I watched the move of folk like Dick Neuhaus and Mike Novak to the right and felt it was as much economic motivation as anything else. Both prospered. Meanwhile, Christianity and Crisis which was my roost at the time went under. The liberal move to the right has had no discernable effect on the Right's sorry performance including its present sad captivity, My brand of liberalism which is not neo-liberalism but rather a liberalism based on fairness and non-violence will eventually triumph as the strong tree from which future politics can grow -- in a world of democracies once today's miasm blows away. Think long-term. I suspect Peirce did.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > The liberals of your experience remind me of the liberals that I used to > identify with before I turned to the right. But times have changed, and the > liberals of today are not what they used to be. This video clip reminds me > of the reasons that I originally changed sides (I was ahead of my time J): > https://youtu.be/4Pjs7uoOkag > > So don’t apologize… get those who now routinely betray what you believe in > to apologize to you… or walk away. > > sj > > > > *From:* Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2018 6:37 PM > *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain > > > > Wow! The blanket lumping of liberals with the selected vignetter you give > of fascist liberalism sounds a bit like Jordan Peterson skewering > post-modernist French intellectuals. Most liberals in my experience are > nonviolent, oppose war, and do not use clearly provocative lingo even if > they are rabidly opposed to their opponents. They can embrace a > democratic-socialist all the way to a necessarily blue dog type. I am not > sure where the animus behind your words comes from but I am tempted to > apologize. Cheers, S > > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > HELMUT >” The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are > more than two genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not > wanting to forbid anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, > gay, trans, both, none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of > those suits better to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that > presses on everybody one of two labels is rigid.” > > The only duty we have is to respect one another. Most of us do not have a > problem with people living out their personal preferences, so long as they > respect others’ personal space. But people trying to foist “alternative” > definitions into a culture and demand that they be observed are not liberal > at all… they have an agenda and their demands are propaganda. > > HELMUT>”A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal > culture.” > > Many of us observing proceedings taking place in America would disagree. > It is the Left in America that is agitating for war. They want to deny the > Right their freedom of speech. They call anyone that they disagree with > nazis. They want to deny a president that was democratically elected. Their > fascism masquerading as antifascism is laughably transparent, and the > violence of their Antifa reveals the mindboggling extent of their > hypocrisy. History is repeating, and it is the Left that is at the center > of it, fascism red in hammer and sickle. > > sj > > > > *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Stephen Jarosek; Daniel L Everett; Peirce-L > *Subject:* Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Culture wires the brain > > > > Edwina, Daniel, Stephen, List, > > I agree with Edwina. I think there are social and altruistic instincts, > but they may be destroyed by a rigid culture, and replaced with other > instincts, which are "if-then"- routines, such as egocentric, tribal, and > warrior instincts. > > I think, that the nature of humans is usually good, in a liberal and > equality-supporting culture. But there are also sleeping bad > predispositions, which may be awakened in a bad environment, for the > purpose of surviving there too. But of course, a human always has choices. > > The "Left" do not utter "nonsense" by saying that there are more than two > genders, but they (the "Left") are merely liberal, by not wanting to forbid > anybody defining their own special gender, like "lesbian, gay, trans, both, > none, or between man and woman...", if they feel one of those suits better > to them than either "male" or "female". A culture that presses on everybody > one of two labels is rigid. > > A rigid culture is more likely of starting a war than a liberal culture. > In a war situation, bad instincts are awakened, up to making psychopaths > out of people. A psychiatrist visiting a continuous war zone in Congo has > said, the psychopaths ratio in the population was 70%. The other 30% > remain, because people still have brains and choices. > > All this may have to do with "brain wiring", ok, but not with cultural > relativity, as "rigid", "liberal", "equality-supporting", and so on are > universal terms. > > Best, > > Helmut > > 08. August 2018 um 14:41 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Interesting - but - if you see our species [homo sapiens] as a kind of > 'black slate' so to speak - then, how do you explain the fact that the > infant has to be socialized; i.e., our species is not born with innate > knowledge and requires a long nurturance period. And our type > of socialization requires language. So- how do you get away from the notion > that the requirement for language is innate? > > Edwina > > > > *On Wed 08/08/18 5:14 AM , Daniel L Everett [email protected] > <[email protected]> sent:* > > > https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16611802.html > > > > https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004132 > > > > Here are two recent works of mind on culture and cognition. I will be > exploring these further in a specifically Peircean context in a book coming > out next year from OUP. > > > > Dan Everett > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 8, 2018, at 06:12, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > List, here's an interesting article that resonates with ideas that I've > touched on in this forum (culture, neural plasticity, scaffolding, > bucket-of-bugs... no such thing as instinct, no such thing as a "blueprint" > that wires the brain). I'm not sure whether the author would take it as far > as I do, but definitely of direct semiotic/biosemiotic relevance: > https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people- > from-different-cultu > res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/ > > Barrett's paper also got me thinking about a point that I've been mulling > over recently... the importance of initial conditions (scaffolding in the > context of chaos theory)... the idea that experiences can never occur in > isolation (objectivity), but must build on prior experiences > (subjectivity): > > "This leads to another significant implication-that childrearing and > early childhood experiences are more important than we thought. Not only do > early experiences shape our personality and values, they also create the > wiring that will govern our perception of the world far into adulthood." > > Initial conditions are particularly important in the cultural relativism > debate, for example, where the Left entertains nonsense about more than two > genders. Initial conditions based on childhood AND the body that you > inhabit > lock you into a fairly narrow trajectory, with the implication that you > cannot just wake up one morning to decide that you're a special snowflake > in > the wrong body, and that you need to change genders. > > sj > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
