"Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
Gary, I second Stephen’s suggestion. These topics are definitely Peirce related. Surely the topic of projection, for example, is an important one that would have interested Peirce. How does it relate to abduction, for example? “Knowing how to be” relates to all the categories, especially thirdness. If there are objections to these topics being discussed here, then I will respect the moderator’s directives. But please do not suggest that they are not relevant to Peirce. They are directly and urgently relevant, perhaps now more than ever before. If you are going to name the reason for the objection (you are under no obligation to), then please call it for what it is... political correctness.
From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2015 6:12 PM
To: Gary Richmond
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Then the proper response is to ask the writer how she or he thinks their concern is Peirce related. Allowing the writer the leeway to say how. In my case I would say my mother's family lived in Watertown when Peirce's family did, that I share his prodigal tendencies, that I anticipate many of his conclusions in published texts written 20 years prior to when I turned a page of Peirce, and so forth.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Stephen, list,
I'm glad you got that off your chest. You are hardly going to "get into trouble" for expressing your opinion here. Indeed, a group of us are working on preparing a survey of Peirce forum members in consideration of how we might move forward in the interest of increasing quality participation, choosing future works for 'slow read' and seminars, etc. So I will reflect on your criticisms in precisely that spirit. But for now I will address only one point--that of Peirce-relatedness.
In writing that I thought that the discussion in question was not Peirce-related, I was simply following what I consider to be Joseph Ransdell's sound thinking on the matter. On the PEIRCE-L page at Arisbe http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM Joe wrote:
WHAT IS RELEVANT TO POST AND DISCUSS HERE?
Since PEIRCE-L is best thought of as a public forum, which is primarily a place rather than a discussion group, people contribute or not as they think best, and come and go freely, as is taken for granted in public forums wherever they occur. There is no standing agenda except the promotion of philosophical conversation of the sort which one would expect from people with a special interest in Peirce and of other communication in support of that. Thus discussion should be Peirce-related but not necessarily on Peirce, and the working test for relevance would simply be a plausible explanation of why the topic in question should be under discussion on a list called "PEIRCE-L: The Philosophy of Charles Peirce", given that people subscribe to such lists with some more or less definite expectations about subject-matter in mind.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do I really want to get into trouble? Why not? At 79 I'm not counting the years.
I think anything here is pertinent and that Peirce-related as a sort of litmus-test is among the more subjective things that has passed before me in recent years. I have weathered months of discussion here which has utterly no interest to me because it is mathematical and I have no capacity for it though I like Godel and other stellar math thinkers. I have been distanced from this list by a direct attack (apparently acceptable) and by moderatorial cautions and I have noticed that people I respect seem no longer to post here. John Deely is among them. Anyone who cannot detect Peirce-relatedness or who insists upon it seems to me insecure and a mite defensive. That may be unfair but this is an argument I have been wanting to have at least as a flash in the pan for some time. I think Peirce is up for serious criticism notably for his unconscionable meta concerns (must we pass through him to get to his jewels?) and his understanding of reality. But I have no desire to discuss these matters here because of the atmosphere of repression I feel. I do not know whether the other Stephen or Steven who was also read out or Helmut or Sung whose posts are too profuse and math related to do much for me, but who seems to have preempted the list understand where I am coming from. I happen to think I do Peirce a favor by stressing his relevance as I do. People I respect have let me know that I am OK which accords with my own self-evaluation. But evidently not OK enough to be included in Peirce circles including one which apparently meets in my home town of Manhattan. I am not an easy person and I am writing more to fight than to achieve anything. Consider this a post that has been welling up for a while and which I am steamed enough to send regardless of the consequences.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not see how this discussion concerns anything Peirce-related. If it cannot be moved in that direction, then perhaps it would be best to take it off-list.
Best,
Gary (writing as list moderator)
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Stephen,
I like very much the book by Jean Liedloff: "The continuum concept". By this book and other books about psychology I have adopted the idea, that bad psychological effects (such as matriarchalic or patriarchalic ideologies) do not occur, if the baby recieves a satisfying primary symbiosis, as long as the baby demands it by his/her natural desire (programmed in the DNA as an instinct, which Liedloff calls "mammal continuum"). So I think, that rivalry between men and women in the sense of matriarchalic and patriarchalic thinking rather occurs, if the symbiosis with the final nurturer is disturbed or cancelled too early, esp. if it is not granted unquestioningly, so long, until the child crawls away from the mother by own impulse. But if this symbiosis is somehow combined with conditions- only then the pawlovian reflex you have mentioned starts: The baby is learning, that women are passive, demanding, those to be pampered,... So, just the facts that a woman is the primal nurturer, and a man the second, does not educate a baby towards the idea, that women are passive, and men are active. At least this is how I have read it, and how it makes sense to me. I think I must read some more books about this, how in other cultures babies are treated, and whether these cultures have a rivalry between men and women, or a distinction of passive/active between men and women. Maybe Levi-Strauss has something about it?
Best,
Helmut
"Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
>” But is patriarchalism a myth? I think: Patriarchalism as a phenomenon is not a myth, because of the history in which mostly men have ruled- in an unjust way.”
Helmut, a patriarchy emerging magically from a vacuum to oppress womankind, as if it has no matriarchy to answer to, is a fairytale for children... the part that is missing from “The Patriarchy” myth is non-trivial:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/transcending-the-matriarchy/
sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 6:12 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Thank you, Stephen! Now I see your point and have read it, and do not feel offended. But I would say, that projection is something everybody does, not only the feminists. Also manipulation using shaming strategies, I guess, is applied by most other political parties too. Manipulating and lying to political opponents is even regarded as good and useful eg. in the Quran, in ancient Chinese texts, in Macchiavellis "The Prince". That does not mean, that I personally like it, I just want to say, that it is typical for particularist (in contrast to universalist) political parties. Well, "feminism" is particularist by name- but I know, that in spite of this particularist name, there are many feminists (percentage I dont know), who are not particularist, but see emancipation as a benefit for both men and women. To the term "collective cultural hallucination" I would say: Culture is exactly that, a collective hallucination, a set of collusions- but we need it, otherwise there would be no understanding, like in the story of the babylon tower in the bible. Again, I am not saying that I personally like it. I think, collective hallucinations (myths) should be analysed and talked about: Do we need them to avoid total anarchy, or can we replace them by something more senseful. About myths, I think, it is the best to uncover them. But is patriarchalism a myth? I think: Patriarchalism as a phenomenon is not a myth, because of the history in which mostly men have ruled- in an unjust way. But to say: "Unjust ruling, manipulation and suppression are things only men and not women are capable and eager of" is a myth, I would say.
Very best,
Helmut
"Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
Es tut mir lied, Helmut, aber ich habe nicht stimt verstanden was sie wolten sagen J
But hey, if I read you correctly, rest assured that I only strive to state things as they are. However, it is a necessary warning to include. I don’t want to create the impression that I am trying to “trick” anyone into reading something that they ultimately won’t want to read. sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 12:38 PM
To: sjaro...@iinet.net.au
Cc: 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Stephen,
How should one know whether he/she would be offended without having read it? I think, critique is always justified, about anything. The only offending is that what sometimes comes along with the critique and is more than critique: For example striking back by applying similar methods to the methods the critcized apply: For example, when a feminist, who is criticizing the discrimination in patriarchalism, becomes discriminating herself. I think this has often happened in feminism, so why not criticize it. To me, what would also be offending, would be role-assignment, for instance to say, that women should have this or that role in society (in addition to the naural thing (which thus is not a role) of bearing children). I would always answer, that, if I wanted me or others to play a role, then I would have become an actor in a theater, but this is real life. The offense thus would be, that someone who is trying to assign roles to somebody, is trying to keep that person away from real life: Offense as deprivation, a form of suppression. But I am looking forward, that your text is not containing such things. So- Do you think I could read your text?
Best,
Helmut
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
Lists,
Another article of mine that is informed by semiotic-biosemiotic theory. Emphasis here is on culture and projection, especially from the perspective of firstness, secondness. Knowing how to be also relates. Again, same warning applies as last time... critical of feminism (please don’t read if such criticism offends):
http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/shaming-as-the-narrative-of-hate/
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
