Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Helmut Raulien]

 
 

Supplement:

Edwina, I think I just argued from your point, or twisted the words. sorry. I think, our opinions are not far apart, generally: When people do not admit that they are arguing or politically acting out of secondness, but make their point seem like thirdness though it isnt, then the utopy-problem arises. Examples:

The Leap-Manifesto people should just say: This and that is going wrong, it should be changed with a leap, because it is urgent, in a democratic way. But not: We have the solution for a better life for everybody.

Luther just should have said: Sorry folks, I cannot help you with your revolution, that would be biting the hand that feeds me. But not make up a weird two-realms-theory, just to make himself appear to be the standpointish thirdness-only-macho he saw himself like.

When Owen improved the lifes of the workers in his factory in England, he had success. But then he thought this change of secondness was a thirdness-solution for everybody, and put up a commune in the USA, which failed.

So, on one hand, secondness change should not be adressed for thirdness. On the other hand, a thirdness can automatically evolve out of secondness: Apel claimed, that when people talk and argue with each other, they automatically perform an acceptance of the discourse continuity. But something which gladly happens sometimes should not be stated for dogma, or generally supposed, otherwise it becomes a paradoxon. I want to read Thomas Morus "Utopia".

Best,

Helmut




Edwina,

you wrote:

 


"3] A call for action is, in my view, based on a theory of 'How To Live as a community'."

 

That would be a fully fledged thirdness-communist-utopic theory. But a call for action may also be just a call for help, from being fed up or starving, without any concept or theory, or something half-reflected between. A degenerate sign??

(desperately trying to Peirce-relate)

Best,

Helmut

 

 


 27. Juni 2017 um 02:40 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky"  wrote:
 


Helmut - I'll try to be brief because I really don't think this is a topic for this list.

1] Democratic change, whether gradual or via leaps, has in my view, nothing to do with the LEAP Manifesto.

2] Yes - the best laid plans of mice and men could be compared with 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

3] A call for action is, in my view, based on a theory of 'How To Live as a community'.

They are recommending a particular socioeconomic system - and this has nothing to do with democracy. The term 'democracy', to my understanding, refers only to a method of choosing a particular action/person/govt/ etc.

4) Peirce was, if I recall correctly, against gradual evolution and did suggest 'leaps' in evolutionary change.

That's it.

Edwina



 

On Mon 26/06/17 8:17 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:




Edwina,

with "it" I meant a basic-democratic, maybe leap-like, change: In Cochabamba (was it in the 1980ies?) a citizens initiative had regained the water rights that were stolen from the people by a collaboration of the government and a US- water company. Before they were not even allowed to collect rain water. In Chiapas (1990ies) the people have achieved to govern themselves, see: Zapatista uprising. How it is there nowadays I dont know, I hope still democratic. You wrote:

 


'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'

 

I dont understand (not a native speaker), does that mean: "The way to hell is paved with good intentions"?

With which I would agree. You wrote:

 

"4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'. But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed - will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on."

 

I do not see the Leap Manifesto as a theory (do they claim that?), but a call for action. That they promise best life and well-being- I too do not like that either. I agree that this is wrong. But are they, as you said, "recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization"? Or is it simply democracy, they recommend?

 

About the kind of freedom Luther meant I am overasked. Perhaps he just gave in to the princes one of whom had protected him before. The farmers fought against all princes, but Luther could not accompany them at this point, because without the help of one of these princes he would have had ended on the pyre long before. You ask:

 

"And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?"

 

Nothing I admit. But I had argued that you (from my humble opinion, which may anytime be altered) should not refute the Leap-Manifesto with Peirce, so be not Peirce-related either with this subject. Well, trying to suck something Peircean off my fingers... Peirce had an idea of continuity, and the leap manifesto wants a discontinuity, a leap. So it might hopefully be Peirce-related, to say, that modern 

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina,

you wrote:

 


"3] A call for action is, in my view, based on a theory of 'How To Live as a community'."

 

That would be a fully fledged thirdness-communist-utopic theory. But a call for action may also be just a call for help, from being fed up or starving, without any concept or theory, or something half-reflected between. A degenerate sign??

(desperately trying to Peirce-relate)

Best,

Helmut

 

 


 27. Juni 2017 um 02:40 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky"  wrote:
 


Helmut - I'll try to be brief because I really don't think this is a topic for this list.

1] Democratic change, whether gradual or via leaps, has in my view, nothing to do with the LEAP Manifesto.

2] Yes - the best laid plans of mice and men could be compared with 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

3] A call for action is, in my view, based on a theory of 'How To Live as a community'.

They are recommending a particular socioeconomic system - and this has nothing to do with democracy. The term 'democracy', to my understanding, refers only to a method of choosing a particular action/person/govt/ etc.

4) Peirce was, if I recall correctly, against gradual evolution and did suggest 'leaps' in evolutionary change.

That's it.

Edwina



 

On Mon 26/06/17 8:17 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:




Edwina,

with "it" I meant a basic-democratic, maybe leap-like, change: In Cochabamba (was it in the 1980ies?) a citizens initiative had regained the water rights that were stolen from the people by a collaboration of the government and a US- water company. Before they were not even allowed to collect rain water. In Chiapas (1990ies) the people have achieved to govern themselves, see: Zapatista uprising. How it is there nowadays I dont know, I hope still democratic. You wrote:

 


'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'

 

I dont understand (not a native speaker), does that mean: "The way to hell is paved with good intentions"?

With which I would agree. You wrote:

 

"4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'. But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed - will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on."

 

I do not see the Leap Manifesto as a theory (do they claim that?), but a call for action. That they promise best life and well-being- I too do not like that either. I agree that this is wrong. But are they, as you said, "recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization"? Or is it simply democracy, they recommend?

 

About the kind of freedom Luther meant I am overasked. Perhaps he just gave in to the princes one of whom had protected him before. The farmers fought against all princes, but Luther could not accompany them at this point, because without the help of one of these princes he would have had ended on the pyre long before. You ask:

 

"And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?"

 

Nothing I admit. But I had argued that you (from my humble opinion, which may anytime be altered) should not refute the Leap-Manifesto with Peirce, so be not Peirce-related either with this subject. Well, trying to suck something Peircean off my fingers... Peirce had an idea of continuity, and the leap manifesto wants a discontinuity, a leap. So it might hopefully be Peirce-related, to say, that modern theories talk about leaps, revolutions, bifurcations, emergences, sudden changes from quantity to quality, which Peirce at his time could not, or did not want to be, aware of. Or?

Best,

Helmut

 

 

 


 27. Juni 2017 um 01:13 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" wrote:
 


Helmut - you wrote:

1] " I spontaneously recall at least two places where it has worked: Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Chiapas, Mexico."

What does 'IT' refer to? What worked?

2] The Marxist-Leninist theory of linear socioeconomic phases is simply a Seminar Room Theory. It's not a FACT.

3] You wrote:

"Luther edited pamphlets against the peasants, who wanted the same freedom, he advertised before for christian people, and he argued with his theory of the two realms"

What freedom?

And what does any of this have to do with Peirce?

4] You are suggesting that a theory 'explains things afterwards'. But fascism, communism - and the LEAP manifesto are not explaining things 'afterwards' but are recommending a particular mode of socioeconomic and political organization that IF ONLY it is followed - will bring 'the best life' and well-being and so on.

As is said: 'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry'...

I think pragmatic realism is the sensible path..It doesn't dwell in the land of 'If Only'.

Edwina

 



 

On Mon 26/06/17 6:14 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:




Edwina, Gary, List,

I am against utopism too, but I do not see what should be wrong with the Leap Manifesto: They are not propagating an