Re: instinct, and excuse me if you¹ve covered this already. Does Peirce ever write anything about amalgams of logical, emotional, and energetic interpretants, in any combination?
On 7/15/15, 10:36 AM, "Jeffrey Brian Downard" <[email protected]> wrote: >List, > >John, I was not trying to suggest that the Century definitions of >instinct are unhelpful. Rather, my suggestion was that they are good >place to start if you want to understand how Peirce is using the word. >The definitions show the generality of his conception--and how it fits >with established usage running back to Shakespeare and Milton. In his >own work, he might very well have developed refined scientific >explanations of the nature of different sorts of instincts as they are >expressed in protoplasm, plants, lower animals, humans (or crystals, for >that matter), but we would need to look at the particularities of what he >says in order to work that out. > >Stephen, I don't see a how your expression of the Peircean paradigm, >which takes instincts to be knowledge as learned fits with the first two >definitions he provides. It does fit with what he says about the special >cases of lower and higher animals, but that does not appear to capture >the generality of his other definitions of instincts as the expression of >internal potencies or principles. My hunch is that Peirce is starting >from a set of nominal definitions which express how the term is typically >used, and then drawing on the explanations of the nature of instincts >that have been especially informative in the history of philosophy and >the sciences (e.g., Aristotle, Darwin), and then trying to refine those >explanations as he works towards a higher degree of clarity about the >real nature of such things. > >In order to work out the character of Peirce's explanations, a comparison >to other positions that he was considering--such as William >James's--might be helpful. See: "What is an Instinct?" > >--Jeff > >Jeff Downard >Associate Professor >Department of Philosophy >NAU >(o) 523-8354 >________________________________________ >From: Stephen Jarosek [[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:28 AM >To: 'John Collier'; [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct > >A further observation regarding the distinction between the Peircean >paradigm (knowledge, including instinct, as learned) versus genocentrism >(instinct as data in the DNA). If we interpret the Peircean paradigm in >the context of "knowing how to be," then we obtain a major insight into >what unifies the many agents within any collective (like people in a >culture, bees in a hive, etc) into a unified whole. The need to "know how >to be" motivates every agent in a collective to observe its partner >agents and how they behave... the penalty for misbehaving often impacts >adversely on survival. Contrast this with the genocentric paradigm, which >portrays the winning behaviours as "adaptive" and the "best" adapted >agents being selected as the progenitors of selfish genes. One paradigm >integrates and unifies, and the other isolates and divides. One is likely >and sustainable, the other, as part of the long line of happy accidents >that is presumed to define genocentric evolution, is unlikely and >unsustainable. One resists the corrosive effects of entropy, the other >must invariably succumb to it. > >From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 8:15 AM >To: 'John Collier'; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct > >List, >I find the notion of instinct as a separate and distinct category of >knowledge, ³written down in the DNA,² as it were, problematic. There must >be, imho, a way to account for instinct within the context of pragmatism, >the three categories, and ultimately, ³knowing how to be.² I suspect that >DNA entanglement (nonlocality) might have a crucial part to play... this >is an unsubstantiated hunch on my part, and I know that many people are >reluctant to go down this ³DNA entanglement² route. But I figure that an >interpretation within the context of DNA entanglement will resolve a >number of intractable issues in biology, physics and biophysics, this >instinct distinction being number one among them... I would also rank the >problem of entropy (the natural proclivity of ordered DNA ³data² to >disorder) as equally important, but that lies beyond this question of the >instinct distinction. >sj > >From: John Collier [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 2:36 AM >To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct > >Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for sending >this gem. Now I just have to figure out what lies behind it. > >I agree with Jeff that the Century Dictionary entries are not >particularly useful. > >I should be asleep. Best to all, > >John > >From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: July 15, 2015 1:18 AM >To: John Collier; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > >Dear John, > >In the last paragraph of an extremely interesting text, "A Theory of >Probable Inference", W4: 408-450 (1883); Peirce points that "Side by >side, then, with the well established proposition that all knowledge is >based on experience, and that science is only advanced by the >experimental verifications of theories, we have to place this other >equally important truth, that all human knowledge, up to the highest >flights of science, is but the development of our inborn animal >instincts." > >Best, > >Miguel Angel Fernandez > >El 14/07/2015 a las 19:08, John Collier escribió: >Folks, > >I am very interested in instincts for various reasons. I recently gave a >talk on Piaget¹s views on instincts at the International Society for >Philosophy, History and Social Sciences in Biology in Montreal last week. >I would be most interested if there is a Peircean position on instincts >that can be supported by his writings. I would be surprised if this were >not so, but so far I have not seen anything that I could use. > >Best to all, >John > >From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: July 12, 2015 8:04 PM >To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Edwina Taborsky; Benjamin Udell; ><[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> >Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > >Ozzie, Stephen, Stephen, List, >I agree. And I think, that idealists are in fact realists, because: >Liberty, equality, fraternity and justice are not only ideals, but also >human instincts, inherited structure of the human race, written down in >the DNA. That is so, because genetically we are still hunters and >collectors, and they have led a free life, people were quite equal with >their rights and plights, everybody was dependent on everybody else, and >they had to solve conflicts in a just way. So I think, that culture is >often overestimated, a rigid culture can block these instincts for a >while, but they will reappear soon. This view is just rosy because of its >hope, that no rigid culture will gain total control. >Best, >Helmut > > >Ozzie <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > >Stephen ~ >I don't go along with your characterization of American history in such >generic terms. You seem to say the founding fathers supported personal >freedom -- end of story. But America's founding fathers revolted for a >specific reason: English citizens living in the American colonies did not >have representatives in the British Parliament or the protections of >British law. > >The US Constitution established a central government with constraints on >what it could do, but among those constraints we do not find a limit on >the size of government, special rights for a privileged minority or >protection of the status quo (independent of other legally recognized >rights). Live-and-let-live is the law of the land, but when enough >citizens support new policies the founding fathers provided them/us a >means of promoting their/our aspirations. New laws, new states, new >voters, and Constitutional amendments were all anticipated within their >master plan. Change. > >Thus America was a controlled social experiment. The founding fathers >established a mechanism for seeking the most beneficial social policies, >but didn't prescribe them. > >As far as outcomes, everyone has an opinion. That's politics. > >Regards, > >Tom Wyrick > > > > >On Jul 12, 2015, at 6:54 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> >wrote: > >It would seem that Edwina and I are on the same page throughout most of >this topic. It is often said that the founding fathers of America >understood something about human nature, hence their emphasis on minimal >government. What was that ³something?² Let me posit a guess. IMHO, it >would proceed by way of the following reasoning: > >1. Idealists are usually well-intentioned enough. They see the >world through rose-coloured glasses and want to fix things that they >perceive are ³wrong² or ³broken.² But accompanying their best intentions >is a problem... a very intractable problem; > >2. To make the naive but well-intentioned vision of idealists work, >they need to harness cultural groupthink, and they need to implement the >machinery of bureaucracies... ie, big government. They need to give >license to groupthink to make it work. The person that assimilates well >into the cogs of bureaucratic groupthink is a very different kind of >animal to the naive but well-intentioned idealist; > >3. The typical idealist is usually a very congenial person with >passions and ideas. The typical bureaucrat (at least from the perspective >of my own experience as a whistleblower-turned-refugee) is usually a >secretive troglodyte that maps his own agenda to the purpose of the >greater bureaucratic machine. He uses the bureaucratic machine, >principally, to further his own ends, and his ideal situation is synergy >between his own agenda and that of the bureaucracy. Any person that is >perceived as a threat to both agendas is perceived as dangerous and is to >be eliminated. In the meantime, while all this takes places under the >cover of The Privacy Act, EEO, FOI, HR, and other such smoke-and-mirrors >hogwash, the bureaucracy carries on its people-friendly masquerade that >is usually publicly associated with the intentions of the idealists. >I think that America¹s founding fathers were onto something. How tragic >that it¹s all falling into a heap now. This then, is the crux of the >problem. Bureaucracies require the application of a very different kind >of groupthink psychology to that of the individualistic idealist that >inspires them... the secrets and hidden agendas that make the behemoth of >stoopid work are very different to the congenial, public best wishes of >the idealists, and there is no solution to this conflict of interest. It >is at this juncture that the well-intentioned idealist becomes naught but >a useful idiot... useful as a public face of the bureaucratic machine >that takes on a life of its own. >sj > >From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] >Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:54 PM >To: Thomas >Cc: Benjamin Udell; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > >Yes, very nice outline, Thomas, of the strength of the 'melting pot' >tactic, which I support. And that's why I'm against the current focus on >'multiculturalism' and 'identity politics' which is all the rage in >America and Europe now. It actually retains and fosters those ancient >irrational tribal hatreds. And any 'progressive' who, in their >multicultural/identity political sanctimonious zeal doesn't understand >that these minority enclaves - which are kept insular by >multiculturalism/identity politics.... can be even more racist, bigoted >and irrational than any majority...is naive in the extreme. > >Edwina > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Thomas<[email protected]> >To: Edwina Taborsky<[email protected]> >Cc: Benjamin Udell<[email protected]> ; ><[email protected]><[email protected]%3e> >Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 11:46 PM >Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > >Edwina ~ >Germans and the other groups you listed have all assimilated into >American society, and none of the nationalities or races have proved >particularly intractable. The melting pot is imperfect, but it does a >good job of challenging cultural myths and ancient hatreds that seem to >continue for centuries in closed/insular societies. The demagogues of >America appeal to the down-and-out of most/all nationalities -- almost as >though they're broad-minded humanists. That reveals a focus on laws and >justice, as opposed to settling scores with ancient enemies. > >By contrast, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are comprised of far more >insular societies. Historically most people there have been poor and >ruled by often-brutal and almost-always deceitful autocrats who coopted >the church to hold onto power. Little wonder that warlords and >terrorists have played such a big role in their political histories. > >Regards, > >Tim Wyrick > > > >On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: >Yes, stereotypes are basic to our identification of 'identity groups' - >whether it be Jews, Italians, Germans, Russians, Chinese. Such distorted >and simplistic images-of-the-other are found among all people. Americans >are viewed by Europeans as...and so on. But the few key variables of >behaviour that we understand to define 'that nationality' are not, in my >view, an explanation for the rise of fascism in Germany. > >That is, my point is that we are all as human beings, susceptible to >emotional blindness in our political and societal views; we aren't at all >'rational beings' when dealing with political and social affairs. >Therefore, if the economic and societal order breaks down, I'd say that >we are all susceptible to fascism. There is a critical threshold when the >rule of law, the political order, the societal order, the economic >viability breaks down - and a power-bloc can move in and take over..and >then, impose its fascism. > >The ideology of 'old Germany', with its aristocracy, its ideals of >governance had little to do with the ideology of 'pure race' of Nazism, >nor the Nazi focus on nationalism as a biological construct and the >contempt for 'lesser beings'. After all, the British upper class had a >similar focus as the old Germans on 'noblesse oblige', strict rules of >behaviour, a military career and so on - and were not susceptile to >fascism. [But many were susceptible to communism/socialism!]. > >There were plenty of people in the old upper class and the middle class >of Germany who were opposed to fascism and Nazism. > >Yes, the horrors of WWII did bring a requirement that US military bases >remain in Germany after 1990 reunification - but, logically, such a >demand by the French and others cannot PROVE that, 'Germans are basically >capable of moving back into fascism' without such a presence. That is - >the modus ponens statement of: >IF there are bases, THEN, they will be peaceful" > >can't be turned around to declare: >'They are peaceful; that's because there are bases'. (Fallacy of >Affirming the Consequent). > >So- I am not convinced that the German people are predisposed to fascism, >nor that Hitler's rise was a mysterious event. I remain focused on the >economic, political and societal infrastructure - which can decimate a >culture's deep beliefs in a decade. We have our own examples. > >Edwina >----- Original Message ----- >From: Benjamin Udell<[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:19 PM >Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > >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]><[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 > >
----------------------------- 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 .
