Edwina, List To take only one point, I emphatically hold that democracy is much more than majority rule. We have just had an election which we would have to denote undemocratic if that was the case. As a polity I favor a constitutional democracy such as the we we have in the US. In addition to not being rule by a simple majority, democracy is a skein of things, among them rights, a mode of personal behavior, an ideal for all social and community polities and an itemization or index of precious rights such as we have in our Bill of Rights. I do not mean to minimize your project which has intrinsic interest relevant t the topic. But the definition as majority rule is on its face inadequate to express what democracy is in a system or ethics.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 6:35 PM, sb <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, > > i would be really interested how you tackled such a complex theoretical > concept empirically. > > Which historic datasets of demography and economics did you use? To build > up such a database must have been quite labourious! > > I would also be really interested in how you operationalized your theory? > What constructs and variables did you use? In which datasets are they > found? How did you model your assumptions statistically? > > In testing your theory, what were your initial hypotheses? Where have you > been able to falsify or verify your assumptions? Where did you struggle > empirically because of data quality? > > Best, > Stefan > > Am 19. November 2016 22:48:20 MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky < > [email protected]>: >> >> Yes - I've taught this relationship between economics, population size >> and political infrastructure for about 20 years. No- it's not really in the >> *Architectonics* book. It IS in a graphic book, *The Graphic Guide to >> Socioeconomics* - which a retired CEO banker and myself have just >> finished [about 170 slides]....which deals with the pragmatic relations >> between population size and economic modes and political modes. I am not >> sure if I should attach it since is has nothing to do with Peirce. It's a >> powerpoint presentation which we are planning to promote as a 'graphic >> guide for dummies' on the topic, so to speak. >> >> That is - we tried to make it clear that democracy, which means >> 'political power of the majority decision' is suitable only in large >> population, flexible-risktaking- growth economies, and unsuitable in small >> population no-growth steady-state economies which must ensure their >> economic continuity by focusing on retaining the capacity-to-make-wealth by >> stable measures [control of the land, control of the cattle, control of >> fishing rights, etc]. >> >> And we've been very surprised in our test runs with various people - how >> many people don't understand the basic issues of growth/no growth >> economies, carrying capacity of the economy; growth vs steady-state >> populations; what is a middle class; what is capitalism; the role of risk; >> the role of individuals..etc. etc. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 19, 2016 4:20 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy >> >> Edwina, list, >> >> You've clearly given this a lot of prior thought, Edwina. I want to >> reflect on wht you wrote and see what others think before commenting >> further. Btw, would looking again at your book, *Architectonics of >> Semiosis*, for example, Chapter 2, "Purity and Power," be of any value >> in this discussion (as I initially began reading it I recall that in an >> off-list message you commented that in some ways you were now seeing things >> quite differently than you did in 1998)? >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> >> [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 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Gary R- that's an interesting topic. >>> >>> 1) I'd like to first comment that *democracy*, as a political system >>> for arriving at authoritative government decisions, is the 'right' method >>> but ONLY in a very large population with a growth economy and a growth >>> population. That is, political systems have FUNCTIONS; the function is: who >>> has the societal right to make decisions among this population? >>> >>> In economies which are *no-growth*, such as all the pre-industrial >>> agricultural and horticultural economies which dominated the planet until >>> the industrial age, democracy is dysfunctional. That is, all political >>> systems must privilege the wealth-producing sectors of the population. If >>> your economy is agricultural/horticultural - which can only produce enough >>> wealth to support a *steady-state* or no-growth population, then, the >>> political system must put the authority to make decisions in the control of >>> the owners of wealth production; i.e., the landowners. This control over >>> the land must be hereditary [you can't have fights over ownership], and >>> limited [you can't split up the land into minuscule small farms]. >>> Democracy, which puts decision-making into the hands of the majority, >>> doesn't work in such an economy. >>> >>> When the economy moves to a *growth* mode [and enables a growth >>> population], the political system must empower those sectors of the >>> population which *make an economy grow*. This is the middle class - a >>> non-hereditary set of the population, made up of private individual/small >>> group businesses. This economic mode is highly flexible [new business can >>> start, succeed, fail]; extremely adaptable and enables rapid population >>> growth. As such an economic mode, political decision-making must fall into >>> the control of this middle class - and we have the emergence of elected >>> legislatures and the disappearance of hereditary authority. >>> >>> For a growth economy to work, it must support individual rights [to >>> invent, differ from the norm, to succeed AND fail] so that failure, for >>> example, will only affect those few individuals and not a whole >>> village/collective. Therefore, individualism must be stressed and >>> empowered; a growth economy must enable novelty, innovation, freedom of the >>> periphery....as well as success, which is measured by the adoption by the >>> collective of that product/service. FOR A WHILE. >>> >>> 2) But - it seems that the definition and function of democracy in Dewey >>> does not deal with the economy and the questions of the production of >>> wealth and size of population. Instead, it deals with social issues - >>> Talisse writes: >>> >>> "The core of Deweyan democracy can be stated as follows. Deweyan >>> democracy is *substantive *rather than proceduralist, *communicative *rather >>> than aggregative,and *deep *rather than statist. I shall take these >>> contrasts in order.Deweyan democracy is *substantive *insofar as it >>> rejects any attempt to separate politics and deeper normative concerns. >>> More precisely, Dewey held that the democratic political order is >>> essentially a *moral *order, and, further, he held that democratic >>> participation is an essential constituent ofthe good life and a necessary >>> constituent for a “truly human way of living”.... Dewey rejects the >>> idea thatit consists simply in processes of voting, campaigning, >>> canvassing, lobbying, and petitioning in service of one’s individual >>> preferences; that is, Dewey held democratic participation is essentially >>> *communicative*, it consists in the willingness of citizens to engage >>> in activity by which they may “convince and be convinced by reason” (MW >>> 10:404) >>> and come to realize“values prized in common” (LW 13:71). >>> >>> The above seems to me, to be a social relations account - and doesn't >>> deal with the fact that democracy as a political system, empowers a >>> particular segment of the population - the middle class, in an economy >>> based around individual private sector small businesses. It has nothing to >>> do with 'the good life' or a 'truly human way of living'. Nomadic >>> pastoralists, and land-based feudal agriculture were also 'human ways of >>> living. >>> >>> 3) From the Stanford Encyclopaedia, I found the following on Dewey: >>> >>> "As Dewey puts it, ‘men are not isolated non-social atoms, but are men >>> only when in intrinsic relations’ to one another, and the state in turn >>> only represents them ‘so far as they have become organically related to one >>> another, or are possessed of unity of purpose and interest’ (‘The Ethics of >>> Democracy’,*EW*1, 231-2). >>> >>> Dewey is anti-elitist, and argues that the capacity of the wise few to >>> discern the public interest tends to be distorted by their position. >>> Democratic participation is not only viewed as a bulwark against government >>> by elites, but also as an aspect of individual freedom– humanity cannot >>> rest content with a good ‘procured from without.’ Furthermore, democracy is >>> not ‘simply and solely a form of government’, but a social and personal >>> ideal; in other words, it is not only a property of political institutions >>> but of a wide range of social relationships. >>> >>> The above, seems to me, at this first glimpse, to totally ignore the >>> economic mode - and again, some economies whose wealth production rests in >>> stable, no-growth methods [land food production] MUST ensure the stability >>> of this economy by confining it to the few, i.e., those elites'...the wise >>> few if you want to call them that'. >>> >>> That is - the to put power in the majority/commonality rests with the >>> economic mode. Certainly, Peirce's *community of scholars* was a method >>> of slowly, gradually, arriving at 'the truth'. But this has nothing, >>> absolutely nothing, to do with governance and the question of who in a >>> collective has the ultimate authority to make political decisions. That is, >>> political decisions are not really, I suggest, the same as scientific or >>> 'truth-based' inquiries. There is no ultimate 'best way' for much is >>> dependent on resources, population size, environment.. >>> >>> And, I don't see a focus on the required capacity of a growth economy >>> for rapid flexible adaptation - which HAS to be focused around the >>> individual. That is, risk-taking shouldn't involve the WHOLE collective, >>> but only a few individuals. >>> >>> 4) As for Peirce's philosophy of democracy - again, Talisse writes: >>> >>> "the Peircean view relies upon no substantive >>> *moral *vision. The Peircean justifies democratic institutions and >>> norms strictly in terms of a set of substantive *epistemic *commitments. >>> It says that *no matter what one believes *about the good life, the >>> nature of the self, the meaning of human existence, or the value of >>> community, one has reason to support a robust democratic political order of >>> the sort described above simply in virtue of the fact that one holds >>> beliefs. Since the Peircean conception of democracy does not contain a >>> doctrine about “the one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity” (EW 1:248), >>> it can duly acknowledge the fact of reasonable pluralism. p 112 >>> >>> This seems to suggest that a societal system that enables exploratory >>> actions by individuals is a 'robust democracy'. And, since a growth >>> economic mode, that can support growth populations, requires risk-taking by >>> flexible individuals to deal with current pragmatic problems - then, this >>> seems to be a stronger political system. >>> >>> My key point is that the political system, economic mode and population >>> size are intimately related. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 19, 2016 2:59 PM >>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy >>> >>> List, >>> >>> I read Robert B. Talisse's *A Pragmatist Philosophy of Democracy* (2007) >>> a few year ago and was thinking of it again today, in part prompted by an >>> op-ed piece in *The New York Times* by Roger Cohen which quotes H. L. >>> Mencken (see below). At the time of my reading PPD, I was not at all >>> convinced that Talisee had demonstrated his principal thesis, namely, that >>> we ought replace the inadequate, in his opinion, Dewyan approach to >>> thinking about democracy with a Peircean based approach. This is how >>> David Hildebrand (U. of Colorado) outlined Talisse's argument in a review >>> in *The Notre Dame Philosophical Review. >>> **http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23707-a-pragmatist-philosophy-of-democracy/ >>> <http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23707-a-pragmatist-philosophy-of-democracy/>* >>> >>> >>> [Hildebrand] As I read PPD, I kept returning to two fundamental >>> propellants powering Talisse's argument for a Peircean-based democratic >>> theory. The first is constructive: his quest for a lean, non-normative >>> pragmatist inquiry to provide *just enough* of a philosophical basis >>> for a broadly effective conception of democracy. The second is destructive: >>> the argument that political theorists should reject Dewey's self-refuting >>> philosophy of democracy. Taken together, the insight is this: get over >>> Dewey and accept this particular Peirce and we get just what we need from >>> pragmatism for the purposes of democracy. >>> >>> >>> Hildebrand's review is a good introduction to the PPD. While I'm not >>> much of a Deweyan, and I wouldn't presume to argue for or against his >>> ideas, yet I don't think Talisse makes a strong case *for* a Peircean >>> approach to political theory on democracy,. >>> >>> I should add, however, that Talisse is, in my opinion, a very good >>> thinker and an excellent writer. Besides this book, over the years I've >>> read a number of his scholarly articles and heard him speak in NYC and >>> elsewhere. PPD is definitely worth reading, while those with a Deweyan >>> democracy bent will probably find themselves arguing with him nearly point >>> for point (as Hildebrand pretty much does). On the other hand, the >>> concluding chapter on Sidney Hook is valuable in its own right. As Talisse >>> writes: >>> >>> Hook's life stands as an inspiring image of democratic success; for >>> success consists precisely in *the activity of political engagement by >>> means of public inquiry*. >>> >>> >>> I haven't got my e-CP available, so I can't locate references, but it >>> seems to me that Peirce's view of democracy as I recall it is, if not >>> nearly anti-democratic (I vaguely recall some passages in a letter to Lady >>> Welby), it may at least be closer to H. L. Mencken's: >>> >>> >>> As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, >>> the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great >>> and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s >>> desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. >>> >>> >>> I doubt that a discussion of PPD would be very valuable, but it might be >>> interesting to at least briefly reflect on Peirce's views of democracy. As >>> I recall,he hasn't much to say about democracy in what's published in the >>> CP and the other writings which have been made available to us. Perhaps >>> more will be uncovered in years to come as his complete correspondence is >>> published in W (I probably won't be alive for that as I understand that it >>> will probably be the last or near last volume in W, and at the snail's pace >>> the W is moving. . .) >>> >>> Meanwhile, can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations which >>> might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? I would, of course, hope >>> that if there is some discussion here that we keep to a strictly >>> theoretical discussion, especially in light of the strong feelings >>> generated by the recent American presidential election. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> st Philosophy of Democracy >>> [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 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> > -- > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail > gesendet. > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
