Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >> >> I agree, that his "abduction-type message is" only "a big part of that >> success". Tenacity, authority and apriori also are. I wrote, that a false >> abduction to laypersons of logic can look like a proper conclusion. But not >> all Germans were too much laypersons to see the lies (eg. Heidegger). >> Nevertheless they followed him. Putting the emphasis on Hitlers intelligent >> ways of manipulation should not assign him a bigger part of the guilt, and >> lessen the guilt of the Germans. They had more barbaric instincts than the >> other peoples, and were no democrats. Other in than other nations, there has >> not been a democratic constitution initiated by the people. >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> Ozzie <[email protected]> >> >> ----------------------------- 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 . > > <03-09-09 The Mystery of H as Seen by Scholars.docx> > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
