Dear list,
I used to wonder why it is that we must, of *necessity*, save CP 5.402 in the concept of *the* pragmatic maxim. I now understand why. To cantonise *is* natural. This is *us*. This is our mode. This is *sensus communis* for us, right now. *But here, my friend, you must not expect that I should draw you up a formal scheme of the passions, * *or pretend to show you their genealogy and relation: how they are interwoven with one another, * *or interfere with our happiness and interest. * *'Twould be out of the genius** and compass of such a letter as this,* *to frame a just plan or model** by which you might, with an accurate view, * *observe what proportion the friendly and natural affections seem to bear in this order of architecture. * With best wishes, Jerry R On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:23 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > I do not think, that just at some point not talking about some aspect > means to deliberately ignore it. Also, I do not think that general good > should be put into competition with individual good. As a humanist I think > that individual good should come first, and groups and group organisations, > whether they are communities, societies, or institutions, should serve > rather the individuals than their system´s self- reinforcement. If it is > necessary to reinforce group systems to protect the individuals, these > measures should be abolished again, when they are no longer necessary. I am > glad, that I do not live in Sweden, where there effectively is no cash > money anymore, or in China, where there is total control over smartphones, > and one cannot pass from one place to another without a smartphone. I don´t > have one, and don´t want to. Not to mention Hungary, which is a fully > fledged dictatorship now. In Hamburg there is (besides closure of schools, > cafes,..) not much control except that it is not allowed to gather in > groups of more than two people who don´t live in a common household, and > there are about 120 people newly infected each day, but about double as > many recovering each day. I agree that capitalism is a very problematic > concept, but not because it is based on firstness rather that thirdness, > but because it is unjust. > Best, > Helmut > > 07. April 2020 um 18:06 Uhr > "Jerry LR Chandler" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Edwinia: > > > On Apr 7, 2020, at 7:44 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > to 'capitalism' which is, after all, an economic system based around > the individual freedom of private enterprise; > > By ignoring the concepts of fairness, equality, justice, > brotherhood/sisterhood, freedom, opportunity, human weal and human health, > you provide a truly deep and penetrating insight into who you are. > > Your remarkable consistency over the years is admirable. > > Cheers > > jerry > > ----------------------------- 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 .
