Jeff, John, list, Jeff, quoting Peirce, wrote:
This claims is particularly interesting: "Association may happen to be of advantage to the associating individuals; but each individual's instinct brings no more advantage to him than the sum of all the advantages that it brings to so many others. It is double-entry book-keeping; and the sides of the ledger must balance." Why must the sides of the ledger balance? I've been mulling this over since I read it and haven't yet been able to come to an adequate answer to your question. At the moment I'm thinking it might have something to do with Peirce's idea that every individual is a kind of society, while every society is also a kind of individual. I'm hoping that John or someone else on the list can put a brighter light on this. 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* On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Gary, John, list, > > I agree that this passage is particularly important for understanding > Peirce's account of instinct. The first step in developing a better > explanation of the nature of instinct is to provide a more adequate natural > classification of the different kinds of instincts. It appears that the > driving idea in this classificatory scheme is the role of association in > the explanation of the different kinds of instincts. > > This claims is particularly interesting: "Association may happen to be of > advantage to the associating individuals; but each individual's instinct > brings no more advantage to him than the sum of all the advantages that it > brings to so many others. It is double-entry book-keeping; and the sides of > the ledger must balance." > > Why must the sides of the ledger balance? > > --Jeff > > > Jeff Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > NAU > (o) 523-8354 > ________________________________________ > From: Gary Richmond [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:36 AM > To: Peirce-L > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct > > John, > > First, I agree with you that Miguel's snippet from "A Theory of Probable > Inference" is a gem (esp. the "important truth, that all human knowledge, > up to the highest flights of science, is but the development of our inborn > animal instincts") and will have me rereading that piece later in the week. > > I happened upon this passage wherein Peirce writes of the instincts in > considering the classification of sciences. He suggests that there are "two > distinct kinds," namely, (1) those that may help to preserve the stock > through preserving the individual, and (2) those that are social in the > sense of advantaging "some other individual or individuals than the agent." > (I've broken this long passage, part of an even longer paragraph, into > smaller paragraphs for readability.) > > The second Family, that of Systems of Performance, has quite clearly two > Subfamilies. Both the one and the other are, substantially, and in the > gross, confined to animal and human performances, including organized > associations. One Subfamily studies those systems of performance which are > mainly confined to the brutes, to the lower animals generally, being in the > instinctive stage of development; so that there is an inborn faculty by > virtue of which the performance is determined in almost all its details. > The Instincts are said to be all adaptive, although it would seem to be in > very small measure that play is so. > > However, the instincts seem to be of two distinct kinds, those which are > adapted to the preservation of the stock, if at all, through preserving the > individual in whom the instinct acts, and those which are social, and > therefore, so far as they are adaptive, are adaptive primarily to the > advantage of some other individual or individuals than the agent [emphasis > added].. Association may happen to be of advantage to the associating > individuals; but each individual's instinct brings no more advantage to him > than the sum of all the advantages that it brings to so many others. It is > double-entry book-keeping; and the sides of the ledger must balance. > > But then, over and above this, association is generally connected with > reproduction, and is therefore advantageous to the stock quite > independently of its advantage to the individual. In many cases, the social > instincts are expensive to the individual, even dangerous, sometimes fatal. > It appears to me that this Subfamily has but one Genus and that this Genus > has two Subgenera relating to the two kinds of instincts. There is a > certain difficulty in the fact that instincts for war are on the one hand > social, since war is a sort of social reaction, and is moreover often > dangerous, sometimes certainly fatal, yet on the other hand, it seems > improper to distinguish war from preying, and preying is generally an > affair of bread-winning, adapted to the preservation of the agent. It seems > to me, however, that in war the enemy is not looked upon as > fellow-creatures, but is treated as a thing, and I believe that though the > instinct brings danger, it is nevertheless a selfish one, and ought to be > classed with those which go to preserve the agent. This is inconvenient, it > is true, as regards duels motived by jealousy, which is the chief kind of > fighting among herbivora. > > The leading instincts studied in the first Subgenus are those of Feeding > and Food Getting. The study of these will make the first Species. The study > of instincts of War will be the second, with two Subspecies, the study of > instincts of active war making one, the study of self-preservation > including the instincts of self-concealment being the other. Other species > will study the minor instincts, such as those of personal Cleanliness, of > Medicine (dogs eating grass, etc.), of hibernation, and the singular > instinct for collecting and hoarding all sorts of useless things, as seen > in rats, in mag-pies, and some other animals, a genuine collecting mania, > apparently quite useless. Then I am inclined to think that we must admit a > Species for the study of instincts of working materials, such as the > tree-felling instinct of beavers, the instinct of the wood-pecker. With > this I would reckon all instinctive mechanical skill. CP 7.378 > > This may not closely relate to your particular interest in instinct, but I > found the passage intriguing. > > Best, > > Gary > > [Gary Richmond] > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > C 745 > 718 482-5690 > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Collier <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > 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] > <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 Piaget’s 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]< > http://[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 “something?” 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 > “wrong” or “broken.” 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 America’s founding fathers were onto something. How tragic > that it’s 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]<http://[email protected] > >] > Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:54 PM > To: Thomas > Cc: Benjamin Udell; [email protected]<http://[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<http://[email protected]> > To: Edwina Taborsky<http://[email protected]> > Cc: Benjamin Udell<http://[email protected]> ; <[email protected]> > 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]< > http://[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<http://[email protected]> > To: [email protected]<http://[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]><http://[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]><http://[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]<http://[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, > send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]< > http://[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]<http://[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, > send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]< > http://[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]<http://[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, > send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]< > http://[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To > UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > <mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, > send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]<mailto: > [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 .
