I have no idea how the inner permutations work -- I address things to the
person I am addressing and Peirce list. If they do not get there I have no
idea why. Please feel free to reproduce whatever you want to reply to. I
never see anything I send to the list ever.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> We live in time-space and we also accept logos. To do both allows for
> confidence that ultimately matters are out of our hands. At the same time
> we have a purpose here. I see that as inevitably social and so it makes a
> difference whether for example the elections go one way or another. Either
> way it makes no difference  in the ultimate scheme of things, but it
> registers precisely on the individual scales on which we live. As Peirce
> understood we live by the fruits of our doing and saying. To embrace both
> and look ahead seems to me the best stance.
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> Stephen, List,
>>
>> but if validating means to have to wait for time to vindicate it all, I
>> am too impatient for that. So I look for validation in (supposed and
>> believed by me) "pure reason", which I suppose is independent of "the
>> climate of our world". I am not alone or the first one with this, and would
>> not have gotten the idea by myself. I would not try to refute Kant, Peirce,
>> and others. Neither John, who said that in the beginning was the word,
>> meaning logos is primordial, universal. In this respect I am a conservative
>> (so not liberal? I mean, "liberal" does not mean to have to put everything
>> into question, out of routine: Routine is habit, and unfreflectedly
>> following habits is conservative- There we have it, the complications and
>> complexities).
>>
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>>
>>  11. August 2018 um 17:40 Uhr
>>
>> "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Here's the deal. I am a professional communicator with a broad knowledge
>> of how this all works. The way Peirce is now done you are talking of
>> something that exists in a thimble somewhere. We may like the term triadic
>> or the notion of semiotics. They gain some traction but NO. EGs will not
>> have a chance in a million of doing what ontology does for free. It
>> validates those values! If it can validate EGs more power to them. If we
>> are not also communicators along with whatever else we say we do, we are
>> whistling in the wind with Peirce notions. They will continue to languish
>> in places few will ever be aware of. The Cosmos is an invitation to narrow
>> our messaging. I see our role as fathoming what we can say about ourselves
>> and reality as a whole. EG's -- even the word ontology -- is specialized in
>> the climate of our world. Best we fight for things that have a chance of
>> gaining a hearing and a seeing. We are fighting obsolescence that is
>> formidable -- much of it in the realm of thought.
>>
>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stephen C. R., List,
>>>
>>> I agree with the action values. But aren´t EGs *the* proper tool for
>>> ontology? Because Ontology is about being, existence, what "is", but the
>>> term "is" is ambiguous, or polyguous, other than the "cut" of the EGs,
>>> which is well defined, and not culture- or taste-relative? I am not very
>>> much into EGs, especially not the beta- gamma- and so on graphs. Somebody
>>> else please say something.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> 11. August 2018 um 13:30 Uhr
>>> "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> EGs are an acquired taste like frogs legs and kale. Words that survive
>>> have many permutations. I would never use myth to mean something not real
>>> or a lie. But there we have it. We are in a very binary phase. But when we
>>> come out of it we need to suggest that some things are ontological -- true
>>> regardless -- and liberal is not quite there but it is close because it is
>>> tolerant, democratic and helpful and these are three ontological action
>>> values that time will vindicate.
>>>
>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stephen, Stephen, List,
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be better, if in politics Peirce´s existential graphs
>>>> would be applied. Then it would e.g. be clear, that if "liberal" is inside
>>>> the cut, "fascist" , and "hammer and sickle" would be outside of it. Also
>>>> quasi-fascists calling themselves liberals, and people claiming the
>>>> existence of liberal fascists, would not work with EGs.
>>>> Also the sayings "The path should resemble the goal", and "the way to
>>>> hell is paved with good intentions" could be easily sketched with EGs, I
>>>> guess.
>>>> The kinds of weird double-negations that are used in politics instead
>>>> of the Peircean cut should be analysed with Peirce, I think. Ok, who will
>>>> do it?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>>  10. August 2018 um 19:51 Uhr
>>>>  "Stephen Curtiss Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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 <sjaro...@iinet.net.au
>>>> > 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:stever...@gmail.com]
>>>>> *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 <
>>>>> sjaro...@iinet.net.au> 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:h.raul...@gmx.de <h.raul...@gmx.de>]
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:32 PM
>>>>> *To:* tabor...@primus.ca
>>>>> *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" <tabor...@primus.ca>
>>>>> 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 danleveret...@gmail.com
>>>>> <danleveret...@gmail.com> sent:*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo16
>>>>> 611802.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 <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>>>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message
>>>>> not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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
>>>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>>>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message
>>>> not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to