Stefan, Edwina, Mike, List, While I think that there is a most interesting and even important discussion adumbrated in these recent exchanges (I too would tend to disagree with Edwina's views, Stefan, as she wrote that she thought I might when she kindly sent me the draft of her slide presentation when I requested it off-list), I would like to suggest that, except to the extent that it is Peirce-related, that this discussion be taken off-list.
You may recall that I concluded my message which began this thread with this question: can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations which might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? Best, Gary R (writing as list moderator) [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 Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, sb <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, > > i can't discuss your views until i have not fully understood them To > understand them it would be great if you provided some of your work on the > topic. Yes, i have great objections to your views. [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and > Democracy > > >>> 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]> <[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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> > -- > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail > gesendet. > > > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > CEO Cognonto and Structured > Dynamics319.621.5225skype:michaelkbergmanhttp://cognonto.comhttp://structureddynamics.comhttp://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ > > > ------------------------------ > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
