Helmut, there is little that I can add to Edwina's reply. She has covered the important issues eloquently. But I'd like to add a further comment, where you write:
>"I agree that the right are tribal. To say that the left are tribal too is >only partly true, i think." How do you know this? If you believe this, then maybe you believe it because you yourself are seeing the world from that tribal perspective. Which means that instead of making an objective observation of your own, you are actually proving MY point for me. Almost by definition... to be tribal (subjective) is to see the world from your own level. If I am to take you seriously, then the onus is on you to convince me that your assessment is objective and distinct from your subjective assumptions. My metaphor of a fish in water applies... can a fish really understand water, if there is no not-water with which to compare it to? Your reference to Hume provides an interesting, alternative slant on the very point that I am making. YOU cannot conclude from your assumptions about the way the world is, to what should be. > "According to Hume, you cannot conclude from something being to what > should be (from is to ought)." sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:29 PM To: michael...@waitrose.com; Helmut Raulien Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: Aw: RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything? Helmut- I disagree with your outline. Any and all ideologies, whether left, right, green, whatever - as ideologies in themselves; i.e., as Thirdness - are closed to the pragmatics of both Firstness and Secondness and are essentially 'tribal' - if we understand by 'tribal' a population isolated in Thirdness. An ideology is alienated from local pragmatic realities and is utopian in its agenda, in that it rejects fallibility and has no adaptive capacity. I also disagree with your differentiation between 'culture' and 'civilization'. I'd agree that, as humans, we have a basic capacity for reason but this does not necessarily include universal values. That is, the sanctity of life is not a universal value; the notion of equality is not a universal value; it's not 'in our DNA'. It took centuries to move into the notion of equality - and the US Declaration of Independence is, I think, one of its finest articulations. Nationalism and populism are not, I suggest, 'right wing ideologies', but are pragmatic perspectives - and pragmatism is not an ideology since it necessarily includes both Firstness and Secondness. I think that 'political correctness' is isolate Thirdness, alienated from Firstness and Secondness; it disables thought. It's rather similar to these so-called 'Safe Spaces ' in some colleges and universities - where students/faculty can go to, to immerse themselves in the purity of their Thirdness ideology - without any interference from actuality, from the realities of Secondness and from the diversity of another point of view of Firstness. Not all refuges are in existential danger - and to assume that by self-defining oneself as a 'refugee' - that this is a correct definition - is, I suggest, naïve and an example of Isolate Thirdness - and an abuse of the people of the host nation. It is an abuse of the term, and an abuse of the humanity and kindness of the people of another nation - to insist that:" IF I call myself a refugee, THEN, you must immediately accept and look after me'. Edwina On Wed 31/10/18 2:04 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Stephen, Michael, Edwina, All, Stephen, yes, to say that my distinction between culture and civilization is the distinction between mythos and logos, is close. A culture, though, may (hopefully) have integrated logos (civil values) too. But it (the culture) cannot justifiedly claim authorship of these values. But cultures always do so, take advatage of it, to claim superiority. Logos is universal. I would say, civil values (in contrast to culture-originated in my definition -regarding Humes law- false ones), besides universalism and its logos, also include humanism and organism. With organism i mean preservation of life. Humanism e.g. has the value "equality". This is not logos: Think of an (SF) alternative evolution, in which ants would have become intelligent. These intelligent ants would not share the value "equality". But humans have this value in their DNA, as they physically and mentally are in principle equal, other than ants. I agree that the right are tribal. To say that the left are tribal too is only partly true, i think. They seem so, sometimes, because they have overstressed the solidarity issue with minorities with their identity politics, so it often seems, that left-wingers are somewhat particularistic and exclusive too, like, if you are a white heterosexual man in a first-world-country, you may feel excluded from the discourse- but this only may seem so, I think. It is not so. If there are "left" circles in which it too is so, then the distinction between "left" and "right" has become blurred. This may be the case. Personally, I do not (in Germany) elect the left party anymore, but the green party again. The left party has gotten too right-winged (nationalistic and popularistic), I think. In Greece they (popularistic left and right parties) even work together. That what is called "political correctness" is mainly not (cultural) groupthink, but logos, like the Kantian categorical imperative. To save people who are in existential danger (refugees) is a basic civil and humanist value. Right-wingers who see it differently have fallen out of humanism. If somebody is thinking about electing a popularistic right-wing-party, she/he should be aware, that he/she may make her/himself culpable of the death of people. In Italy they do not let refugees-saving ships into the harbours. I guess that people have drowned because of that. Best, Helmut 31. Oktober 2018 um 14:38 Uhr michael...@waitrose.com wrote: All, It's not just us that adapt to prevailing or partly prevailing thinking, "ideally" they will get used to our thinking freshly, as many societies have done many times fortunately. In practice logical interconnectedness doesn't necessarily happen. Tolerant societies recognise that our thinking is no more a threat than anyone else's (unless it is of course!) Personally I'm not a package dealer so all the tribes can count me out. Thanks Stephen for the primers. I'll try & throw in well-worn phrases as much as I can! Michael On 2018-10-31 11:53, Stephen Jarosek wrote: >> "And more tribal, but with groupthink this sweeping, the tribes are >> currently confined principally to two... Left versus Right." > > Lest there be any ambiguity, perhaps I should add... we should think > about this. Think about the things that we assume as given, that we > accept at face value. That are completely in error. The political > correctness that projects its own sexism, its own racism, its own > bigotries while masquerading its moral superiority. Groupthink on > steroids, and it ain't pretty. We just assume it to be true and that > becomes the end of the discussion. We are in it, and we can't see it, > like a fish that will never understand water. > > An objective, valueless logos? Far from it, not even close. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 11:36 AM > To: 'Helmut Raulien' > Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce List' > Subject: RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe > and everything? > > Helmut, I think the distinction that you are making is alluded to in > the distinction between mythos and logos. > > I do not accept that a "factual culture" (logos) is favorably inclined > to objectivity. > > You raise an interesting point regarding cultural narratives and the > freedom to believe or not believe. The problem, though, is a variation > on what Jesper Hoffmeyer describes as scaffolding. The freedom to > believe or not believe will be interconnected with other narratives in > the culture, and will have to be logically consistent with all > interconnected narratives, assuming that said believer is sane > (schizophrenia is about not being fully connected with cultural > narratives). Sane disagreement with one narrative, for example, will > be disagreement IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOW THAT CULTURE ASSUMES REALITY TO > HOLD TRUE. > > The world of logical facts is not actually value-free. Gary's post > that he posted just before yours was nicely timed (Disinformation, > dystopia and post-reality in social media: A semiotic-cognitive > perspective). Godlessness, absence of belief, creates different kinds > of pressures for knowing how to be. What we are witnessing with the > rise of social media is increasing groupthink. NOT QUESTIONING our > culture, not connecting with its mythos, masquerades as objectivity > and absence of belief... but when we don't question our culture, we > accept its groupthink and we become slaves to groupthink's values... > social approval, popularity. Contemporary groupthink seems safely > sterile... everyone has access to goods, medical care, etc, everyone > is friendly with everyone, and so on. But as safe and as comfortable > and friendly as it all appears, behind it all is a kind of groupthink > and a compulsion to belong to it. > > The baby-boomer collective that we see in contemporary materialism, > labels and appearances, huge shopping complexes, architectures that > all look the same, and the relentless media/marketing that reminds us > of our "needs". Hoffmeyer's scaffolding. Seems harmless and > value-free. The reflexive, immediate rewards of social approval > inspire more conformity/groupthink... the increase in habituation > (thirdness) confines people to assumptions (narratives) that are > difficult to break out of. Hence the hostilities on social media. > > Our logos creates the illusion that our culture is value-free. It's > not. The need for connection is still there, and a meaningless culture > will seek meaning through other avenues... more compulsive, more > reflexive, more habitual, more rigid, less questioning and less free. > And more tribal, but with groupthink this sweeping, the tribes are > currently confined principally to two... Left versus Right. > > Gary's link relates: > https://content.iospress.com/articles/education-for-information/efi180209?fbclid=IwAR1f_XKsqHnHA_3C9eFYUxxmtXBDpV5H0fliXLqqXKEZ1ZjBvjL9N43Y_uI > > sj > > > From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:27 PM > To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au > Cc: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce List' > Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe > and everything? > > Stephen, Edwina, list, > I think that there is a distinction between culture and civilization: > Culture is the way of life by a population, or of a, how ever, > delimited group of organisms: Either, tautologically, delimited by > some certain aspect of way of life, or by other boundaries such as > nation (whatever nation might mean). > In any case, "culture" is the result of an observation: Something > being. > According to Hume, you cannot conclude from something being to what > should be (from is to ought). > So, culture being ontological, not deontological, it is impossible (or > at least false) to extract values out of culture. > Of course, an essential part of culture is its narratives. But > narratives are merely something told, but not something automatically > creating habits. One is free to believe or not in what is told. > One especially is capable of not believing every narration, if she/he > has internalized the value "autonomy". > "Civilization" on the other hand means how to behave if you want to > keep a society working (reasonably, peacefully...). So "civilisation", > other than "culture", is an also deontological term, including values, > like the demand to act properly, or to always have the general benefit > in mind. > Furter, "culture" is a rather particular, exclusive term (concerning > only a certain group of people or organisms), and "civilization" is a > rather universal term. > There are other ways of distinguishing these two terms, e.g. by > saying, that the western civilization has been destroying many native > cultures. But according to my way of distinction, one might say, that > e.g. some native cultures were more civilized than some western > conquerors, though the latter were claiming the term "civilization" > for themselves. > Anyway, i agree with Edwina, that individuals are able to reason > themselves out of their culture. And I think, that DNA, and > unchangeable brain-wiring has not to do so much with culture, but > rather with civilization and its basic values. > Best, > Helmut > > > "Kultur" bedeutet die Lebensweise einer Bevölkerung, oder einer wie > auch immer abgegrenzten Gruppe von Lebewesen: Entweder, tautologisch, > durch eben einen bestimmten Aspekt von Lebensweise abgegrenzt, oder > durch andere Grenzen, beispielsweise die einer "Nation", was immer das > sein mag (hat was mit "Geburt" zu tun). Auf jeden Fall ist "Kultur" > das Ergebnis einer Beobachtung: Etwas seiendes. > > 30. Oktober 2018 um 11:16 Uhr > "Stephen Jarosek" wrote: > > EDWINA >"Yes - I do suggest that, since we have the capacity-to-reason > [Peirce's reference is the Scientific Method]" > > This is a juicy topic. It is controversial because people are confined > in their assumptions about what constitutes "reality". > Capacity-to-reason is typically framed in the context of known > "facts". But facts are always apprehended subjectively. For example, > that simplest most obvious of "facts"... the empty three-dimensional > space in front of our faces... we have trouble wrapping our brains > around that, too. The problem is "initial conditions" (analogous to > the initial conditions of chaos theory) and scaffolding, and the > learning that begins at conception, through infancy and into > adulthood. Learning is built on former learning, and it is not easy to > undo that habituated prior learning. > > Your doggedness on this capacity-to-reason theme (the notion that > "objective" reality can be understood by those with the determination > to do so) proves my point!!!! :) > > While I'm here... you raised an objection (your 7th objection) with > regards to my 11th point, and after having a closer look at it, I > think that it can be cleaned up a bit. The following sentence confuses > the issue: "Incorrect imitation is the source of all problems, not > desire." There are TWO strains of problem... there is the culture > problem, with its flawed narratives, and there is the personal problem > of conforming to those flawed cultural narratives. The latter relates > to the pathologies such as schizophrenia, neurosis, psychosis, > criminality, etc. So my point still holds true, that > imitation-as-pragmatism (knowing how to be) is always primary, but > there are two nuances... the cultural and the personal. > > sj > > > From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:40 PM > To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce List'; Stephen Jarosek > Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and > everything? > > By my saying that 'individuals are equal ' - I mean politically and > legally. I don't mean that individuals are identical; someone who is > genetically, a mathematical genius is quite different from someone who > is not. And I don't consider that cultures are equal - a totalitarian > ideology is not as socially functional as an open ideology. > Yes - I do suggest that, since we have the capacity-to-reason > [Peirce's reference is the Scientific Method] - we can reason about > what is valid or not valid within a set of social beliefs. Many people > arrive at their beliefs via Peirce's 'other methods': by tenacity, > authority, peer pressure, emotional comfort...and don't bother > examining the facts and the analysis. This capacity to reason enables > us to change our cultures - to move from believing that disease was > caused by our own evil nature or by the witch on the hill - to the > belief that it is caused by germs or other physiological causes. > Edwina > > > On Mon 29/10/18 5:06 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: > Edwina: > >> "1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and >> necessary. Why do you see it as a problem?" > > Entropy is not a problem for us. It is a problem for Darwinism; > >> "2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as >> differentiated from particular of local knowledge." > > This merits further exploration; > >> "3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA >> etc] has the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple >> neo-Darwinian concept of accidental or random knowledge development." > > We are on the same page :) > >> "4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is - I >> consider that individuals are equal but cultures are different - and - >> an individual can reason themselves out of their culture." > > We've tried to cross this bridge before and it didn't work out. To > refresh your memory... BOB (bucket of bugs), no such thing as a DNA > blueprint to specify the functional specializations in the brain, etc, > etc, etc. I don't see it working this time, either. > > You consider that individuals are equal (but that cultures are > different). What do you mean by "individuals are equal"? That within a > culture they all have the same wiring (same functional > specializations)? How so? While there is such a thing as shared > cultural identity, there are so many experiences, stories, joys and > tragedies within a culture, that to say that everyone within it is > wired identically cannot possibly hold true. Why? Because experience > wires the neuroplastic brain. > > Your suggestion that "an individual can reason themselves out of their > culture" is a fascinating topic. It relates to Peirce's "fixation of > belief", and it's a big topic. And I am living it, as I now call > central Europe home. > > Some people might believe that they've reasoned themselves out of > their culture, but all they've likely done is re-contextualize their > existing cultural narratives. An American who goes to Japan or Germany > might believe that they've become Japanesed or Germanized, but all > they've done is re-contextualize their inner American cultural > narratives with Japanese/German labels. So reasoning oneself out of > one's culture? Nope, disagree, it's exceptionally difficult to do. > They'll map their habituated American assumptions onto their > Japanese/German encounters. > >> "6] I don't agree that Mind precedes Matter; I consider them >> inseparable." > > Fair comment, one that I don't actually care to quibble over. My > argument, though, is that nascent mind is the precursor to the > precipitation of polarities/differences... the difference between the > fleeting existence of virtual particles in a quantum void that don't > know how to be, versus the persistence of matter across time, once > said virtual particles "learn" what the rules are, and "behave" > (habituate/associate) accordingly. Or to put it another way... before > I go to fix my broken computer, to precipitate the changes that make > it work, my mind has to decide that there is a problem that requires > fixing. > >> "7] You suggest that incorrect imitation is the source of all >> problems? I don't agree with utopia and Perfect Forms." > > You've completely misread my point. By "correct" imitation, I mean > imitation that resonates perfectly with the specific norms of the > culture that one inhabits. No matter what culture we are talking > about, if one misreads its cues (imitating incorrectly), the culture's > antibodies (its groupthink narratives) will kick in to expel the > invading organism (which is you, if you misread the cues). Some > cultures are less dominated by groupthink than others, though, and > they are easier to adapt to. Groupthink antibodies are hard work. > > SJ > > > From: Edwina Taborsky [tabor...@primus.ca] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:47 PM > To: 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and > everything? > > My brief comments are: > 1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and > necessary. Why do you see it as a problem? > 2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as > differentiated from particular of local knowledge. > 3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA > etc] has the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple > neo-Darwinian concept of accidental or random knowledge development. > 4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is - I > consider that individuals are equal but cultures are different - and - > an individual can reason themselves out of their culture. > 5] I agree with autopoiesis and the self-organization of matter. > 6] I don't agree that Mind precedes Matter; I consider them > inseparable. > 7] You suggest that incorrect imitation is the source of all problems? > I don't agree with utopia and Perfect Forms. > Edwina ----------------------------- 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 .
