PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"

[Phyllis Chiasson]

Main

Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.

I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.

So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the grass too.

It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot.

Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)

However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions to take root.

Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root all over the world.

I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.


Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gene Halton wrote:
>
>
>I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.
>
>
>I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at least in that.
>
>
>It is possible that when I read your book Bereft of Reason a few years ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>
>
>Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
>
>Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may have proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there is a case to be made for pacifism).
>
>
>So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has all the answers to the question of war and peace.
>
>
>Best,
>
>
>Gary
>
>
>
>
>Gary Richmond
>
>Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>
>Communication Studies
>
>LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>C 745
>
>718 482-5690
>
>
>On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu> wrote:
>
>I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York Times, and have had a long term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford’s essay described by Brooks in my book, Bereft of Reason, on page 147 forward.
>
>I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s claim that Mumford’s position is close to ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s point in this context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position regarding intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the time before World War II was incorrect. Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>
>Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
>            I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in Bereft of Reason, on “Lewis Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.
>
>Gene
>
> 
>
> excerpt from Bereft of Reason: “The second confrontation with Dewey and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford believed that fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in The New Republic that the United States “Strike first against fascism; and strike hard, but strike.”  His militant position was widely attacked by the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.
>
>To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of Common Sense on the question “If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?”:
>
>Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S. Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic Force’ May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John T. Flynn, “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry Elmer Barnes, “A War for ‘Tory Finance’?”.  Dewey’s contribution was titled, “No Matter What Happens--Stay Out,” and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford’s piece, “Fascism is Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the inability of the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to stem Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition of what Mumford called “pragmatic liberalism.”  The fatal error of pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as “the dread of the emotions.” He illustrated why the emotions ought to play a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a poisonous snake: “If one meets a poisonous snake on one’s path, two things are important for a rational reaction. One is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake is poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one’s guard against his bite.” Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling one’s way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the rationale becomes conscious

>
>
 In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the “context of situation” should provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the eve of World War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put it in 1939, “If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which to erect a socialized democracy.”  Dewey criticized the idea that American involvement was “inevitable” while simultaneously assuming such participation would somehow produce inevitable results.
>
>Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.
>
>Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies’ adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly book, The Pentagon of Power (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment.”
>
>Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>
>
>
>On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its context, maybe. 
>
>Best,
>
>Helmut
>
>
> "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
> 
>
>Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>
> 
>
>I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support his argument contra Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I have ever read an entire book by him. 
>
> 
>
>This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at the moment.
>
>See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
>
> 
>
>Best,
>
> 
>
>Gary
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Gary Richmond
>
>Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>
>Communication Studies
>
>LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>C 745
>
>718 482-5690
>
> 
>
>On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Helmut, list,
>
>I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter’s constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-HÃŽtel_.
>
>Best, Ben 
>
>On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
>Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the Isis: "“Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and direction to human life.” That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) heaven.  Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of universalism, and bark  against those who have, because they are jealous.
>
> 
>
>Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>Von: "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>An: Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>
>List,
>
> 
>
>Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>
> 
>
>To the Editor:
>
>David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American pragmatism (“The Problem With Pragmatism,” column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring democratic social institutions.
>
>The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is needed is more pragmatism, not less.
>
>JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
>Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
>
> 
>
>The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.
>
> 
>
>Brooks
>
>' article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry terms "vulgar Pragmatism" 
>
>(182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version. 
>
> 
>
>Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
>
>op. cit.
>
>201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a logician.
>
> 
>
>Best,
>
> 
>
>Gary
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------
>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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Phyllis Chiasson]

Correction: The benign neglect. Thing Did not belong with the rest of my comments.

Phyllis Chiasson <***@olympus.net> wrote:
>
>Main
>
>Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.
>
>I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>
>So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the grass too.
>
>It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>
>Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)
>
>However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions to take root.
>
>Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root all over the world.
>
>I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.
>
>
>Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Gene Halton wrote:
>
>
>I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.
>
>
>I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at least in that.
>
>
>It is possible that when I read your book Bereft of Reason a few years ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>
>
>Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
>
>Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may have proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there is a case to be made for pacifism).
>
>
>So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has all the answers to the question of war and peace.
>
>
>Best,
>
>
>Gary
>
>
>
>
>Gary Richmond
>
>Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>
>Communication Studies
>
>LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>C 745
>
>718 482-5690
>
>
>On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu> wrote:
>
>I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York Times, and have had a long term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford’s essay described by Brooks in my book, Bereft of Reason, on page 147 forward.
>
>I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s claim that Mumford’s position is close to ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s point in this context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position regarding intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the time before World War II was incorrect. Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>
>Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
>            I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in Bereft of Reason, on “Lewis Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.
>
>Gene
>
> 
>
> excerpt from Bereft of Reason: “The second confrontation with Dewey and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford believed that fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in The New Republic that the United States “Strike first against fascism; and strike hard, but strike.”  His militant position was widely attacked by the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.
>
>To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of Common Sense on the question “If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?”:
>
>Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S. Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic Force’ May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John T. Flynn, “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry Elmer Barnes, “A War for ‘Tory Finance’?”.  Dewey’s contribution was titled, “No Matter What Happens--Stay Out,” and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford’s piece, “Fascism is Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the inability of the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to stem Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition of what Mumford called “pragmatic liberalism.”  The fatal error of pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as “the dread of the emotions.” He illustrated why the emotions ought to play a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a poisonous snake: “If one meets a poisonous snake on one’s path, two things are important for a rational reaction. One is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake is poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one’s guard against his bite.” Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling one’s way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the rationale becomes conscious

>
>
 In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the “context of situation” should provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the eve of World War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put it in 1939, “If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which to erect a socialized democracy.”  Dewey criticized the idea that American involvement was “inevitable” while simultaneously assuming such participation would somehow produce inevitable results.
>
>Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.
>
>Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies’ adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly book, The Pentagon of Power (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment.”
>
>Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>
>
>
>On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its context, maybe. 
>
>Best,
>
>Helmut
>
>
> "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
> 
>
>Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>
> 
>
>I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support his argument contra Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I have ever read an entire book by him. 
>
> 
>
>This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at the moment.
>
>See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
>
> 
>
>Best,
>
> 
>
>Gary
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Gary Richmond
>
>Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>
>Communication Studies
>
>LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>C 745
>
>718 482-5690
>
> 
>
>On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Helmut, list,
>
>I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter’s constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-HÃŽtel_.
>
>Best, Ben 
>
>On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
>Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the Isis: "“Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and direction to human life.” That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) heaven.  Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of universalism, and bark  against those who have, because they are jealous.
>
> 
>
>Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>Von: "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>An: Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>
>List,
>
> 
>
>Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>
> 
>
>To the Editor:
>
>David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American pragmatism (“The Problem With Pragmatism,” column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring democratic social institutions.
>
>The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is needed is more pragmatism, not less.
>
>JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
>Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
>
> 
>
>The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.
>
> 
>
>Brooks
>
>' article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry terms "vulgar Pragmatism" 
>
>(182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version. 
>
> 
>
>Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
>
>op. cit.
>
>201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a logician.
>
> 
>
>Best,
>
> 
>
>Gary
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------
>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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Edwina Taborsky]

Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs.

Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be compared with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more powerful'?

The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals.

I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies and actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.

The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this?

Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and forcing people into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do this to people who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves?

I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God, State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of American power in a violent world'.

She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't hide from it.

Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such thuggish behaviour.

Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Phyllis Chiasson
To: Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"



Main

Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.

I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.

So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the grass too.

It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot.

Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)

However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions to take root.

Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root all over the world.

I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.


Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Gene Halton wrote:



I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.




I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at least in that.





It is possible that when I read your book Bereft of Reason a few years ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war. . ."




Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.




Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may have proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there is a case to be made for pacifism).




So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has all the answers to the question of war and peace.




Best,




Gary








Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690


On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu> wrote:

I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York Times, and have had a long term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford’s essay described by Brooks in my book, Bereft of Reason, on page 147 forward.

I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s claim that Mumford’s position is close to ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s point in this context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position regarding intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the time before World War II was incorrect. Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."


Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in Bereft of Reason, on “Lewis Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.

Gene



excerpt from Bereft of Reason: “The second confrontation with Dewey and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford believed that fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in The New Republic that the United States “Strike first against fascism; and strike hard, but strike.” His militant position was widely attacked by the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.

To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of Common Sense on the question “If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?”:

Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S. Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic Force’ May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John T. Flynn, “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry Elmer Barnes, “A War for ‘Tory Finance’?”. Dewey’s contribution was titled, “No Matter What Happens--Stay Out,” and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford’s piece, “Fascism is Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the inability of the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to stem Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition of what Mumford called “pragmatic liberalism.” The fatal error of pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as “the dread of the emotions.” He illustrated why the emotions ought to play a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a poisonous snake: “If one meets a poisonous snake on one’s path, two things are important for a rational reaction. One is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake is poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one’s guard against his bite.” Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling one’s way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the rationale becomes conscious



 In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the “context of situation” should provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the eve of World War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put it in 1939, “If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which to erect a socialized democracy.” Dewey criticized the idea that American involvement was “inevitable” while simultaneously assuming such participation would somehow produce inevitable results.

Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.

Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies’ adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly book, The Pentagon of Power (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment.”

Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.







---



On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:

My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its context, maybe.
Best,
Helmut

"Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>

Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,

I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support his argument contra Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I have ever read an entire book by him.

This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at the moment.
See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford

Best,

Gary


Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Helmut, list,

I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter’s constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-HÃŽtel_.

Best, Ben

On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the Isis: "“Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and direction to human life.” That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous.

Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
Von: "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
An: Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
List,

Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion

To the Editor:

David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American pragmatism (“The Problem With Pragmatism,” column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring democratic social institutions.

The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is needed is more pragmatism, not less.

JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014



The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.


Brooks
' article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry terms "vulgar Pragmatism"
(182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version.

Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
op. cit.
201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a logician.

Best,

Gary











-----------------------------
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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .

[Stephen C. Rose]

This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself
said. "Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all
you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of
wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure, yourself,
and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in psychology, you
would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to attribute to yourself is,
for the most part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity."

*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca>
wrote:

> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of war
> versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems
> heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always
> utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's
> because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs.
>
> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be compared
> with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that
> rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just
> leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs.
> Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does
> grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more
> powerful'?
>
> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is
> more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing
> herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals.
>
> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies and
> actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when
> their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill
> others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think
> that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to
> step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
>
> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power
> than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of
> women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this?
>
> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass slaughter,
> openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and forcing people
> into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do this to people
> who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves?
>
> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by
> Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
> State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of
> American power in a violent world'.
>
> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they
> have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
> similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place
> violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't
> hide from it.
>
> Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of
> biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
> repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to
> this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such
> thuggish behaviour.
>
> Edwina
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Phyllis Chiasson <***@olympus.net>
> *To:* Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> ; Eugene Halton
> <***@nd.edu>
> *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>
>
> Main
>
> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
> who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs
> adviser.
>
> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I
> admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone
> from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the
> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i
> support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>
> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out
> by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I
> had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a
> new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I
> tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed
> salt, as that would kill the grass too.
>
> It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me
> that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone
> comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is
> the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>
> Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to
> understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been
> preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things
> that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses;
> I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)
>
> However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to
> eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim
> organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only
> in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the
> most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is
> that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions
> to take root.
>
> Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence
> of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for
> them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every
> time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion
> seeds to take root all over the world.
>
> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not
> just in pragmatism.
>
>
> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gene Halton wrote:
>
> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito
> and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and
> yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of
> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which
> is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as
> you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.
>
>
> I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite
> sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the
> group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you,
> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I
> agree with you at least in that.
>
>
> It is possible that when I read your book *Bereft of Reason* a few years
> ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just
> quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
> involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and
> McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>
>
> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2
> perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex"
> (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical
> triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we
> now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the
> military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the *military-global
> corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex*? And the
> women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good
> wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
>
> Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with
> "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about
> how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and
> the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars
> fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the
> future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?),
> that these wars may have proved historically, at least, *problematic,*
> especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have
> been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old
> men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. .
> .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
> completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there
> is a case to be made for pacifism).
>
>
> So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared
> away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely
> correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself
> considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph
> Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has
> all the answers to the question of war and peace.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I read David Brooks' piece in the New York Times, and have had a long
>> term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually
>> discuss Mumford's essay described by Brooks in my book,* Bereft of
>> Reason*, on page 147 forward.
>>
>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and
>> Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and
>> Helmut's claim that Mumford's position is close to ISIS to be amazingly
>> thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's point in this
>> context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification
>> regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position regarding
>> intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey's at the time
>> before World War II was incorrect. Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of
>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the
>> term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>>
>> Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United
>> States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a
>> critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned
>> against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the
>> Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like
>> to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
>> I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in *Bereft of
>> Reason*, on "Lewis Mumford's Organic World-View" below.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>>
>>
>> excerpt from *Bereft of Reason*: "The second confrontation with Dewey
>> and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what
>> Mumford termed "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford believed that
>> fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and
>> urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of
>> European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in *The
>> New Republic* that the United States "Strike first against fascism; and
>> strike hard, but strike." His militant position was widely attacked by
>> the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank
>> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among
>> others.
>>
>> To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just
>> consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of *Common
>> Sense* on the question "If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be
>> Neutral?":
>>
>> Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S. Neutrality;" Max Lerner, "`Economic
>> Force' May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America Cannot 'Save' Europe;"
>> John T. Flynn, "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry Elmer Barnes, "A War
>> for 'Tory Finance'?". Dewey's contribution was titled, "No Matter What
>> Happens--Stay Out," and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford's
>> piece, "Fascism is Worse than War." Mumford believed that the inability of
>> the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to
>> stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition
>> of what Mumford called "pragmatic liberalism." The fatal error of
>> pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of
>> emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as
>> "the dread of the emotions." He illustrated why the emotions ought to play
>> a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a
>> poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous snake on one's path, two things
>> are important for a *rational* reaction. One is to identify it, and not
>> make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other
>> is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake *is* poisonous; for
>> fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will
>> not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it
>> the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look
>> at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing
>> danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of
>> permitting the snake to draw near without being on one's guard against his
>> bite." Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the
>> rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in
>> order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this
>> example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling
>> one's way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the
>> rationale becomes conscious...
>>
>> ... In my opinion Dewey's concept that the "context of situation" should
>> provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to
>> empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its
>> shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey's belief on the eve of World
>> War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against
>> Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put
>> it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if
>> we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we
>> stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe
>> that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which
>> to erect a socialized democracy." Dewey criticized the idea that
>> American involvement was "inevitable" while simultaneously assuming such
>> participation would somehow produce inevitable results.
>>
>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic
>> complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have
>> emerged in any case--but Dewey's localism blinded him to the fact that
>> Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault,
>> an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal
>> reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader
>> context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces
>> unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided
>> indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the
>> twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American
>> intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.
>>
>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being?
>> Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies'
>> adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and
>> in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of
>> military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians.
>> Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having
>> written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of
>> Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the
>> first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam
>> War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships.
>> Mumford's last scholarly book, *The Pentagon of Power* (1970) was, among
>> other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic
>> military-industrial-academic establishment."
>>
>> Eugene Halton, *Bereft of Reason*, University of Chicago Press, 1995,
>> pp147f.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection
>>> of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was
>>> indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the
>>> value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist.
>>> Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other
>>> imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not
>>> as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were
>>> scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking
>>> scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism.
>>> And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on
>>> the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its
>>> context, maybe.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>>>
>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and
>>> even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support
>>> his argument *contra* Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always
>>> had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe
>>> I have ever read an entire book by him.
>>>
>>> This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his
>>> books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which
>>> is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still,
>>> some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although
>>> his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at
>>> the moment.
>>> See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>> *Communication Studies*
>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>>> *C 745*
>>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Helmut, list,
>>>>
>>>> I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although
>>>> I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's
>>>> worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940,
>>>> when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed
>>>> down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I
>>>> meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting
>>>> just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve
>>>> life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with
>>>> other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink
>>>> Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them.
>>>> At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no
>>>> politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter's
>>>> constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-Hôtel_.
>>>>
>>>> Best, Ben
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to
>>>> the Isis: ""Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless.
>>>> Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is
>>>> worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and
>>>> direction to human life." That could be from an islamist hate-preaching:
>>>> Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?)
>>>> heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project
>>>> that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know
>>>> that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of
>>>> universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous.
>>>>
>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>> <http://***@gmail.com>
>>>> *An:* Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>> <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>> List,
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column,
>>>> "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today.
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>
>>>> David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American
>>>> pragmatism ("The Problem With Pragmatism
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,"
>>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William
>>>> James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were
>>>> passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring
>>>> democratic social institutions.
>>>>
>>>> The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not
>>>> paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and
>>>> self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is
>>>> needed is more pragmatism, not less.
>>>>
>>>> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
>>>> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.*
>>>>
>>>> Brooks
>>>> ' article,
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D
>>>> which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism,
>>>> may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito
>>>> points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in *Evidence and Inquiry* terms
>>>> "vulgar Pragmatism"
>>>> (182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version.
>>>>
>>>> Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter
>>>> "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing:
>>>> ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is
>>>> for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a
>>>> great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
>>>> op. cit.
>>>> 201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a
>>>> logician.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to ***@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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Edwina Taborsky]

Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the wolves' for my views]. That quote on synechism, from Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed relevant. As he continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you".

That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness) and also, members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We have a duty to live within both modes. Not just one mode of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism of 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.

Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen C. Rose
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"


This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself said. "Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity."


@stephencrose


On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca> wrote:

Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs.

Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be compared with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more powerful'?

The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals.

I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies and actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.

The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this?

Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and forcing people into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do this to people who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves?

I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God, State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of American power in a violent world'.

She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't hide from it.

Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such thuggish behaviour.

Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Phyllis Chiasson
To: Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"



Main

Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.

I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.

So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the grass too.

It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot.

Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)

However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions to take root.

Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root all over the world.

I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.


Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Gene Halton wrote:



I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.




I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at least in that.





It is possible that when I read your book Bereft of Reason a few years ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war. . ."




Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.




Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may have proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there is a case to be made for pacifism).




So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has all the answers to the question of war and peace.




Best,




Gary








Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690


On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu> wrote:

I read David Brooks' piece in the New York Times, and have had a long term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford's essay described by Brooks in my book, Bereft of Reason, on page 147 forward.

I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and Helmut's claim that Mumford's position is close to ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's point in this context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position regarding intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey's at the time before World War II was incorrect. Mumford's allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."


Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in Bereft of Reason, on "Lewis Mumford's Organic World-View" below.

Gene



excerpt from Bereft of Reason: "The second confrontation with Dewey and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford believed that fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in The New Republic that the United States "Strike first against fascism; and strike hard, but strike." His militant position was widely attacked by the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.

To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of Common Sense on the question "If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?":

Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S. Neutrality;" Max Lerner, "`Economic Force' May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America Cannot 'Save' Europe;" John T. Flynn, "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry Elmer Barnes, "A War for 'Tory Finance'?". Dewey's contribution was titled, "No Matter What Happens--Stay Out," and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford's piece, "Fascism is Worse than War." Mumford believed that the inability of the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition of what Mumford called "pragmatic liberalism." The fatal error of pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as "the dread of the emotions." He illustrated why the emotions ought to play a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous snake on one's path, two things are important for a rational reaction. One is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake is poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one's guard against his bite." Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling one's way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the rationale becomes conscious.

. In my opinion Dewey's concept that the "context of situation" should provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey's belief on the eve of World War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which to erect a socialized democracy." Dewey criticized the idea that American involvement was "inevitable" while simultaneously assuming such participation would somehow produce inevitable results.

Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey's localism blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.

Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies' adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. Mumford's last scholarly book, The Pentagon of Power (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment."

Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.







---



On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:

My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its context, maybe.
Best,
Helmut

"Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>

Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,

I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support his argument contra Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I have ever read an entire book by him.

This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at the moment.
See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford

Best,

Gary


Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Helmut, list,

I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter's constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-Hôtel_.

Best, Ben

On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the Isis: ""Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and direction to human life." That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous.

Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
Von: "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
An: Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
List,

Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion

To the Editor:

David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American pragmatism ("The Problem With Pragmatism," column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring democratic social institutions.

The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is needed is more pragmatism, not less.

JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014



The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.


Brooks
' article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry terms "vulgar Pragmatism"
(182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version.

Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
op. cit.
201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a logician.

Best,

Gary











-----------------------------
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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .

[Stephen C. Rose]

And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First Commandment, will add
"and none" while adhering to these sage rules..

*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca>
wrote:

> Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the wolves' for my
> views]. That quote on synechism, from Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is
> indeed relevant. As he continued, "All men who resemble you and are in
> analogous circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not quite in
> the same way in which your neighbors are you".
>
> That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness) and also,
> members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We have a duty to live within
> both modes. Not just one mode of isolation of the individual self. Nor one
> mode of denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism of
> 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.
>
> Edwina
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Stephen C. Rose <***@gmail.com>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca>
> *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>
> This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself
> said. "Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at
> all you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of
> wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure,
> yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in
> psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to
> attribute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarist delusion of vani
> ty."
>
> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of
>> war versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that
>> seems heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always
>> utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's
>> because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs.
>>
>> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be compared
>> with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that
>> rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just
>> leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs.
>> Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does
>> grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more
>> powerful'?
>>
>> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is
>> more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing
>> herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals.
>>
>> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies and
>> actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when
>> their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill
>> others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think
>> that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to
>> step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
>>
>> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power
>> than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of
>> women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this?
>>
>> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass
>> slaughter, openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and
>> forcing people into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do
>> this to people who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves?
>>
>> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by
>> Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
>> State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of
>> American power in a violent world'.
>>
>> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they
>> have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
>> similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place
>> violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't
>> hide from it.
>>
>> Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of
>> biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
>> repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to
>> this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such
>> thuggish behaviour.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Phyllis Chiasson <***@olympus.net>
>> *To:* Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> ; Eugene Halton
>> <***@nd.edu>
>> *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>
>>
>> Main
>>
>> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
>> who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs
>> adviser.
>>
>> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I
>> admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone
>> from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the
>> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i
>> support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>>
>> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them
>> out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts)
>> I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a
>> new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
>> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I
>> tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed
>> salt, as that would kill the grass too.
>>
>> It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me
>> that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone
>> comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is
>> the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>>
>> Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to
>> understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been
>> preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things
>> that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses;
>> I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)
>>
>> However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to
>> eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim
>> organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only
>> in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the
>> most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is
>> that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions
>> to take root.
>>
>> Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence
>> of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for
>> them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every
>> time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion
>> seeds to take root all over the world.
>>
>> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not
>> just in pragmatism.
>>
>>
>> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gene Halton wrote:
>>
>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito
>> and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and
>> yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of
>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So
>> which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks'
>> shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks
>> than Mumford.
>>
>>
>> I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite
>> sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the
>> group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you,
>> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I
>> agree with you at least in that.
>>
>>
>> It is possible that when I read your book *Bereft of Reason* a few years
>> ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just
>> quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
>> involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and
>> McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>>
>>
>> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2
>> perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex"
>> (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical
>> triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we
>> now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the
>> military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the *military-global
>> corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex*? And the
>> women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good
>> wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
>>
>>
>> Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with
>> "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about
>> how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and
>> the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars
>> fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the
>> future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?),
>> that these wars may have proved historically, at least, *problematic,*
>> especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have
>> been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old
>> men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. .
>> .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
>> completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there
>> is a case to be made for pacifism).
>>
>>
>> So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared
>> away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely
>> correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself
>> considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph
>> Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has
>> all the answers to the question of war and peace.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>> *C 745*
>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I read David Brooks' piece in the New York Times, and have had a long
>>> term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually
>>> discuss Mumford's essay described by Brooks in my book,* Bereft of
>>> Reason*, on page 147 forward.
>>>
>>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito
>>> and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided,
>>> and Helmut's claim that Mumford's position is close to ISIS to be amazingly
>>> thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's point in this
>>> context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification
>>> regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position regarding
>>> intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey's at the time
>>> before World War II was incorrect. Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of
>>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the
>>> term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>>>
>>> Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United
>>> States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a
>>> critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned
>>> against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the
>>> Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like
>>> to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
>>> I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in *Bereft of
>>> Reason*, on "Lewis Mumford's Organic World-View" below.
>>>
>>> Gene
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> excerpt from *Bereft of Reason*: "The second confrontation with Dewey
>>> and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what
>>> Mumford termed "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford believed that
>>> fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and
>>> urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of
>>> European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in *The
>>> New Republic* that the United States "Strike first against fascism; and
>>> strike hard, but strike." His militant position was widely attacked by
>>> the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank
>>> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among
>>> others.
>>>
>>> To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just
>>> consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of *Common
>>> Sense* on the question "If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be
>>> Neutral?":
>>>
>>> Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S. Neutrality;" Max Lerner, "`Economic
>>> Force' May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America Cannot 'Save' Europe;"
>>> John T. Flynn, "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry Elmer Barnes, "A War
>>> for 'Tory Finance'?". Dewey's contribution was titled, "No Matter What
>>> Happens--Stay Out," and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford's
>>> piece, "Fascism is Worse than War." Mumford believed that the inability of
>>> the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to
>>> stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition
>>> of what Mumford called "pragmatic liberalism." The fatal error of
>>> pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of
>>> emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as
>>> "the dread of the emotions." He illustrated why the emotions ought to play
>>> a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a
>>> poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous snake on one's path, two things
>>> are important for a *rational* reaction. One is to identify it, and not
>>> make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other
>>> is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake *is* poisonous; for
>>> fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will
>>> not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it
>>> the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look
>>> at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing
>>> danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of
>>> permitting the snake to draw near without being on one's guard against his
>>> bite." Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the
>>> rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in
>>> order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this
>>> example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling
>>> one's way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the
>>> rationale becomes conscious...
>>>
>>> ... In my opinion Dewey's concept that the "context of situation" should
>>> provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to
>>> empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its
>>> shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey's belief on the eve of World
>>> War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against
>>> Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put
>>> it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if
>>> we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we
>>> stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe
>>> that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which
>>> to erect a socialized democracy." Dewey criticized the idea that
>>> American involvement was "inevitable" while simultaneously assuming such
>>> participation would somehow produce inevitable results.
>>>
>>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to the
>>> military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though
>>> the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey's localism
>>> blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being
>>> subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within,
>>> which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of
>>> civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the
>>> possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian
>>> ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the
>>> larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false
>>> conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of
>>> Pearl Harbor could change.
>>>
>>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for
>>> being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the
>>> allies' adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of
>>> Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried
>>> the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of
>>> civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear
>>> disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of
>>> the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to
>>> organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of
>>> the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him
>>> friendships. Mumford's last scholarly book, *The Pentagon of Power*
>>> (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic
>>> military-industrial-academic establishment."
>>>
>>> Eugene Halton, *Bereft of Reason*, University of Chicago Press, 1995,
>>> pp147f.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection
>>>> of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was
>>>> indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the
>>>> value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist.
>>>> Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other
>>>> imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not
>>>> as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were
>>>> scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking
>>>> scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism.
>>>> And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on
>>>> the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its
>>>> context, maybe.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>> "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>>>>
>>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and
>>>> even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support
>>>> his argument *contra* Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always
>>>> had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe
>>>> I have ever read an entire book by him.
>>>>
>>>> This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his
>>>> books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which
>>>> is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still,
>>>> some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although
>>>> his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at
>>>> the moment.
>>>> See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>>> *Communication Studies*
>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>>>> *C 745*
>>>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Helmut, list,
>>>>>
>>>>> I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford,
>>>>> although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For
>>>>> what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark
>>>>> in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he
>>>>> never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another
>>>>> book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer
>>>>> survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher
>>>>> ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to
>>>>> replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization
>>>>> (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and
>>>>> think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed
>>>>> desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through
>>>>> language. Thus the latter's constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _
>>>>> Splendide-Hôtel_.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Ben
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to
>>>>> the Isis: ""Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless.
>>>>> Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is
>>>>> worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and
>>>>> direction to human life." That could be from an islamist hate-preaching:
>>>>> Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?)
>>>>> heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project
>>>>> that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know
>>>>> that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of
>>>>> universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> <http://***@gmail.com>
>>>>> *An:* Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>>> <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>>> List,
>>>>>
>>>>> Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times
>>>>> column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor
>>>>> today.
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>>
>>>>> David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American
>>>>> pragmatism ("The Problem With Pragmatism
>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,"
>>>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William
>>>>> James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were
>>>>> passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring
>>>>> democratic social institutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not
>>>>> paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and
>>>>> self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is
>>>>> needed is more pragmatism, not less.
>>>>>
>>>>> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
>>>>> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney
>>>>> Hook.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Brooks
>>>>> ' article,
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D
>>>>> which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism,
>>>>> may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito
>>>>> points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in *Evidence and Inquiry* terms
>>>>> "vulgar Pragmatism"
>>>>> (182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter
>>>>> "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing:
>>>>> ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is
>>>>> for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a
>>>>> great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
>>>>> op. cit.
>>>>> 201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a
>>>>> logician.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>> PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to ***@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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Helmut Raulien]

-----------------------------
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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .

[Edwina Taborsky]

Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill'; it's over several other issues.

First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus, evaluation of 'what is good and what is bad'. Since human societies do not have an innate knowledge base but must develop it within that society, then, they must have an evaluative capacity.

Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it exists in the non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't see it. This requires evaluation on our part.

Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both refuse to acknowledge the reality of evil.

Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our electronic informational network and our networked global economy - a 'world society'. Therefore, what goes on in one area is known - and we cannot stand by and ignore the reality of evil. This is the technical articulation of Peirce's synechism; we are actually physically (Secondness) connected.

Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the global world - we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE global society, each part existing as it does within vastly different ecological realities - from desert, to rainforest, to deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains to mountains to ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which has increased exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes - extreme poverty - as is found in the Middle East, Africa, Central America and elsewhere - to extreme wealth - as is found in these same countries as well! And - we can't have extremes of lifestyle where, in one domain, women are enslaved and forbidden to get an education while in another, they are free. And so on.

The world is now too economically and informationally small to functionally handle such extreme variations. This economic and societal imbalance and its resultant economic and political vacuums is why we are seeing the various implosions around the world. [No, they aren't due to the big bad USA].

What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for example, is an extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they were in power, THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I won't go into here. But to attain that power, requires massive brutality and killing. And massive repression, where a huge section of the population are reduced to slavery.

Am I my brother's keeper?

Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Helmut Raulien
To: peirce-***@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"


Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was amazingly thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent known anything about Mumford but these quotes by Brooks. Now, when I see that what I have called "neglectiion of the value of life" in the context of his position against appeasement poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I think, that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction. There are dilemma situations, in which pacifism does not work, or even produces very bad results. But not being a pacifist anymore does not mean that you must throw the principles you have had when you were one over board: You still can say, that the value of life is the most important thing, and usually "thou shalt not kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is better to kill them, because, if you dont, they kill far more people. So this is blending some utilitarism (highest advantage for the highest number of people) into the else no more working categorical imperative. But all this is still universalism based on the value of life. A psychologist I like very much, who has explored human morality in dilemma situations, is (was) Lawrence Kohlberg.
Best,
Helmut

"Stephen C. Rose" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First Commandment, will add "and none" while adhering to these sage rules..

@stephencrose

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca> wrote:
Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the wolves' for my views]. That quote on synechism, from Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed relevant. As he continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you".

That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness) and also, members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We have a duty to live within both modes. Not just one mode of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism of 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.

Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen C. Rose
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"

This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself said. “Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity.”

@stephencrose

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca> wrote:
Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs.

Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be compared with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more powerful'?

The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals.

I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies and actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.

The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this?

Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and forcing people into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do this to people who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves?

I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God, State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of American power in a violent world'.

She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't hide from it.

Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such thuggish behaviour.

Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Phyllis Chiasson
To: Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"


Main

Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.

I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.

So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the grass too.

It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot.

Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)

However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions to take root.

Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root all over the world.

I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.


Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Gene Halton wrote:

I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.



I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at least in that.



It is possible that when I read your book Bereft of Reason a few years ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war. . ."



Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.



Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may have proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there is a case to be made for pacifism).



So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has all the answers to the question of war and peace.



Best,



Gary





Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu> wrote:
I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York Times, and have had a long term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford’s essay described by Brooks in my book, Bereft of Reason, on page 147 forward.

I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s claim that Mumford’s position is close to ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s point in this context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position regarding intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the time before World War II was incorrect. Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."

Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in Bereft of Reason, on “Lewis Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.

Gene



excerpt from Bereft of Reason: “The second confrontation with Dewey and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford believed that fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in The New Republic that the United States “Strike first against fascism; and strike hard, but strike.” His militant position was widely attacked by the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.

To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of Common Sense on the question “If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?”:

Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S. Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic Force’ May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John T. Flynn, “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry Elmer Barnes, “A War for ‘Tory Finance’?”. Dewey’s contribution was titled, “No Matter What Happens--Stay Out,” and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford’s piece, “Fascism is Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the inability of the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to stem Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition of what Mumford called “pragmatic liberalism.” The fatal error of pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as “the dread of the emotions.” He illustrated why the emotions ought to play a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a poisonous snake: “If one meets a poisonous snake on one’s path, two things are important for a rational reaction. One is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake is poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one’s guard against his bite.” Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling one’s way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the rationale becomes conscious



 In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the “context of situation” should provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the eve of World War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put it in 1939, “If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which to erect a socialized democracy.” Dewey criticized the idea that American involvement was “inevitable” while simultaneously assuming such participation would somehow produce inevitable results.

Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.

Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies’ adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly book, The Pentagon of Power (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment.”

Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.







---

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:
My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its context, maybe.
Best,
Helmut

"Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>

Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,

I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support his argument contra Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I have ever read an entire book by him.

This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at the moment.
See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford

Best,

Gary


Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Helmut, list,

I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter’s constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-HÃŽtel_.

Best, Ben

On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the Isis: "“Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and direction to human life.” That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous.

Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
Von: "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
An: Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
List,

Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion

To the Editor:

David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American pragmatism (“The Problem With Pragmatism,” column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring democratic social institutions.

The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is needed is more pragmatism, not less.

JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014



The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.


Brooks
' article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry terms "vulgar Pragmatism"
(182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version.

Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
op. cit.
201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a logician.

Best,

Gary






-----------------------------
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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .

[Helmut Raulien]

-----------------------------
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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .

[Stephen C. Rose]

Good and evil are needlessly mystified. If you have a values based ethic,
which is the only ethic that makes sense and produces measurable results,
good and evil can be seen as a spectrum that is an index that moves from
the depth of evil which is willful injury and inflicting death to
selfishness and good which runs through mindfulness, tolerance, helpfulness
all the way to acting to create truth and beauty. This index is universal
and applies in all contexts. It is a dynamic spectrum. Good and evil are
values that signify modes of behavior that we enact all the time. Life is
the sum of such actions, achieving mega force when people act in concert
through various means. The demythologizing and acceptance of our
responsibility to know what is good and what not is the project of this
century as folk from Nietzsche to Nozick have suggested.

*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Edwina!
> I am completely with you, no objections. There is the reality of evil, and
> human societies do not have an innate knowledge base to distinguish between
> good and evil. But I think, humans have, because they are creatures of:
> "God", say religious people, "evolution" say agnostics. God is "logos",
> logic, and "evolution" is based on logic too. So I think, it does not
> matter whether one is religious or is trying to understand the world by
> logical analysis. It is a matter of temperament or which way one can grasp
> it better, by allegoric pictures or by abstraction. Angels or the power of
> compassion, the devil, or the evil logic of a vicious circle? I myself
> believe in God, but do not know, what "to believe" is. Because I think,
> that all you can believe in you as well can reach by thinking, reflection,
> the capacities God has given us. Now this is a circular argument, I admit.
> But I (sort of) believe, that we also have the capacity (God-given?) to
> uncover evil as false. I think, there is something wrong with evil. It is
> false. And with logic (logos, God) we are able to prove it like that. So:
> Evil is real, but not true. Its reality is only temporary, and lasts only
> until it is proven for wrong, falsified. This is what I believe in, not
> knowing, but only intuitively feeling, what "to believe" is. How to
> overcome evil? See, that it is real, but not true, and look for ways to
> prove it wrong, but it is homeostatic, self-affirming, self-keeping. It has
> the form of a circle, a vicious one. So, how to break a circle, that is not
> based on truth? I think, with truth. Truth is an universalist concept, such
> as the value of life. Pragmatism is the quest for truth, and triadically, I
> would say:
> cat.1, iconical: beautiful, ugly
> cat.2, indexical: technically good (making things work), technically bad
> (things do not work)
> cat.3, symbolical: moralically good: Providing reasons for beauty and good
> working, evil: Reasons for ugliness and failure.
> And I think, that as you have said, social systems are not wise. Their
> nature is nothing but to make them more powerful, as this is the nature of
> any system, left to its own. This is something one can learn from Luhmann.
> Sytems take advantage of anything they can, be it good or evil. They even
> pervert, mix the concepts, and create super-evil situations, like:
> seemingly beautiful (utopies, huri-heaven, "arian" lunacy, to whom ever
> this may be attractive), technically good, providing reasons for good
> working, but in the end, they are a reason for extreme ugliness and total
> failure. This is eg. the isis and the nazis. So, never trust a system I
> would say. That is why I think, systems theory is good: Know the enemy. For
> my taste, Mumford is a bit too fascinated by cities. Cities are a sort of
> systems. I am writing too much.
> Best!
> Helmut
>
>
> "Edwina Taborsky" <***@primus.ca>
>
> Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of 'Thou
> shalt not kill'; it's over several other issues.
>
> First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus, evaluation
> of 'what is good and what is bad'. Since human societies do not have an
> innate knowledge base but must develop it within that society, then, they
> must have an evaluative capacity.
>
> Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it exists in
> the non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't see it. This
> requires evaluation on our part.
>
> Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both refuse to
> acknowledge the reality of evil.
>
> Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our electronic
> informational network and our networked global economy - a 'world society'.
> Therefore, what goes on in one area is known - and we cannot stand by and
> ignore the reality of evil. This is the technical articulation of Peirce's
> synechism; we are actually physically (Secondness) connected.
>
> Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the global
> world - we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE global society, each
> part existing as it does within vastly different ecological realities -
> from desert, to rainforest, to deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains
> to mountains to ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which
> has increased exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes -
> extreme poverty - as is found in the Middle East, Africa, Central
> America and elsewhere - to extreme wealth - as is found in these same
> countries as well! And - we can't have extremes of lifestyle where, in one
> domain, women are enslaved and forbidden to get an education while in
> another, they are free. And so on.
>
> The world is now too economically and informationally small to
> functionally handle such extreme variations. This economic and societal
> imbalance and its resultant economic and political vacuums is why we are
> seeing the various implosions around the world. [No, they aren't due to the
> big bad USA].
>
> What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for example,
> is an extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they were in power,
> THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I won't go into here. But
> to attain that power, requires massive brutality and killing. And massive
> repression, where a huge section of the population are reduced to slavery.
>
> Am I my brother's keeper?
>
> Edwina
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Helmut Raulien <http://***@gmx.de>
> *To:* peirce-***@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
> *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>
> Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was amazingly
> thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent known anything about
> Mumford but these quotes by Brooks. Now, when I see that what I have called
> "neglectiion of the value of life" in the context of his position against
> appeasement poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I
> think, that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction. There are
> dilemma situations, in which pacifism does not work, or even produces very
> bad results. But not being a pacifist anymore does not mean that you must
> throw the principles you have had when you were one over board: You still
> can say, that the value of life is the most important thing, and usually
> "thou shalt not kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is better to kill
> them, because, if you dont, they kill far more people. So this is blending
> some utilitarism (highest advantage for the highest number of people) into
> the else no more working categorical imperative. But all this is still
> universalism based on the value of life. A psychologist I like very much,
> who has explored human morality in dilemma situations, is (was) Lawrence
> Kohlberg.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> "Stephen C. Rose" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First Commandment, will
> add "and none" while adhering to these sage rules..
>
> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the wolves' for my
>> views]. That quote on synechism, from Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is
>> indeed relevant. As he continued, "All men who resemble you and are in
>> analogous circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not quite in
>> the same way in which your neighbors are you".
>>
>> That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness) and also,
>> members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We have a duty to live within
>> both modes. Not just one mode of isolation of the individual self. Nor one
>> mode of denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism of
>> 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>
>> This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself
>> said. "Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at
>> all you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of
>> wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure,
>> yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in
>> psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to
>> attribute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarist delusion of vani
>> ty."
>>
>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of
>>> war versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that
>>> seems heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always
>>> utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's
>>> because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs.
>>>
>>> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be
>>> compared with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying
>>> that rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should
>>> 'just leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of
>>> Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now,
>>> does grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more
>>> powerful'?
>>>
>>> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is
>>> more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing
>>> herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals.
>>>
>>> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies
>>> and actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But
>>> when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill
>>> others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think
>>> that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to
>>> step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
>>>
>>> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power
>>> than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of
>>> women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this?
>>>
>>> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass
>>> slaughter, openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and
>>> forcing people into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do
>>> this to people who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves?
>>>
>>> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by
>>> Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
>>> State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of
>>> American power in a violent world'.
>>>
>>> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they
>>> have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
>>> similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place
>>> violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't
>>> hide from it.
>>>
>>> Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of
>>> biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
>>> repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to
>>> this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such
>>> thuggish behaviour.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Phyllis Chiasson
>>> *To:* Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
>>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
>>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>
>>>
>>> Main
>>>
>>> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
>>> who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs
>>> adviser.
>>>
>>> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I
>>> admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone
>>> from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the
>>> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i
>>> support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>>>
>>> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them
>>> out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts)
>>> I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a
>>> new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
>>> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I
>>> tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed
>>> salt, as that would kill the grass too.
>>>
>>> It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to
>>> me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free.
>>> Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and
>>> that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>>>
>>> Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to
>>> understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been
>>> preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things
>>> that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses;
>>> I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)
>>>
>>> However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to
>>> eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim
>>> organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only
>>> in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the
>>> most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is
>>> that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions
>>> to take root.
>>>
>>> Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence
>>> of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for
>>> them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every
>>> time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion
>>> seeds to take root all over the world.
>>>
>>> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction,
>>> not just in pragmatism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gene Halton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito
>>> and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and
>>> yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of
>>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So
>>> which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks'
>>> shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks
>>> than Mumford.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite
>>> sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the
>>> group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you,
>>> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I
>>> agree with you at least in that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is possible that when I read your book *Bereft of Reason* a few
>>> years ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you
>>> just quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps
>>> American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex
>>> and McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2
>>> perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex"
>>> (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical
>>> triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we
>>> now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the
>>> military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the *military-global
>>> corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex*? And the
>>> women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good
>>> wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with
>>> "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about
>>> how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and
>>> the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars
>>> fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the
>>> future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?),
>>> that these wars may have proved historically, at least, *problematic,*
>>> especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have
>>> been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old
>>> men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. .
>>> .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
>>> completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there
>>> is a case to be made for pacifism).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared
>>> away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely
>>> correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself
>>> considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph
>>> Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has
>>> all the answers to the question of war and peace.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>> *Communication Studies*
>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>>> *C 745*
>>> *718 482-5690*
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu
>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I read David Brooks' piece in the New York Times, and have had a long
>>>> term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually
>>>> discuss Mumford's essay described by Brooks in my book,* Bereft of
>>>> Reason*, on page 147 forward.
>>>>
>>>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito
>>>> and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided,
>>>> and Helmut's claim that Mumford's position is close to ISIS to be amazingly
>>>> thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's point in this
>>>> context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification
>>>> regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position regarding
>>>> intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey's at the time
>>>> before World War II was incorrect. Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of
>>>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the
>>>> term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United
>>>> States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a
>>>> critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned
>>>> against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the
>>>> Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like
>>>> to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
>>>> I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in *Bereft of
>>>> Reason*, on "Lewis Mumford's Organic World-View" below.
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> excerpt from *Bereft of Reason*: "The second confrontation with Dewey
>>>> and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what
>>>> Mumford termed "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford believed that
>>>> fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and
>>>> urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of
>>>> European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in *The
>>>> New Republic* that the United States "Strike first against fascism;
>>>> and strike hard, but strike." His militant position was widely
>>>> attacked by the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process,
>>>> including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm
>>>> Cowley among others.
>>>>
>>>> To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just
>>>> consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of *Common
>>>> Sense* on the question "If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be
>>>> Neutral?":
>>>>
>>>> Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S. Neutrality;" Max Lerner,
>>>> "`Economic Force' May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America Cannot 'Save'
>>>> Europe;" John T. Flynn, "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry Elmer
>>>> Barnes, "A War for 'Tory Finance'?". Dewey's contribution was titled,
>>>> "No Matter What Happens--Stay Out," and it could not have been more opposed
>>>> to Mumford's piece, "Fascism is Worse than War." Mumford believed that the
>>>> inability of the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were
>>>> inadequate to stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in
>>>> the tradition of what Mumford called "pragmatic liberalism." The
>>>> fatal error of pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its
>>>> endorsement of emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he
>>>> characterized as "the dread of the emotions." He illustrated why the
>>>> emotions ought to play a significant part in rational decisions with an
>>>> example of encountering a poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous snake
>>>> on one's path, two things are important for a *rational* reaction. One
>>>> is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming that a copperhead is
>>>> a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the
>>>> snake *is* poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the
>>>> blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on the
>>>> alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or
>>>> to attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it
>>>> and without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly
>>>> irrational step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one's
>>>> guard against his bite." Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the
>>>> opposite of the rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not
>>>> be neutralized in order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of
>>>> fear in this example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for
>>>> feeling one's way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before
>>>> the rationale becomes conscious...
>>>>
>>>> ... In my opinion Dewey's concept that the "context of situation" should
>>>> provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to
>>>> empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its
>>>> shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey's belief on the eve of World
>>>> War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against
>>>> Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put
>>>> it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if
>>>> we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we
>>>> stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe
>>>> that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which
>>>> to erect a socialized democracy." Dewey criticized the idea that
>>>> American involvement was "inevitable" while simultaneously assuming such
>>>> participation would somehow produce inevitable results.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to the
>>>> military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though
>>>> the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey's localism
>>>> blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being
>>>> subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within,
>>>> which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of
>>>> civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the
>>>> possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian
>>>> ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the
>>>> larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false
>>>> conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of
>>>> Pearl Harbor could change.
>>>>
>>>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for
>>>> being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the
>>>> allies' adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of
>>>> Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried
>>>> the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of
>>>> civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear
>>>> disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of
>>>> the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to
>>>> organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of
>>>> the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him
>>>> friendships. Mumford's last scholarly book, *The Pentagon of Power*
>>>> (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic
>>>> military-industrial-academic establishment."
>>>>
>>>> Eugene Halton, *Bereft of Reason*, University of Chicago Press, 1995,
>>>> pp147f.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection
>>>>> of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was
>>>>> indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the
>>>>> value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist.
>>>>> Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other
>>>>> imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not
>>>>> as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were
>>>>> scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking
>>>>> scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism.
>>>>> And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on
>>>>> the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its
>>>>> context, maybe.
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford.
>>>>> and even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to
>>>>> support his argument *contra* Pragmatism in the article cited. I have
>>>>> always had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't
>>>>> believe I have ever read an entire book by him.
>>>>>
>>>>> This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his
>>>>> books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which
>>>>> is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still,
>>>>> some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although
>>>>> his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at
>>>>> the moment.
>>>>> See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>>>> *Communication Studies*
>>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>>>>> *C 745*
>>>>> *718 482-5690*
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Helmut, list,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford,
>>>>>> although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For
>>>>>> what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark
>>>>>> in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he
>>>>>> never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another
>>>>>> book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer
>>>>>> survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher
>>>>>> ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to
>>>>>> replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization
>>>>>> (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and
>>>>>> think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed
>>>>>> desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through
>>>>>> language. Thus the latter's constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _
>>>>>> Splendide-Hôtel_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best, Ben
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to
>>>>>> the Isis: ""Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless.
>>>>>> Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is
>>>>>> worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and
>>>>>> direction to human life." That could be from an islamist hate-preaching:
>>>>>> Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?)
>>>>>> heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project
>>>>>> that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know
>>>>>> that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of
>>>>>> universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>>>>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>> <http://***@gmail.com>
>>>>>> *An:* Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>>>> <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>>>> List,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times
>>>>>> column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor
>>>>>> today.
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American
>>>>>> pragmatism ("The Problem With Pragmatism
>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,"
>>>>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William
>>>>>> James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were
>>>>>> passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring
>>>>>> democratic social institutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not
>>>>>> paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and
>>>>>> self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is
>>>>>> needed is more pragmatism, not less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
>>>>>> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney
>>>>>> Hook.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brooks
>>>>>> ' article,
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D
>>>>>> which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism,
>>>>>> may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito
>>>>>> points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in *Evidence and Inquiry* terms
>>>>>> "vulgar Pragmatism"
>>>>>> (182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter
>>>>>> "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing:
>>>>>> ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is
>>>>>> for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a
>>>>>> great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
>>>>>> op. cit.
>>>>>> 201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a
>>>>>> logician.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------
>>>> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>>> PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>> PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>> PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not
> to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
> PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to ***@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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Dennis Leri]

Who decides your universal values? How? Room for Mercy or Grace? Who adjudicates?

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 13, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Stephen C. Rose <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good and evil are needlessly mystified. If you have a values based ethic, which is the only ethic that makes sense and produces measurable results, good and evil can be seen as a spectrum that is an index that moves from the depth of evil which is willful injury and inflicting death to selfishness and good which runs through mindfulness, tolerance, helpfulness all the way to acting to create truth and beauty. This index is universal and applies in all contexts. It is a dynamic spectrum. Good and evil are values that signify modes of behavior that we enact all the time. Life is the sum of such actions, achieving mega force when people act in concert through various means. The demythologizing and acceptance of our responsibility to know what is good and what not is the project of this century as folk from Nietzsche to Nozick have suggested.
>
> @stephencrose
>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi Edwina!
>> I am completely with you, no objections. There is the reality of evil, and human societies do not have an innate knowledge base to distinguish between good and evil. But I think, humans have, because they are creatures of: "God", say religious people, "evolution" say agnostics. God is "logos", logic, and "evolution" is based on logic too. So I think, it does not matter whether one is religious or is trying to understand the world by logical analysis. It is a matter of temperament or which way one can grasp it better, by allegoric pictures or by abstraction. Angels or the power of compassion, the devil, or the evil logic of a vicious circle? I myself believe in God, but do not know, what "to believe" is. Because I think, that all you can believe in you as well can reach by thinking, reflection, the capacities God has given us. Now this is a circular argument, I admit. But I (sort of) believe, that we also have the capacity (God-given?) to uncover evil as false. I think, there is something wrong with evil. It is false. And with logic (logos, God) we are able to prove it like that. So: Evil is real, but not true. Its reality is only temporary, and lasts only until it is proven for wrong, falsified. This is what I believe in, not knowing, but only intuitively feeling, what "to believe" is. How to overcome evil? See, that it is real, but not true, and look for ways to prove it wrong, but it is homeostatic, self-affirming, self-keeping. It has the form of a circle, a vicious one. So, how to break a circle, that is not based on truth? I think, with truth. Truth is an universalist concept, such as the value of life. Pragmatism is the quest for truth, and triadically, I would say:
>> cat.1, iconical: beautiful, ugly
>> cat.2, indexical: technically good (making things work), technically bad (things do not work)
>> cat.3, symbolical: moralically good: Providing reasons for beauty and good working, evil: Reasons for ugliness and failure.
>> And I think, that as you have said, social systems are not wise. Their nature is nothing but to make them more powerful, as this is the nature of any system, left to its own. This is something one can learn from Luhmann. Sytems take advantage of anything they can, be it good or evil. They even pervert, mix the concepts, and create super-evil situations, like: seemingly beautiful (utopies, huri-heaven, "arian" lunacy, to whom ever this may be attractive), technically good, providing reasons for good working, but in the end, they are a reason for extreme ugliness and total failure. This is eg. the isis and the nazis. So, never trust a system I would say. That is why I think, systems theory is good: Know the enemy. For my taste, Mumford is a bit too fascinated by cities. Cities are a sort of systems. I am writing too much.
>> Best!
>> Helmut
>>
>>
>> "Edwina Taborsky" <***@primus.ca>
>>
>> Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill'; it's over several other issues.
>>
>> First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus, evaluation of 'what is good and what is bad'. Since human societies do not have an innate knowledge base but must develop it within that society, then, they must have an evaluative capacity.
>>
>> Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it exists in the non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't see it. This requires evaluation on our part.
>>
>> Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both refuse to acknowledge the reality of evil.
>>
>> Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our electronic informational network and our networked global economy - a 'world society'. Therefore, what goes on in one area is known - and we cannot stand by and ignore the reality of evil. This is the technical articulation of Peirce's synechism; we are actually physically (Secondness) connected.
>>
>> Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the global world - we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE global society, each part existing as it does within vastly different ecological realities - from desert, to rainforest, to deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains to mountains to ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which has increased exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes - extreme poverty - as is found in the Middle East, Africa, Central America and elsewhere - to extreme wealth - as is found in these same countries as well! And - we can't have extremes of lifestyle where, in one domain, women are enslaved and forbidden to get an education while in another, they are free. And so on.
>>
>> The world is now too economically and informationally small to functionally handle such extreme variations. This economic and societal imbalance and its resultant economic and political vacuums is why we are seeing the various implosions around the world. [No, they aren't due to the big bad USA].
>>
>> What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for example, is an extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they were in power, THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I won't go into here. But to attain that power, requires massive brutality and killing. And massive repression, where a huge section of the population are reduced to slavery.
>>
>> Am I my brother's keeper?
>>
>> Edwina
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Helmut Raulien
>> To: peirce-***@list.iupui.edu
>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
>> Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>
>> Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was amazingly thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent known anything about Mumford but these quotes by Brooks. Now, when I see that what I have called "neglectiion of the value of life" in the context of his position against appeasement poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I think, that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction. There are dilemma situations, in which pacifism does not work, or even produces very bad results. But not being a pacifist anymore does not mean that you must throw the principles you have had when you were one over board: You still can say, that the value of life is the most important thing, and usually "thou shalt not kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is better to kill them, because, if you dont, they kill far more people. So this is blending some utilitarism (highest advantage for the highest number of people) into the else no more working categorical imperative. But all this is still universalism based on the value of life. A psychologist I like very much, who has explored human morality in dilemma situations, is (was) Lawrence Kohlberg.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>>
>> "Stephen C. Rose" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First Commandment, will add "and none" while adhering to these sage rules..
>>
>> @stephencrose
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>> Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the wolves' for my views]. That quote on synechism, from Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed relevant. As he continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you".
>>>
>>> That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness) and also, members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We have a duty to live within both modes. Not just one mode of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism of 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Stephen C. Rose
>>> To: Edwina Taborsky
>>> Cc: Peirce List
>>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>
>>> This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself said. “Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity.”
>>>
>>> @stephencrose
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>>> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs.
>>>>
>>>> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be compared with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more powerful'?
>>>>
>>>> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals.
>>>>
>>>> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies and actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
>>>>
>>>> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this?
>>>>
>>>> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and forcing people into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do this to people who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God, State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of American power in a violent world'.
>>>>
>>>> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't hide from it.
>>>>
>>>> Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such thuggish behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> Edwina
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Phyllis Chiasson
>>>> To: Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
>>>> Cc: Peirce List
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
>>>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Main
>>>>
>>>> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.
>>>>
>>>> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>>>>
>>>> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the grass too.
>>>>
>>>> It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)
>>>>
>>>> However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions to take root.
>>>>
>>>> Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root all over the world.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Gene Halton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at least in that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is possible that when I read your book Bereft of Reason a few years ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may have proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there is a case to be made for pacifism).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has all the answers to the question of war and peace.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gary Richmond
>>>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>>>> Communication Studies
>>>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>>>> C 745
>>>> 718 482-5690
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu> wrote:
>>>>> I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York Times, and have had a long term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford’s essay described by Brooks in my book, Bereft of Reason, on page 147 forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s claim that Mumford’s position is close to ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s point in this context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position regarding intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the time before World War II was incorrect. Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
>>>>> I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in Bereft of Reason, on “Lewis Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gene
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> excerpt from Bereft of Reason: “The second confrontation with Dewey and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford believed that fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in The New Republic that the United States “Strike first against fascism; and strike hard, but strike.” His militant position was widely attacked by the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.
>>>>>
>>>>> To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of Common Sense on the question “If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?”:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S. Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic Force’ May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John T. Flynn, “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry Elmer Barnes, “A War for ‘Tory Finance’?”. Dewey’s contribution was titled, “No Matter What Happens--Stay Out,” and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford’s piece, “Fascism is Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the inability of the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to stem Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition of what Mumford called “pragmatic liberalism.” The fatal error of pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as “the dread of the emotions.” He illustrated why the emotions ought to play a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a poisonous snake: “If one meets a poisonous snake on one’s path, two things are important for a rational reaction. One is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake is poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one’s guard against his bite.” Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling one’s way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the rationale becomes conscious

>>>>>
>>>>> 
 In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the “context of situation” should provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the eve of World War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put it in 1939, “If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which to erect a socialized democracy.” Dewey criticized the idea that American involvement was “inevitable” while simultaneously assuming such participation would somehow produce inevitable results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies’ adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly book, The Pentagon of Power (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>> My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its context, maybe.
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support his argument contra Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I have ever read an entire book by him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at the moment.
>>>>>> See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary Richmond
>>>>>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>>>>>> Communication Studies
>>>>>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>>>>>> C 745
>>>>>> 718 482-5690
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Helmut, list,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter’s constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-HÃŽtel_.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Ben
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the Isis: "“Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and direction to human life.” That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>>>>>>> Von: "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> An: Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>>>>> Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>>>>> List,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American pragmatism (“The Problem With Pragmatism,” column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring democratic social institutions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is needed is more pragmatism, not less.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
>>>>>>> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brooks
>>>>>>> ' article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry terms "vulgar Pragmatism"
>>>>>>> (182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
>>>>>>> op. cit.
>>>>>>> 201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a logician.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .
>
>
>
>

[Mike Bergman]

Hi All,

None of you know me; I've never commented before on this forum; I'm a
classic lurker.

Generally, I find a small, but significant, percentage of the commentary
on this list as extremely informative and educational. I'm keenly
interested in Peirce.

But I find these threads that bring in politics, or personal commentary,
or obstinate viewpoints to be trying and off-putting. Unfortunately, any
of us who have participated on various lists across the years have seen
other effective forums degenerate.

I do not know who those are that consider themselves as the adults on
this forum, but I encourage you to steer these discussions back on point.

Thank you, Mike

On 10/13/2014 8:58 PM, Dennis Leri wrote:
> Who decides your universal values? How? Room for Mercy or Grace? Who
> adjudicates?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 13, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Stephen C. Rose <***@gmail.com
> <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Good and evil are needlessly mystified. If you have a values based
>> ethic, which is the only ethic that makes sense and produces
>> measurable results, good and evil can be seen as a spectrum that is an
>> index that moves from the depth of evil which is willful injury and
>> inflicting death to selfishness and good which runs through
>> mindfulness, tolerance, helpfulness all the way to acting to create
>> truth and beauty. This index is universal and applies in all contexts.
>> It is a dynamic spectrum. Good and evil are values that signify modes
>> of behavior that we enact all the time. Life is the sum of such
>> actions, achieving mega force when people act in concert through
>> various means. The demythologizing and acceptance of our
>> responsibility to know what is good and what not is the project of
>> this century as folk from Nietzsche to Nozick have suggested.
>>
>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de
>> <mailto:***@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Edwina!
>> I am completely with you, no objections. There is the reality of
>> evil, and human societies do not have an innate knowledge base to
>> distinguish between good and evil. But I think, humans have,
>> because they are creatures of: "God", say religious people,
>> "evolution" say agnostics. God is "logos", logic, and "evolution"
>> is based on logic too. So I think, it does not matter whether one
>> is religious or is trying to understand the world by logical
>> analysis. It is a matter of temperament or which way one can grasp
>> it better, by allegoric pictures or by abstraction. Angels or the
>> power of compassion, the devil, or the evil logic of a vicious
>> circle? I myself believe in God, but do not know, what "to
>> believe" is. Because I think, that all you can believe in you as
>> well can reach by thinking, reflection, the capacities God has
>> given us. Now this is a circular argument, I admit. But I (sort
>> of) believe, that we also have the capacity (God-given?) to
>> uncover evil as false. I think, there is something wrong with
>> evil. It is false. And with logic (logos, God) we are able to
>> prove it like that. So: Evil is real, but not true. Its reality is
>> only temporary, and lasts only until it is proven for wrong,
>> falsified. This is what I believe in, not knowing, but only
>> intuitively feeling, what "to believe" is. How to overcome evil?
>> See, that it is real, but not true, and look for ways to prove it
>> wrong, but it is homeostatic, self-affirming, self-keeping. It has
>> the form of a circle, a vicious one. So, how to break a circle,
>> that is not based on truth? I think, with truth. Truth is an
>> universalist concept, such as the value of life. Pragmatism is the
>> quest for truth, and triadically, I would say:
>> cat.1, iconical: beautiful, ugly
>> cat.2, indexical: technically good (making things work),
>> technically bad (things do not work)
>> cat.3, symbolical: moralically good: Providing reasons for beauty
>> and good working, evil: Reasons for ugliness and failure.
>> And I think, that as you have said, social systems are not wise.
>> Their nature is nothing but to make them more powerful, as this is
>> the nature of any system, left to its own. This is something one
>> can learn from Luhmann. Sytems take advantage of anything they
>> can, be it good or evil. They even pervert, mix the concepts, and
>> create super-evil situations, like: seemingly beautiful (utopies,
>> huri-heaven, "arian" lunacy, to whom ever this may be attractive),
>> technically good, providing reasons for good working, but in the
>> end, they are a reason for extreme ugliness and total failure.
>> This is eg. the isis and the nazis. So, never trust a system I
>> would say. That is why I think, systems theory is good: Know the
>> enemy. For my taste, Mumford is a bit too fascinated by cities.
>> Cities are a sort of systems. I am writing too much.
>> Best!
>> Helmut
>>
>> "Edwina Taborsky" <***@primus.ca <mailto:***@primus.ca>>
>> Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of
>> 'Thou shalt not kill'; it's over several other issues.
>> First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus,
>> evaluation of 'what is good and what is bad'. Since human
>> societies do not have an innate knowledge base but must develop it
>> within that society, then, they must have an evaluative capacity.
>> Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it
>> exists in the non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't
>> see it. This requires evaluation on our part.
>> Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both
>> refuse to acknowledge the reality of evil.
>> Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our
>> electronic informational network and our networked global economy
>> - a 'world society'. Therefore, what goes on in one area is known
>> - and we cannot stand by and ignore the reality of evil. This is
>> the technical articulation of Peirce's synechism; we are actually
>> physically (Secondness) connected.
>> Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the
>> global world - we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE
>> global society, each part existing as it does within vastly
>> different ecological realities - from desert, to rainforest, to
>> deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains to mountains to
>> ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which has
>> increased exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes
>> - extreme poverty - as is found in the Middle East, Africa,
>> Central America and elsewhere - to extreme wealth - as is found in
>> these same countries as well! And - we can't have extremes of
>> lifestyle where, in one domain, women are enslaved and forbidden
>> to get an education while in another, they are free. And so on.
>> The world is now too economically and informationally small to
>> functionally handle such extreme variations. This economic and
>> societal imbalance and its resultant economic and political
>> vacuums is why we are seeing the various implosions around the
>> world. [No, they aren't due to the big bad USA].
>> What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for
>> example, is an extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they
>> were in power, THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I
>> won't go into here. But to attain that power, requires massive
>> brutality and killing. And massive repression, where a huge
>> section of the population are reduced to slavery.
>> Am I my brother's keeper?
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Helmut Raulien <http://***@gmx.de>
>> *To:* peirce-***@list.iupui.edu <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
>> *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism,
>> Not Less"
>> Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was
>> amazingly thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent
>> known anything about Mumford but these quotes by Brooks. Now,
>> when I see that what I have called "neglectiion of the value
>> of life" in the context of his position against appeasement
>> poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I
>> think, that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction.
>> There are dilemma situations, in which pacifism does not work,
>> or even produces very bad results. But not being a pacifist
>> anymore does not mean that you must throw the principles you
>> have had when you were one over board: You still can say, that
>> the value of life is the most important thing, and usually
>> "thou shalt not kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is
>> better to kill them, because, if you dont, they kill far more
>> people. So this is blending some utilitarism (highest
>> advantage for the highest number of people) into the else no
>> more working categorical imperative. But all this is still
>> universalism based on the value of life. A psychologist I like
>> very much, who has explored human morality in dilemma
>> situations, is (was) Lawrence Kohlberg.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>>
>> "Stephen C. Rose" <***@gmail.com
>> <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First
>> Commandment, will add "and none" while adhering to these sage
>> rules..
>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>> <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the
>> wolves' for my views]. That quote on synechism, from
>> Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed relevant. As he
>> continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous
>> circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not
>> quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you".
>> That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness)
>> and also, members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We
>> have a duty to live within both modes. Not just one mode
>> of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of
>> denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism
>> of 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
>> Pragmatism, Not Less"
>> This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone
>> voice. Peirce himself said. “Nor must any synechist
>> say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If
>> you embrace synechism, you must abjure this
>> metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your
>> neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far
>> greater measure than, without deep studies in
>> psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood
>> you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most
>> part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity.”
>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>> <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to
>> debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know
>> I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems
>> heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies
>> which to me, are always utopian rather than
>> pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist.
>> That's because I support the rule of law versus
>> the rule of thugs.
>> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy
>> can really be compared with fascist and
>> fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying
>> that rather than confronting them and denying
>> their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them
>> alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the
>> Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful
>> and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any
>> 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more
>> powerful'?
>> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't
>> function by 'whichever is more powerful.
>> Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by
>> browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of
>> protein and other minerals.
>> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they
>> keep their ideologies and actions confined to
>> themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But
>> when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the
>> actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their
>> beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think
>> that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral
>> as well as legal, to step in and stop them.
>> Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
>> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were
>> far greater in power than the people of
>> Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its
>> stoning of women, its refusal to allow education,
>> be allowed to do this?
>> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings,
>> stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of
>> taking over villages and towns and forcing people
>> into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to
>> continue to do this to people who simply don't
>> have the strength to defend themselves?
>> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' .
>> There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who
>> also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
>> State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against
>> Terror: The burden of American power in a violent
>> world'.
>> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people
>> refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the
>> word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
>> similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused
>> disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling
>> ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we
>> can't hide from it.
>> Taking over a population by ruthless force,
>> dictated by an ideology of biological or religious
>> or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
>> repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone
>> who does not submit to this ideology...I don't
>> think that pacifism is the moral response to such
>> thuggish behaviour.
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Phyllis Chiasson
>> *To:* Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
>> Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>
>> Main
>>
>> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969
>> by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the
>> time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban
>> affairs adviser.
>>
>> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the
>> problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a
>> sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want
>> them gone from my life. Several years ago I
>> began a campaign to extract them from the
>> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as
>> neither my husband nor i support the use of
>> chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>>
>> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion
>> extractor and began pulling them out by the
>> roots. For a short time (very short
>> considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion
>> free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions.
>> I tried a new approach, a weed burner,
>> guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
>> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even
>> more dandelions than before. I tried an all
>> organic herbicide, but without any luck at
>> all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the
>> grass too.
>>
>> It was around that time of the salt discussion
>> that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot
>> next door to us was practically dandelion
>> free. Someone comes around every year with a
>> big mower to keep the grass down and that is
>> the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>>
>> Of course, it did not require a degree in
>> horticulture for me to understand what i had
>> been doing by means of my exertions. I had
>> been preparing the soil for to receive and
>> sprout ever more of the very things that i
>> didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have
>> herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read
>> Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several
>> times.)
>>
>> However, I still think there is a big
>> connection between my attempts to eradicate
>> dandelions and our country's attempt to
>> eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are
>> just preparing the ground for more dandelions,
>> only in this case, dandelions with bombs and
>> rocket launchers. So, to me, the most
>> problematic effect of our
>> military/industrial/congressional complex is
>> that they just keep tilling the soil to
>> encourage more and more dandelions to take root.
>>
>> Based on intentions measured against results,
>> which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we
>> are not really eradicating ISIS; we are
>> recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil
>> by previous wars and skirmishes and every time
>> a drone hit produces collateral damage we are
>> blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root
>> all over the world.
>>
>> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it
>> resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.
>>
>>
>> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gene Halton wrote:
>>
>> I find the both the letter to the New York
>> Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim
>> that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and
>> misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that
>> "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was
>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense
>> Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,”
>> whatever he meant by using the term, was
>> shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and
>> I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness
>> as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly
>> more about Brooks than Mumford.
>>
>> I thought I made it quite clear that I have
>> been "generally" quite sympathetic to
>> Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I
>> posted the group of quotations of his which I
>> did), but, again, I found, as did you,
>> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . .
>> .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at
>> least in that.
>>
>> It is possible that when I read your book
>> /Bereft of Reason/ a few years ago I may have
>> concentrated too heavily on such lines as the
>> one you just quoted regarding the USA's
>> involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
>> involvement did lead to the
>> military-industrial-academic complex and
>> McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>>
>> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if
>> indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as
>> you wrote, "to the
>> military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman
>> was strongly advised to leave out the third
>> term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was
>> NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what
>> have we now in American and, indeed, global
>> 'culture' but precisely the
>> military-industrial-congressional complex writ
>> large: the /military-global
>> corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money
>> complex/? And the women and children still
>> suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those
>> "good wars," those "wars to end all wars,"
>> etc., etc., etc., etc.
>>
>> Your modifying the last passage from your book
>> which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests
>> to me that even you too may have some
>> reservations about how throwing millions of
>> American military lives into the WW2 fodder
>> (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam
>> War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the
>> Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows
>> what the future may bring in the way of human
>> fodder offered to the war machine?), that
>> these wars may have proved historically, at
>> least, /*problematic,*/especially given the
>> fact that those resolved nothing, and that we
>> have been and are still slaughtering children
>> and young men and women and old men and women
>> in battle, soldiers and civilians send to
>> there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what
>> end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
>> completely agree with Dewey and Tori
>> Alexander, most recently, that there is a case
>> to be made for pacifism).
>>
>> So to my way of thinking--after all the
>> Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not
>> just a black and white issue that Mumford was
>> completely correct and Dewey completely wrong,
>> say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably
>> less "uniformed and misguided" than you
>> present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I
>> greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or
>> anyone has all the answers to the question of
>> war and peace.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of
>> New York*
>> *C 745*
>> *718 482-5690*
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton
>> <***@nd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York
>> Times, and have had a long term interest
>> in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis
>> Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford’s
>> essay described by Brooks in my
>> book,/Bereft of Reason/, on page 147 forward.
>>
>> I find the both the letter to the New York
>> Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s
>> claim that Brooks misused Mumford
>> uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s
>> claim that Mumford’s position is close to
>> ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180
>> degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s
>> point in this context being described that
>> living for immediate pleasure
>> gratification regardless of purpose is
>> wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position
>> regarding intervention against Nazi
>> Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the
>> time before World War II was incorrect.
>> Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was
>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that
>> sense Brooks’s understanding of
>> “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using
>> the term, was shallow. And the term
>> Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>>
>> Ironically, by the very same logic,
>> Mumford came to condemn the United States'
>> use of the atomic bomb at the end of World
>> War II, and became a critic of the US
>> military megamachine and political
>> megamachine, and turned against the
>> Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he
>> had received the Presidential Medal of
>> Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I
>> would like to see what conservative David
>> Brooks would do with that.
>> I have quoted some excerpts from my
>> chapter in /Bereft of Reason/, on “Lewis
>> Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>> excerpt from /Bereft of Reason/: “The
>> second confrontation with Dewey and
>> pragmatism occurred on the eve of World
>> War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed
>> “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford
>> believed that fascism would not listen to
>> reasonable talk and could not be appeased,
>> and urged strong measures as early as 1935
>> against Hitler and in support of European
>> nations which might be attacked by Hitler.
>> By 1938 he urged in /The New Republic/
>> that the United States “Strike first
>> against fascism; and strike hard, but
>> strike.”His militant position was widely
>> attacked by the left, and he lost a number
>> of friends in the process, including Frank
>> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles
>> Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.
>>
>> To give an idea of the opinions and
>> climate of the prewar debate, just
>> consider the titles of commentaries
>> published in the March, 1939 issue of
>> /Common Sense/ on the question “If War
>> Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?”:
>>
>> Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S.
>> Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic Force’
>> May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America
>> Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John T. Flynn,
>> “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry
>> Elmer Barnes, “A War for ‘Tory
>> Finance’?”.Dewey’s contribution was
>> titled, “No Matter What Happens--Stay
>> Out,” and it could not have been more
>> opposed to Mumford’s piece, “Fascism is
>> Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the
>> inability of the left to see that rational
>> persuasion and appeasement were inadequate
>> to stem Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition
>> indicated a corruption in the tradition of
>> what Mumford called “pragmatic
>> liberalism.”The fatal error of pragmatic
>> liberalism was its gutless
>> intellectualism, its endorsement of
>> emotional neutrality as a basis for
>> objectivity, which he characterized as
>> “the dread of the emotions.” He
>> illustrated why the emotions ought to play
>> a significant part in rational decisions
>> with an example of encountering a
>> poisonous snake: “If one meets a poisonous
>> snake on one’s path, two things are
>> important for a /rational/ reaction. One
>> is to identify it, and not make the error
>> of assuming that a copperhead is a
>> harmless adder. The other is to have a
>> prompt emotion of fear, if the snake /is/
>> poisonous; for fear starts the flow of
>> adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and
>> that will not merely put the organism as a
>> whole on the alert, but it will give it
>> the extra strength needed either to run
>> away or to attack. Merely to look at the
>> snake abstractedly, without identifying it
>> and without sensing danger and
>> experiencing fear, may lead to the highly
>> irrational step of permitting the snake to
>> draw near without being on one’s guard
>> against his bite.” Emotions, as this
>> example makes clear, are not the opposite
>> of the rational in the conduct of life,
>> and therefore should not be neutralized in
>> order for rational judgments to be made.
>> The emotion of fear in this example is a
>> non-rational inference which provides a
>> means for feeling one’s way in a
>> problematic situation to a rational
>> reaction before the rationale becomes
>> conscious

>>
>> 
 In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the
>> “context of situation” should provide the
>> ground for social inquiries remains an
>> important antidote to empty formalism and
>> blind empiricism. Yet the clearest
>> evidence of its shortcomings in the
>> practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the
>> eve of World War II that the United States
>> should stay out of the impending war
>> against Nazi Germany, because it did not
>> involve the American situation. As he put
>> it in 1939, “If we but made up our minds
>> that it is not inevitable, and if we now
>> set ourselves deliberately to seeing that
>> no matter what happens we stay out, we
>> shall save this country from the greatest
>> social catastrophe that could overtake us,
>> the destruction of all the foundations
>> upon which to erect a socialized
>> democracy.”Dewey criticized the idea that
>> American involvement was “inevitable”
>> while simultaneously assuming such
>> participation would somehow produce
>> inevitable results.
>>
>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to
>> the military-industrial-academic complex
>> and McCarthyism after the war--though the
>> former would likely have emerged in any
>> case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to
>> the fact that Western and World
>> civilization were being subjected to a
>> barbaric assault, an assault from fascism
>> and from within, which would not listen to
>> verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question
>> of civilization as a legitimate broader
>> context of the situation and the
>> possibility that the unreasonable forces
>> unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian
>> ambitions could not be avoided
>> indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the
>> larger unfolding dynamic of the
>> twentieth-century, and was led to a false
>> conclusion concerning American
>> intervention which only the brute facts of
>> Pearl Harbor could change.
>>
>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the
>> pre-war left attacked him for being?
>> Consider that by the end of World War two
>> Mumford was attacking the allies’ adoption
>> of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the
>> firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear
>> bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He
>> decried the fall of military standards and
>> limits in the deliberate targeting of
>> civilians. Mumford was among the earliest
>> proponents of nuclear disarmament, having
>> written an essay on the nuclear bomb
>> within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima
>> and a book within a year, as well as
>> helping to organize the first nuclear
>> disarmament movement. He was an early
>> critic of the Vietnam War, expressing
>> opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost
>> him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly
>> book, /The Pentagon of Power/ (1970) was,
>> among other things, a fierce attack on the
>> antidemocratic
>> military-industrial-academic establishment.”
>>
>> Eugene Halton, /Bereft of Reason/,
>> University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM,
>> Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> My post was a bit polemic, because
>> I was mad at Mumfords neglection
>> of the value of life and that he
>> called that "universalism". And I
>> was indeed thinking of the nazis.
>> I think, a culture that is not
>> based on the value of life is not
>> universalist, but the opposite:
>> Particularist. Universalism for me
>> is eg. Kants categorical
>> imperative, and Kants other
>> imperative, that humans (so also
>> human life) should be treated as
>> aims, not as means. And scientists
>> like Kohlberg and pragmatists like
>> Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my
>> conclusion was, that, when someone
>> is attacking scientists and
>> pragmatists, his "universalism" is
>> in fact particularism. And his
>> concept of "culture" too, because
>> for him, culture is not based on
>> the value of life, but vice versa.
>> But I was refering to a quote out
>> of its context, maybe.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>>
>> "Gary Richmond"
>> <***@gmail.com>
>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>> I certainly won't defend Brooks
>> because I think he misuses
>> Mumford. and even in the choice of
>> this early material taken out of
>> context, to support his argument
>> /contra/ Pragmatism in the article
>> cited. I have always had a
>> generally positive take on
>> Mumford's ideas, although I don't
>> believe I have ever read an entire
>> book by him.
>> This evening as I browsed through
>> a selection of quotations from his
>> books I found more which resonated
>> positively with me than did
>> not--which is not to say that I
>> agree with him in each of the
>> ideas expressed. Still, some of
>> his ideas do not seem opposed to
>> philosophical pragmatism, although
>> his critical purposes aren't much
>> attuned to it, at least as I see
>> it at the moment.
>> See:
>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
>> Best,
>> Gary
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City
>> University of New York*
>> *C 745*
>> *718 482-5690*
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM,
>> Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com
>> <http://***@nyc.rr.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Helmut, list,
>>
>> I seldom am inclined to defend
>> Brooks. I haven't read
>> Mumford, although I have
>> somewhere his book on Melville
>> that I meant to read. For what
>> it's worth, I'll point out
>> that Mumford wrote the
>> Brooks-quoted remark in 1940,
>> when the horrors of WWII had
>> not fully unfolded yet. Maybe
>> he never backed down from it,
>> I don't know. In a box
>> somewhere I have another book
>> that I meant to read, about
>> how in the Nazi death camps
>> sheer survival, fighting just
>> to live, became a kind of
>> heroism. The higher ideals
>> ought to serve life, not tell
>> it that it's full of crap,
>> only to replace the crap with
>> other crap, a.k.a.
>> brainwashing and Mobilization
>> (quick flash of Pink Floyd's
>> marching hammers). "They want
>> politics and think it will
>> save them. At best, it gives
>> direction to their numbed
>> desires. But there is no
>> politics but the manipulation
>> of power through language.
>> Thus the latter’s constant
>> debasement." - Gilbert
>> Sorrentino in _Splendide-HÃŽtel_.
>>
>> Best, Ben
>>
>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut
>> Raulien wrote:
>>
>> Hi! I think, that Mumford,
>> to whom Brooks refers, is
>> quite close to the Isis:
>> "“Life is not worth
>> fighting for: bare life is
>> worthless. Justice is
>> worth fighting for, order
>> is worth fighting for,
>> culture ... .is worth
>> fighting for: These
>> universal principles and
>> values give purpose and
>> direction to human life.”
>> That could be from an
>> islamist hate-preaching:
>> Your life is worthless, so
>> be a suicide bomber and go
>> to universalist(?)
>> heaven. Brooks and
>> Mumford are moral zealots
>> and relativists who
>> project that on the people
>> who have deserved it the
>> least. They intuitively
>> know that they havent
>> understood anything, the
>> least the concept of
>> universalism, and bark
>> against those who have,
>> because they are jealous.
>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11.
>> Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond"
>> <***@gmail.com>
>> <http://***@gmail.com>
>> *An:* Peirce-L
>> <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>> <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L]
>> "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>> List,
>> Joseph Esposito responded
>> to David Brooks' Oct.3 New
>> York Times column, "The
>> Problem with Pragmatism,"
>> with this letter to the
>> editor today.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>
>> To the Editor:
>>
>> David Brooks paints an all
>> too convenient caricature
>> of American pragmatism
>> (“The Problem With
>> Pragmatism
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,”
>> column, Oct. 3). Even the
>> slightest reading of
>> Charles Peirce, William
>> James, John Dewey and
>> Sidney Hook will reveal
>> pragmatists who were
>> passionate about values as
>> well as the means of
>> realizing them in enduring
>> democratic social
>> institutions.
>>
>> The problem the United
>> States confronts in the
>> Middle East is not
>> paralysis or doubt but the
>> adherence to many years of
>> contradictory and
>> self-defeating values and
>> policies that will make
>> matters worse. What is
>> needed is more pragmatism,
>> not less.
>>
>> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
>> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
>>
>> /The writer is a lawyer,
>> philosopher and former
>> student of Sidney Hook./
>>
>> Brooks
>> ' article,
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D
>> which quotes heavily from
>> some of Lewis Mumford's
>> critiques of Liberalism,
>> may have a different kind
>> of Pragmatism in mind than
>> that which Esposito points
>> to, perhaps what Susan
>> Haack in /Evidence and
>> Inquiry/ terms "vulgar
>> Pragmatism"
>> (182-202)by which she
>> means especially Richard
>> Rorty's version.
>> Apropos of the theme
>> Brooks takes up, near the
>> end of the chapter "Vulgar
>> Pragmatism: An Unedifying
>> Prospect," she quotes
>> Peirce as writing: ". . .
>> if I should ever tackle
>> that excessively difficult
>> problem, 'What is for the
>> true interest of society?'
>> I should feel that I stood
>> in need of a great deal of
>> help from the science of
>> legitimate inferences. . ." (
>> op. cit.
>> 201). Here, as everywhere,
>> Peirce shows himself to be
>> essentially a logician.
>> Best,
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To
>> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>> PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
>> a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
>> ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
>> message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu
>> <mailto:peirce-***@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
>> message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@list.iupui.edu
>> <mailto:***@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-***@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-***@list.iupui.edu> . To
>> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
>> ***@list.iupui.edu <mailto:***@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-***@list.iupui.edu
>> <mailto:peirce-***@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message
>> not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@list.iupui.edu
>> <mailto:***@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-***@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-***@list.iupui.edu> . To
>> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
>> ***@list.iupui.edu <mailto:***@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-***@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-***@list.iupui.edu> . To
>> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@list.iupui.edu
>> <mailto:***@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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Gary Richmond]

Mike, list,

Mike, I completely agree with you and would like to strongly recommend that
list members not continue this thread as it has considerable destructive
potential. One of the strengths of peirce-l has been that it has avoided
these sorts of 'flame wars' which have destroyed any number of lists as
Mike noted.

Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)


*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Mike Bergman <***@mkbergman.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> None of you know me; I've never commented before on this forum; I'm a
> classic lurker.
>
> Generally, I find a small, but significant, percentage of the commentary
> on this list as extremely informative and educational. I'm keenly
> interested in Peirce.
>
> But I find these threads that bring in politics, or personal commentary,
> or obstinate viewpoints to be trying and off-putting. Unfortunately, any of
> us who have participated on various lists across the years have seen other
> effective forums degenerate.
>
> I do not know who those are that consider themselves as the adults on this
> forum, but I encourage you to steer these discussions back on point.
>
> Thank you, Mike
>
> On 10/13/2014 8:58 PM, Dennis Leri wrote:
>
>> Who decides your universal values? How? Room for Mercy or Grace? Who
>> adjudicates?
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Stephen C. Rose <***@gmail.com
>> <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Good and evil are needlessly mystified. If you have a values based
>>> ethic, which is the only ethic that makes sense and produces
>>> measurable results, good and evil can be seen as a spectrum that is an
>>> index that moves from the depth of evil which is willful injury and
>>> inflicting death to selfishness and good which runs through
>>> mindfulness, tolerance, helpfulness all the way to acting to create
>>> truth and beauty. This index is universal and applies in all contexts.
>>> It is a dynamic spectrum. Good and evil are values that signify modes
>>> of behavior that we enact all the time. Life is the sum of such
>>> actions, achieving mega force when people act in concert through
>>> various means. The demythologizing and acceptance of our
>>> responsibility to know what is good and what not is the project of
>>> this century as folk from Nietzsche to Nozick have suggested.
>>>
>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de
>>> <mailto:***@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Edwina!
>>> I am completely with you, no objections. There is the reality of
>>> evil, and human societies do not have an innate knowledge base to
>>> distinguish between good and evil. But I think, humans have,
>>> because they are creatures of: "God", say religious people,
>>> "evolution" say agnostics. God is "logos", logic, and "evolution"
>>> is based on logic too. So I think, it does not matter whether one
>>> is religious or is trying to understand the world by logical
>>> analysis. It is a matter of temperament or which way one can grasp
>>> it better, by allegoric pictures or by abstraction. Angels or the
>>> power of compassion, the devil, or the evil logic of a vicious
>>> circle? I myself believe in God, but do not know, what "to
>>> believe" is. Because I think, that all you can believe in you as
>>> well can reach by thinking, reflection, the capacities God has
>>> given us. Now this is a circular argument, I admit. But I (sort
>>> of) believe, that we also have the capacity (God-given?) to
>>> uncover evil as false. I think, there is something wrong with
>>> evil. It is false. And with logic (logos, God) we are able to
>>> prove it like that. So: Evil is real, but not true. Its reality is
>>> only temporary, and lasts only until it is proven for wrong,
>>> falsified. This is what I believe in, not knowing, but only
>>> intuitively feeling, what "to believe" is. How to overcome evil?
>>> See, that it is real, but not true, and look for ways to prove it
>>> wrong, but it is homeostatic, self-affirming, self-keeping. It has
>>> the form of a circle, a vicious one. So, how to break a circle,
>>> that is not based on truth? I think, with truth. Truth is an
>>> universalist concept, such as the value of life. Pragmatism is the
>>> quest for truth, and triadically, I would say:
>>> cat.1, iconical: beautiful, ugly
>>> cat.2, indexical: technically good (making things work),
>>> technically bad (things do not work)
>>> cat.3, symbolical: moralically good: Providing reasons for beauty
>>> and good working, evil: Reasons for ugliness and failure.
>>> And I think, that as you have said, social systems are not wise.
>>> Their nature is nothing but to make them more powerful, as this is
>>> the nature of any system, left to its own. This is something one
>>> can learn from Luhmann. Sytems take advantage of anything they
>>> can, be it good or evil. They even pervert, mix the concepts, and
>>> create super-evil situations, like: seemingly beautiful (utopies,
>>> huri-heaven, "arian" lunacy, to whom ever this may be attractive),
>>> technically good, providing reasons for good working, but in the
>>> end, they are a reason for extreme ugliness and total failure.
>>> This is eg. the isis and the nazis. So, never trust a system I
>>> would say. That is why I think, systems theory is good: Know the
>>> enemy. For my taste, Mumford is a bit too fascinated by cities.
>>> Cities are a sort of systems. I am writing too much.
>>> Best!
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> "Edwina Taborsky" <***@primus.ca <mailto:***@primus.ca>>
>>> Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of
>>> 'Thou shalt not kill'; it's over several other issues.
>>> First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus,
>>> evaluation of 'what is good and what is bad'. Since human
>>> societies do not have an innate knowledge base but must develop it
>>> within that society, then, they must have an evaluative capacity.
>>> Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it
>>> exists in the non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't
>>> see it. This requires evaluation on our part.
>>> Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both
>>> refuse to acknowledge the reality of evil.
>>> Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our
>>> electronic informational network and our networked global economy
>>> - a 'world society'. Therefore, what goes on in one area is known
>>> - and we cannot stand by and ignore the reality of evil. This is
>>> the technical articulation of Peirce's synechism; we are actually
>>> physically (Secondness) connected.
>>> Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the
>>> global world - we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE
>>> global society, each part existing as it does within vastly
>>> different ecological realities - from desert, to rainforest, to
>>> deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains to mountains to
>>> ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which has
>>> increased exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes
>>> - extreme poverty - as is found in the Middle East, Africa,
>>> Central America and elsewhere - to extreme wealth - as is found in
>>> these same countries as well! And - we can't have extremes of
>>> lifestyle where, in one domain, women are enslaved and forbidden
>>> to get an education while in another, they are free. And so on.
>>> The world is now too economically and informationally small to
>>> functionally handle such extreme variations. This economic and
>>> societal imbalance and its resultant economic and political
>>> vacuums is why we are seeing the various implosions around the
>>> world. [No, they aren't due to the big bad USA].
>>> What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for
>>> example, is an extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they
>>> were in power, THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I
>>> won't go into here. But to attain that power, requires massive
>>> brutality and killing. And massive repression, where a huge
>>> section of the population are reduced to slavery.
>>> Am I my brother's keeper?
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Helmut Raulien <http://***@gmx.de>
>>> *To:* peirce-***@list.iupui.edu <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
>>> *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism,
>>> Not Less"
>>> Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was
>>> amazingly thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent
>>> known anything about Mumford but these quotes by Brooks. Now,
>>> when I see that what I have called "neglectiion of the value
>>> of life" in the context of his position against appeasement
>>> poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I
>>> think, that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction.
>>> There are dilemma situations, in which pacifism does not work,
>>> or even produces very bad results. But not being a pacifist
>>> anymore does not mean that you must throw the principles you
>>> have had when you were one over board: You still can say, that
>>> the value of life is the most important thing, and usually
>>> "thou shalt not kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is
>>> better to kill them, because, if you dont, they kill far more
>>> people. So this is blending some utilitarism (highest
>>> advantage for the highest number of people) into the else no
>>> more working categorical imperative. But all this is still
>>> universalism based on the value of life. A psychologist I like
>>> very much, who has explored human morality in dilemma
>>> situations, is (was) Lawrence Kohlberg.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> "Stephen C. Rose" <***@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First
>>> Commandment, will add "and none" while adhering to these sage
>>> rules..
>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>>> <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the
>>> wolves' for my views]. That quote on synechism, from
>>> Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed relevant. As he
>>> continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous
>>> circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not
>>> quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you".
>>> That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness)
>>> and also, members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We
>>> have a duty to live within both modes. Not just one mode
>>> of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of
>>> denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism
>>> of 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose
>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
>>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
>>> Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>> This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone
>>> voice. Peirce himself said. "Nor must any synechist
>>> say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If
>>> you embrace synechism, you must abjure this
>>> metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your
>>> neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far
>>> greater measure than, without deep studies in
>>> psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood
>>> you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most
>>> part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity."
>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>>> <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to
>>> debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know
>>> I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems
>>> heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies
>>> which to me, are always utopian rather than
>>> pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist.
>>> That's because I support the rule of law versus
>>> the rule of thugs.
>>> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy
>>> can really be compared with fascist and
>>> fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying
>>> that rather than confronting them and denying
>>> their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them
>>> alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the
>>> Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful
>>> and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any
>>> 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more
>>> powerful'?
>>> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't
>>> function by 'whichever is more powerful.
>>> Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by
>>> browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of
>>> protein and other minerals.
>>> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they
>>> keep their ideologies and actions confined to
>>> themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But
>>> when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the
>>> actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their
>>> beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think
>>> that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral
>>> as well as legal, to step in and stop them.
>>> Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
>>> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were
>>> far greater in power than the people of
>>> Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its
>>> stoning of women, its refusal to allow education,
>>> be allowed to do this?
>>> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings,
>>> stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of
>>> taking over villages and towns and forcing people
>>> into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to
>>> continue to do this to people who simply don't
>>> have the strength to defend themselves?
>>> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' .
>>> There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who
>>> also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
>>> State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against
>>> Terror: The burden of American power in a violent
>>> world'.
>>> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people
>>> refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the
>>> word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
>>> similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused
>>> disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling
>>> ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we
>>> can't hide from it.
>>> Taking over a population by ruthless force,
>>> dictated by an ideology of biological or religious
>>> or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
>>> repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone
>>> who does not submit to this ideology...I don't
>>> think that pacifism is the moral response to such
>>> thuggish behaviour.
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Phyllis Chiasson
>>> *To:* Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
>>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
>>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
>>> Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>
>>> Main
>>>
>>> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969
>>> by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the
>>> time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban
>>> affairs adviser.
>>>
>>> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the
>>> problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a
>>> sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want
>>> them gone from my life. Several years ago I
>>> began a campaign to extract them from the
>>> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as
>>> neither my husband nor i support the use of
>>> chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>>>
>>> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion
>>> extractor and began pulling them out by the
>>> roots. For a short time (very short
>>> considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion
>>> free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions.
>>> I tried a new approach, a weed burner,
>>> guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
>>> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even
>>> more dandelions than before. I tried an all
>>> organic herbicide, but without any luck at
>>> all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the
>>> grass too.
>>>
>>> It was around that time of the salt discussion
>>> that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot
>>> next door to us was practically dandelion
>>> free. Someone comes around every year with a
>>> big mower to keep the grass down and that is
>>> the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>>>
>>> Of course, it did not require a degree in
>>> horticulture for me to understand what i had
>>> been doing by means of my exertions. I had
>>> been preparing the soil for to receive and
>>> sprout ever more of the very things that i
>>> didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have
>>> herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read
>>> Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several
>>> times.)
>>>
>>> However, I still think there is a big
>>> connection between my attempts to eradicate
>>> dandelions and our country's attempt to
>>> eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are
>>> just preparing the ground for more dandelions,
>>> only in this case, dandelions with bombs and
>>> rocket launchers. So, to me, the most
>>> problematic effect of our
>>> military/industrial/congressional complex is
>>> that they just keep tilling the soil to
>>> encourage more and more dandelions to take root.
>>>
>>> Based on intentions measured against results,
>>> which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we
>>> are not really eradicating ISIS; we are
>>> recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil
>>> by previous wars and skirmishes and every time
>>> a drone hit produces collateral damage we are
>>> blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root
>>> all over the world.
>>>
>>> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it
>>> resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gene Halton wrote:
>>>
>>> I find the both the letter to the New York
>>> Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R's claim
>>> that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and
>>> misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that
>>> "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense
>>> Brooks's understanding of "pragmatism,"
>>> whatever he meant by using the term, was
>>> shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and
>>> I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness
>>> as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly
>>> more about Brooks than Mumford.
>>>
>>> I thought I made it quite clear that I have
>>> been "generally" quite sympathetic to
>>> Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I
>>> posted the group of quotations of his which I
>>> did), but, again, I found, as did you,
>>> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . .
>>> .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at
>>> least in that.
>>>
>>> It is possible that when I read your book
>>> /Bereft of Reason/ a few years ago I may have
>>> concentrated too heavily on such lines as the
>>> one you just quoted regarding the USA's
>>> involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
>>> involvement did lead to the
>>> military-industrial-academic complex and
>>> McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>>>
>>> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if
>>> indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as
>>> you wrote, "to the
>>> military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman
>>> was strongly advised to leave out the third
>>> term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was
>>> NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what
>>> have we now in American and, indeed, global
>>> 'culture' but precisely the
>>> military-industrial-congressional complex writ
>>> large: the /military-global
>>> corporate--governments-
>>> corrupted-by-power-and-money
>>> complex/? And the women and children still
>>> suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those
>>> "good wars," those "wars to end all wars,"
>>> etc., etc., etc., etc.
>>>
>>> Your modifying the last passage from your book
>>> which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests
>>> to me that even you too may have some
>>> reservations about how throwing millions of
>>> American military lives into the WW2 fodder
>>> (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam
>>> War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the
>>> Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows
>>> what the future may bring in the way of human
>>> fodder offered to the war machine?), that
>>> these wars may have proved historically, at
>>> least, /*problematic,*/especially given the
>>> fact that those resolved nothing, and that we
>>> have been and are still slaughtering children
>>> and young men and women and old men and women
>>> in battle, soldiers and civilians send to
>>> there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what
>>> end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
>>> completely agree with Dewey and Tori
>>> Alexander, most recently, that there is a case
>>> to be made for pacifism).
>>>
>>> So to my way of thinking--after all the
>>> Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not
>>> just a black and white issue that Mumford was
>>> completely correct and Dewey completely wrong,
>>> say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably
>>> less "uniformed and misguided" than you
>>> present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I
>>> greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or
>>> anyone has all the answers to the question of
>>> war and peace.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>> *Communication Studies*
>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of
>>> New York*
>>> *C 745*
>>> *718 482-5690*
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton
>>> <***@nd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I read David Brooks' piece in the New York
>>> Times, and have had a long term interest
>>> in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis
>>> Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford's
>>> essay described by Brooks in my
>>> book,/Bereft of Reason/, on page 147 forward.
>>>
>>> I find the both the letter to the New York
>>> Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R's
>>> claim that Brooks misused Mumford
>>> uninformed and misguided, and Helmut's
>>> claim that Mumford's position is close to
>>> ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180
>>> degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's
>>> point in this context being described that
>>> living for immediate pleasure
>>> gratification regardless of purpose is
>>> wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position
>>> regarding intervention against Nazi
>>> Germany was correct and Dewey's at the
>>> time before World War II was incorrect.
>>> Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that
>>> sense Brooks's understanding of
>>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using
>>> the term, was shallow. And the term
>>> Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>>>
>>> Ironically, by the very same logic,
>>> Mumford came to condemn the United States'
>>> use of the atomic bomb at the end of World
>>> War II, and became a critic of the US
>>> military megamachine and political
>>> megamachine, and turned against the
>>> Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he
>>> had received the Presidential Medal of
>>> Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I
>>> would like to see what conservative David
>>> Brooks would do with that.
>>> I have quoted some excerpts from my
>>> chapter in /Bereft of Reason/, on "Lewis
>>> Mumford's Organic World-View" below.
>>>
>>> Gene
>>>
>>> excerpt from /Bereft of Reason/: "The
>>> second confrontation with Dewey and
>>> pragmatism occurred on the eve of World
>>> War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed
>>> "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford
>>> believed that fascism would not listen to
>>> reasonable talk and could not be appeased,
>>> and urged strong measures as early as 1935
>>> against Hitler and in support of European
>>> nations which might be attacked by Hitler.
>>> By 1938 he urged in /The New Republic/
>>> that the United States "Strike first
>>> against fascism; and strike hard, but
>>> strike."His militant position was widely
>>> attacked by the left, and he lost a number
>>> of friends in the process, including Frank
>>> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles
>>> Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.
>>>
>>> To give an idea of the opinions and
>>> climate of the prewar debate, just
>>> consider the titles of commentaries
>>> published in the March, 1939 issue of
>>> /Common Sense/ on the question "If War
>>> Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?":
>>>
>>> Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S.
>>> Neutrality;" Max Lerner, "`Economic Force'
>>> May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America
>>> Cannot 'Save' Europe;" John T. Flynn,
>>> "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry
>>> Elmer Barnes, "A War for 'Tory
>>> Finance'?".Dewey's contribution was
>>> titled, "No Matter What Happens--Stay
>>> Out," and it could not have been more
>>> opposed to Mumford's piece, "Fascism is
>>> Worse than War." Mumford believed that the
>>> inability of the left to see that rational
>>> persuasion and appeasement were inadequate
>>> to stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition
>>> indicated a corruption in the tradition of
>>> what Mumford called "pragmatic
>>> liberalism."The fatal error of pragmatic
>>> liberalism was its gutless
>>> intellectualism, its endorsement of
>>> emotional neutrality as a basis for
>>> objectivity, which he characterized as
>>> "the dread of the emotions." He
>>> illustrated why the emotions ought to play
>>> a significant part in rational decisions
>>> with an example of encountering a
>>> poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous
>>> snake on one's path, two things are
>>> important for a /rational/ reaction. One
>>> is to identify it, and not make the error
>>> of assuming that a copperhead is a
>>> harmless adder. The other is to have a
>>> prompt emotion of fear, if the snake /is/
>>> poisonous; for fear starts the flow of
>>> adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and
>>> that will not merely put the organism as a
>>> whole on the alert, but it will give it
>>> the extra strength needed either to run
>>> away or to attack. Merely to look at the
>>> snake abstractedly, without identifying it
>>> and without sensing danger and
>>> experiencing fear, may lead to the highly
>>> irrational step of permitting the snake to
>>> draw near without being on one's guard
>>> against his bite." Emotions, as this
>>> example makes clear, are not the opposite
>>> of the rational in the conduct of life,
>>> and therefore should not be neutralized in
>>> order for rational judgments to be made.
>>> The emotion of fear in this example is a
>>> non-rational inference which provides a
>>> means for feeling one's way in a
>>> problematic situation to a rational
>>> reaction before the rationale becomes
>>> conscious...
>>>
>>> ... In my opinion Dewey's concept that the
>>> "context of situation" should provide the
>>> ground for social inquiries remains an
>>> important antidote to empty formalism and
>>> blind empiricism. Yet the clearest
>>> evidence of its shortcomings in the
>>> practice of life was Dewey's belief on the
>>> eve of World War II that the United States
>>> should stay out of the impending war
>>> against Nazi Germany, because it did not
>>> involve the American situation. As he put
>>> it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds
>>> that it is not inevitable, and if we now
>>> set ourselves deliberately to seeing that
>>> no matter what happens we stay out, we
>>> shall save this country from the greatest
>>> social catastrophe that could overtake us,
>>> the destruction of all the foundations
>>> upon which to erect a socialized
>>> democracy."Dewey criticized the idea that
>>> American involvement was "inevitable"
>>> while simultaneously assuming such
>>> participation would somehow produce
>>> inevitable results.
>>>
>>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to
>>> the military-industrial-academic complex
>>> and McCarthyism after the war--though the
>>> former would likely have emerged in any
>>> case--but Dewey's localism blinded him to
>>> the fact that Western and World
>>> civilization were being subjected to a
>>> barbaric assault, an assault from fascism
>>> and from within, which would not listen to
>>> verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question
>>> of civilization as a legitimate broader
>>> context of the situation and the
>>> possibility that the unreasonable forces
>>> unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian
>>> ambitions could not be avoided
>>> indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the
>>> larger unfolding dynamic of the
>>> twentieth-century, and was led to a false
>>> conclusion concerning American
>>> intervention which only the brute facts of
>>> Pearl Harbor could change.
>>>
>>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the
>>> pre-war left attacked him for being?
>>> Consider that by the end of World War two
>>> Mumford was attacking the allies' adoption
>>> of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the
>>> firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear
>>> bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He
>>> decried the fall of military standards and
>>> limits in the deliberate targeting of
>>> civilians. Mumford was among the earliest
>>> proponents of nuclear disarmament, having
>>> written an essay on the nuclear bomb
>>> within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima
>>> and a book within a year, as well as
>>> helping to organize the first nuclear
>>> disarmament movement. He was an early
>>> critic of the Vietnam War, expressing
>>> opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost
>>> him friendships. Mumford's last scholarly
>>> book, /The Pentagon of Power/ (1970) was,
>>> among other things, a fierce attack on the
>>> antidemocratic
>>> military-industrial-academic establishment."
>>>
>>> Eugene Halton, /Bereft of Reason/,
>>> University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM,
>>> Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> My post was a bit polemic, because
>>> I was mad at Mumfords neglection
>>> of the value of life and that he
>>> called that "universalism". And I
>>> was indeed thinking of the nazis.
>>> I think, a culture that is not
>>> based on the value of life is not
>>> universalist, but the opposite:
>>> Particularist. Universalism for me
>>> is eg. Kants categorical
>>> imperative, and Kants other
>>> imperative, that humans (so also
>>> human life) should be treated as
>>> aims, not as means. And scientists
>>> like Kohlberg and pragmatists like
>>> Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my
>>> conclusion was, that, when someone
>>> is attacking scientists and
>>> pragmatists, his "universalism" is
>>> in fact particularism. And his
>>> concept of "culture" too, because
>>> for him, culture is not based on
>>> the value of life, but vice versa.
>>> But I was refering to a quote out
>>> of its context, maybe.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> "Gary Richmond"
>>> <***@gmail.com>
>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks
>>> because I think he misuses
>>> Mumford. and even in the choice of
>>> this early material taken out of
>>> context, to support his argument
>>> /contra/ Pragmatism in the article
>>> cited. I have always had a
>>> generally positive take on
>>> Mumford's ideas, although I don't
>>> believe I have ever read an entire
>>> book by him.
>>> This evening as I browsed through
>>> a selection of quotations from his
>>> books I found more which resonated
>>> positively with me than did
>>> not--which is not to say that I
>>> agree with him in each of the
>>> ideas expressed. Still, some of
>>> his ideas do not seem opposed to
>>> philosophical pragmatism, although
>>> his critical purposes aren't much
>>> attuned to it, at least as I see
>>> it at the moment.
>>> See:
>>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/
>>> Lewis_Mumford
>>> Best,
>>> Gary
>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>> *Communication Studies*
>>> *LaGuardia College of the City
>>> University of New York*
>>> *C 745*
>>> *718 482-5690*
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM,
>>> Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com
>>> <http://***@nyc.rr.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Helmut, list,
>>>
>>> I seldom am inclined to defend
>>> Brooks. I haven't read
>>> Mumford, although I have
>>> somewhere his book on Melville
>>> that I meant to read. For what
>>> it's worth, I'll point out
>>> that Mumford wrote the
>>> Brooks-quoted remark in 1940,
>>> when the horrors of WWII had
>>> not fully unfolded yet. Maybe
>>> he never backed down from it,
>>> I don't know. In a box
>>> somewhere I have another book
>>> that I meant to read, about
>>> how in the Nazi death camps
>>> sheer survival, fighting just
>>> to live, became a kind of
>>> heroism. The higher ideals
>>> ought to serve life, not tell
>>> it that it's full of crap,
>>> only to replace the crap with
>>> other crap, a.k.a.
>>> brainwashing and Mobilization
>>> (quick flash of Pink Floyd's
>>> marching hammers). "They want
>>> politics and think it will
>>> save them. At best, it gives
>>> direction to their numbed
>>> desires. But there is no
>>> politics but the manipulation
>>> of power through language.
>>> Thus the latter's constant
>>> debasement." - Gilbert
>>> Sorrentino in _Splendide-Hôtel_.
>>>
>>> Best, Ben
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut
>>> Raulien wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford,
>>> to whom Brooks refers, is
>>> quite close to the Isis:
>>> ""Life is not worth
>>> fighting for: bare life is
>>> worthless. Justice is
>>> worth fighting for, order
>>> is worth fighting for,
>>> culture ... .is worth
>>> fighting for: These
>>> universal principles and
>>> values give purpose and
>>> direction to human life."
>>> That could be from an
>>> islamist hate-preaching:
>>> Your life is worthless, so
>>> be a suicide bomber and go
>>> to universalist(?)
>>> heaven. Brooks and
>>> Mumford are moral zealots
>>> and relativists who
>>> project that on the people
>>> who have deserved it the
>>> least. They intuitively
>>> know that they havent
>>> understood anything, the
>>> least the concept of
>>> universalism, and bark
>>> against those who have,
>>> because they are jealous.
>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11.
>>> Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond"
>>> <***@gmail.com>
>>> <http://***@gmail.
>>> com>
>>> *An:* Peirce-L
>>> <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>> <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.
>>> edu>
>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L]
>>> "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>> List,
>>> Joseph Esposito responded
>>> to David Brooks' Oct.3 New
>>> York Times column, "The
>>> Problem with Pragmatism,"
>>> with this letter to the
>>> editor today.
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/
>>> 10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>>
>>> To the Editor:
>>>
>>> David Brooks paints an all
>>> too convenient caricature
>>> of American pragmatism
>>> ("The Problem With
>>> Pragmatism
>>> <
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-
>>> the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=
>>> relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,"
>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the
>>> slightest reading of
>>> Charles Peirce, William
>>> James, John Dewey and
>>> Sidney Hook will reveal
>>> pragmatists who were
>>> passionate about values as
>>> well as the means of
>>> realizing them in enduring
>>> democratic social
>>> institutions.
>>>
>>> The problem the United
>>> States confronts in the
>>> Middle East is not
>>> paralysis or doubt but the
>>
>>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to ***@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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Eugene Halton]

Given my response concerned the initial post on Brooks' article, Mumford,
and pragmatism, and the one I just finished before looking at recent posts
is focused on that topic also, I will respond.

Dear Gary,

The specific reason I found your and Esposito’s opinions “uninformed and
misguided” was that they never considered the direct evidence for Mumford’s
statements concerning what he called “pragmatic liberalism,” especially in
its more specific context of Dewey’s statements that I cited, and you
claimed that David Brooks “misuses” Mumford. Brooks quoted Mumford’s 1940
essay, “The Corruption of Liberalism,” where Mumford said, “Liberalism has
been on the side of passivism in the face of danger. Liberalism has been on
the side of ‘isolation’ when confronted with the imminent threat of a
worldwide upsurge in barbarism.”

Note that Mumford here criticized “passivism,” not pacifism, and also
isolationism. Note Dewey’s title for his 1939 contribution to the *Common
Sense *short pieces I cited in my first reply, “No Matter What
Happens--Stay Out.” Note the titles from the other contributors I cited as
well, which are similar to Dewey’s. You said that Brooks “misuses” Mumford,
but it seems to me obvious that Brooks accurately conveyed Mumford’s intent
in that essay, whether one agrees with Mumford or not.

Brooks did generalize from Mumford’s “pragmatic liberalism” to
“pragmatism,” and clearly seems to be broadening it to mean practicalism
or realpolitik and not just philosophical pragmatism, as is frequently (and
unfortunately) done in the vernacular use of the word. But as Dewey’s
remarks show, Dewey taken as a philosophical pragmatist directly fit
Mumford’s critique, and that is something Esposito should have addressed,
instead of bypassing it to defend philosophical pragmatism. Joseph
Esposito’s letter says nothing concrete, and wallows in blanket assertions
about pragmatism, claiming that pragmatists, “were passionate about
values,” completely bypassing the “context of situation,” to use Dewey’s
term, that Mumford was addressing, namely, that thinking forcible conflict
against Hitler could be avoided betrayed an insufficient instinctive and
historical appreciation for the dark forces welling up that Hitler promised
to release.

I claimed that Dewey’s position was wrong, and that the axis alliance
formed between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, which led to the unprovoked
attack of Japan upon the US at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941,
demonstrated that, contrary to Dewey’s “no matter what happens,” the United
States ultimately could not stay out. Mumford had earlier said that Hitler
had revealed his expansionist fascist intentions, and that they represented
a fundamental attack on democracy and needed to be countered by force.”
Mumford argued that argument was not sufficient to appease Hitler, that he
would only respond to force, and I claimed that on this point Mumford was
correct, and Dewey’s isolationist view was false. Mumford saw “pragmatic
liberalism,” as he characterized it, and its over-reliance on abstract
thought and technique, as deficient in emotionally centered practical
reasoning, capable of sensing the dark forces at work in that time.
Mumford’s gut was proven correct, accurately foretelling the actual world
that came to be, and Dewey’s view proved inadequate to comprehend what
actually was to be.

Mumford claimed that, awful though war is, “Fascism is Worse than War,”
because it kills democratic life and freedom, and for this reason fascism
at that time had be resisted through the only means it would respond to,
armed force. It was the same reasoning he applied to criticizing US
saturation bombing of Dresden, and nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, of totalizing instruments of power overstepping humane limits.
And he made those critiques in 1945 when his own son had been killed in the
war the year before.

Gene, and more below.



GARY R.: Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement
in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic
complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that
diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And
what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely
the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the *military-global
corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex*? And the women
and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good
wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.

“Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with
"perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about
how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and
the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars
fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the
future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?),
that these wars may have proved historically, at least, *problematic,*
especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have
been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old
men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. .
.. what values?--to what end?”



GENE: As I said, the anti-interventionist views of the prewar American
left, as well as Bertrand Russell, were not justified by the
military-industrial complex that bloomed in America after the war. They
were wrong, just as that military-industrial complex was. And who was in
the forefront of calling attention to that postwar complex? Lewis Mumford,
and for the same reasons he called for active engagement against Hitler in
the late thirties: to serve democracy and freedom. But obviously Mumford’s
arguments from the beginning of the postwar period though his book *The
Pentagon of Power* were ignored.

Gary R., you say that “the World War 2 fodder” was
“problematic” and “resolved nothing” and link it to all subsequent wars. I
believe that “American military lives” were necessary in World War 2,
though later wars, such as Vietnam, represented imperial expansions of what
former general and later president Dwight D. Eisenhower termed “the
military industrial complex.” Destroying Hitler resolved something
significant, in my opinion, namely that totalitarian rule is
catastrophically inhuman. But the dangers of any wars involve becoming the
very evil you are combating, and as Mumford himself said, Hitler may have
lost the war while the spirit of Hitler, of Guernica, of mass saturation
bombing and extermination, of machine purposes dominant over human
interests, in effect endured. Here is where all the ambiguities enter,
considering the postwar military-industrial dot-dot-fill-in-the-blank
complex which came to dominate American life. But on the specific issue of
Mumford and Dewey just before World War 2, which is just a portion of
“pragmatic liberalism,” I do not see ambiguity. Dewey got it wrong, and
shrunk away from what what turned out to be necessary, and Mumford felt and
saw clearly what was to be, and what then actualized. Dewey’s appreciation
of emotional reasonableness did not go as deeply as Mumford’s did, and
Mumford’s understanding of what was emerging proved correct. And there is a
gulf between Dewey’s appreciation of the depth of emotional reasonableness
and that of Peirce, who allows much more of a place for deep instinctive
and emotional reasonableness in practical life.

And Mumford applied the same ways of thinking after the war to
develop a profound critique against the modern “megamachine” of power,
especially in its American incarnation, and in ways David Brooks could
never brook.

Gene


On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mike, list,
>
> Mike, I completely agree with you and would like to strongly recommend
> that list members not continue this thread as it has considerable
> destructive potential. One of the strengths of peirce-l has been that it
> has avoided these sorts of 'flame wars' which have destroyed any number of
> lists as Mike noted.
>
> Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
>
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Mike Bergman <***@mkbergman.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> None of you know me; I've never commented before on this forum; I'm a
>> classic lurker.
>>
>> Generally, I find a small, but significant, percentage of the commentary
>> on this list as extremely informative and educational. I'm keenly
>> interested in Peirce.
>>
>> But I find these threads that bring in politics, or personal commentary,
>> or obstinate viewpoints to be trying and off-putting. Unfortunately, any of
>> us who have participated on various lists across the years have seen other
>> effective forums degenerate.
>>
>> I do not know who those are that consider themselves as the adults on
>> this forum, but I encourage you to steer these discussions back on point.
>>
>> Thank you, Mike
>>
>> On 10/13/2014 8:58 PM, Dennis Leri wrote:
>>
>>> Who decides your universal values? How? Room for Mercy or Grace? Who
>>> adjudicates?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Stephen C. Rose <***@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good and evil are needlessly mystified. If you have a values based
>>>> ethic, which is the only ethic that makes sense and produces
>>>> measurable results, good and evil can be seen as a spectrum that is an
>>>> index that moves from the depth of evil which is willful injury and
>>>> inflicting death to selfishness and good which runs through
>>>> mindfulness, tolerance, helpfulness all the way to acting to create
>>>> truth and beauty. This index is universal and applies in all contexts.
>>>> It is a dynamic spectrum. Good and evil are values that signify modes
>>>> of behavior that we enact all the time. Life is the sum of such
>>>> actions, achieving mega force when people act in concert through
>>>> various means. The demythologizing and acceptance of our
>>>> responsibility to know what is good and what not is the project of
>>>> this century as folk from Nietzsche to Nozick have suggested.
>>>>
>>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de
>>>> <mailto:***@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Edwina!
>>>> I am completely with you, no objections. There is the reality of
>>>> evil, and human societies do not have an innate knowledge base to
>>>> distinguish between good and evil. But I think, humans have,
>>>> because they are creatures of: "God", say religious people,
>>>> "evolution" say agnostics. God is "logos", logic, and "evolution"
>>>> is based on logic too. So I think, it does not matter whether one
>>>> is religious or is trying to understand the world by logical
>>>> analysis. It is a matter of temperament or which way one can grasp
>>>> it better, by allegoric pictures or by abstraction. Angels or the
>>>> power of compassion, the devil, or the evil logic of a vicious
>>>> circle? I myself believe in God, but do not know, what "to
>>>> believe" is. Because I think, that all you can believe in you as
>>>> well can reach by thinking, reflection, the capacities God has
>>>> given us. Now this is a circular argument, I admit. But I (sort
>>>> of) believe, that we also have the capacity (God-given?) to
>>>> uncover evil as false. I think, there is something wrong with
>>>> evil. It is false. And with logic (logos, God) we are able to
>>>> prove it like that. So: Evil is real, but not true. Its reality is
>>>> only temporary, and lasts only until it is proven for wrong,
>>>> falsified. This is what I believe in, not knowing, but only
>>>> intuitively feeling, what "to believe" is. How to overcome evil?
>>>> See, that it is real, but not true, and look for ways to prove it
>>>> wrong, but it is homeostatic, self-affirming, self-keeping. It has
>>>> the form of a circle, a vicious one. So, how to break a circle,
>>>> that is not based on truth? I think, with truth. Truth is an
>>>> universalist concept, such as the value of life. Pragmatism is the
>>>> quest for truth, and triadically, I would say:
>>>> cat.1, iconical: beautiful, ugly
>>>> cat.2, indexical: technically good (making things work),
>>>> technically bad (things do not work)
>>>> cat.3, symbolical: moralically good: Providing reasons for beauty
>>>> and good working, evil: Reasons for ugliness and failure.
>>>> And I think, that as you have said, social systems are not wise.
>>>> Their nature is nothing but to make them more powerful, as this is
>>>> the nature of any system, left to its own. This is something one
>>>> can learn from Luhmann. Sytems take advantage of anything they
>>>> can, be it good or evil. They even pervert, mix the concepts, and
>>>> create super-evil situations, like: seemingly beautiful (utopies,
>>>> huri-heaven, "arian" lunacy, to whom ever this may be attractive),
>>>> technically good, providing reasons for good working, but in the
>>>> end, they are a reason for extreme ugliness and total failure.
>>>> This is eg. the isis and the nazis. So, never trust a system I
>>>> would say. That is why I think, systems theory is good: Know the
>>>> enemy. For my taste, Mumford is a bit too fascinated by cities.
>>>> Cities are a sort of systems. I am writing too much.
>>>> Best!
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>> "Edwina Taborsky" <***@primus.ca <mailto:***@primus.ca>>
>>>> Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of
>>>> 'Thou shalt not kill'; it's over several other issues.
>>>> First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus,
>>>> evaluation of 'what is good and what is bad'. Since human
>>>> societies do not have an innate knowledge base but must develop it
>>>> within that society, then, they must have an evaluative capacity.
>>>> Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it
>>>> exists in the non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't
>>>> see it. This requires evaluation on our part.
>>>> Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both
>>>> refuse to acknowledge the reality of evil.
>>>> Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our
>>>> electronic informational network and our networked global economy
>>>> - a 'world society'. Therefore, what goes on in one area is known
>>>> - and we cannot stand by and ignore the reality of evil. This is
>>>> the technical articulation of Peirce's synechism; we are actually
>>>> physically (Secondness) connected.
>>>> Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the
>>>> global world - we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE
>>>> global society, each part existing as it does within vastly
>>>> different ecological realities - from desert, to rainforest, to
>>>> deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains to mountains to
>>>> ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which has
>>>> increased exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes
>>>> - extreme poverty - as is found in the Middle East, Africa,
>>>> Central America and elsewhere - to extreme wealth - as is found in
>>>> these same countries as well! And - we can't have extremes of
>>>> lifestyle where, in one domain, women are enslaved and forbidden
>>>> to get an education while in another, they are free. And so on.
>>>> The world is now too economically and informationally small to
>>>> functionally handle such extreme variations. This economic and
>>>> societal imbalance and its resultant economic and political
>>>> vacuums is why we are seeing the various implosions around the
>>>> world. [No, they aren't due to the big bad USA].
>>>> What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for
>>>> example, is an extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they
>>>> were in power, THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I
>>>> won't go into here. But to attain that power, requires massive
>>>> brutality and killing. And massive repression, where a huge
>>>> section of the population are reduced to slavery.
>>>> Am I my brother's keeper?
>>>> Edwina
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Helmut Raulien <http://***@gmx.de>
>>>> *To:* peirce-***@list.iupui.edu <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism,
>>>> Not Less"
>>>> Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was
>>>> amazingly thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent
>>>> known anything about Mumford but these quotes by Brooks. Now,
>>>> when I see that what I have called "neglectiion of the value
>>>> of life" in the context of his position against appeasement
>>>> poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I
>>>> think, that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction.
>>>> There are dilemma situations, in which pacifism does not work,
>>>> or even produces very bad results. But not being a pacifist
>>>> anymore does not mean that you must throw the principles you
>>>> have had when you were one over board: You still can say, that
>>>> the value of life is the most important thing, and usually
>>>> "thou shalt not kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is
>>>> better to kill them, because, if you dont, they kill far more
>>>> people. So this is blending some utilitarism (highest
>>>> advantage for the highest number of people) into the else no
>>>> more working categorical imperative. But all this is still
>>>> universalism based on the value of life. A psychologist I like
>>>> very much, who has explored human morality in dilemma
>>>> situations, is (was) Lawrence Kohlberg.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>> "Stephen C. Rose" <***@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First
>>>> Commandment, will add "and none" while adhering to these sage
>>>> rules..
>>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>>>> <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the
>>>> wolves' for my views]. That quote on synechism, from
>>>> Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed relevant. As he
>>>> continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous
>>>> circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not
>>>> quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you".
>>>> That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness)
>>>> and also, members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We
>>>> have a duty to live within both modes. Not just one mode
>>>> of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of
>>>> denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism
>>>> of 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.
>>>> Edwina
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose
>>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
>>>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
>>>> Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>> This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone
>>>> voice. Peirce himself said. “Nor must any synechist
>>>> say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If
>>>> you embrace synechism, you must abjure this
>>>> metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your
>>>> neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far
>>>> greater measure than, without deep studies in
>>>> psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood
>>>> you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most
>>>> part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity.”
>>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>>>> <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to
>>>> debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know
>>>> I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems
>>>> heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies
>>>> which to me, are always utopian rather than
>>>> pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist.
>>>> That's because I support the rule of law versus
>>>> the rule of thugs.
>>>> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy
>>>> can really be compared with fascist and
>>>> fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying
>>>> that rather than confronting them and denying
>>>> their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them
>>>> alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the
>>>> Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful
>>>> and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any
>>>> 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more
>>>> powerful'?
>>>> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't
>>>> function by 'whichever is more powerful.
>>>> Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by
>>>> browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of
>>>> protein and other minerals.
>>>> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they
>>>> keep their ideologies and actions confined to
>>>> themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But
>>>> when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the
>>>> actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their
>>>> beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think
>>>> that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral
>>>> as well as legal, to step in and stop them.
>>>> Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
>>>> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were
>>>> far greater in power than the people of
>>>> Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its
>>>> stoning of women, its refusal to allow education,
>>>> be allowed to do this?
>>>> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings,
>>>> stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of
>>>> taking over villages and towns and forcing people
>>>> into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to
>>>> continue to do this to people who simply don't
>>>> have the strength to defend themselves?
>>>> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' .
>>>> There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who
>>>> also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
>>>> State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against
>>>> Terror: The burden of American power in a violent
>>>> world'.
>>>> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people
>>>> refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the
>>>> word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
>>>> similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused
>>>> disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling
>>>> ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we
>>>> can't hide from it.
>>>> Taking over a population by ruthless force,
>>>> dictated by an ideology of biological or religious
>>>> or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
>>>> repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone
>>>> who does not submit to this ideology...I don't
>>>> think that pacifism is the moral response to such
>>>> thuggish behaviour.
>>>> Edwina
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Phyllis Chiasson
>>>> *To:* Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
>>>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
>>>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
>>>> Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>>
>>>> Main
>>>>
>>>> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969
>>>> by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the
>>>> time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban
>>>> affairs adviser.
>>>>
>>>> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the
>>>> problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a
>>>> sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want
>>>> them gone from my life. Several years ago I
>>>> began a campaign to extract them from the
>>>> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as
>>>> neither my husband nor i support the use of
>>>> chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>>>>
>>>> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion
>>>> extractor and began pulling them out by the
>>>> roots. For a short time (very short
>>>> considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion
>>>> free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions.
>>>> I tried a new approach, a weed burner,
>>>> guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
>>>> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even
>>>> more dandelions than before. I tried an all
>>>> organic herbicide, but without any luck at
>>>> all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the
>>>> grass too.
>>>>
>>>> It was around that time of the salt discussion
>>>> that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot
>>>> next door to us was practically dandelion
>>>> free. Someone comes around every year with a
>>>> big mower to keep the grass down and that is
>>>> the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, it did not require a degree in
>>>> horticulture for me to understand what i had
>>>> been doing by means of my exertions. I had
>>>> been preparing the soil for to receive and
>>>> sprout ever more of the very things that i
>>>> didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have
>>>> herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read
>>>> Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several
>>>> times.)
>>>>
>>>> However, I still think there is a big
>>>> connection between my attempts to eradicate
>>>> dandelions and our country's attempt to
>>>> eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are
>>>> just preparing the ground for more dandelions,
>>>> only in this case, dandelions with bombs and
>>>> rocket launchers. So, to me, the most
>>>> problematic effect of our
>>>> military/industrial/congressional complex is
>>>> that they just keep tilling the soil to
>>>> encourage more and more dandelions to take root.
>>>>
>>>> Based on intentions measured against results,
>>>> which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we
>>>> are not really eradicating ISIS; we are
>>>> recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil
>>>> by previous wars and skirmishes and every time
>>>> a drone hit produces collateral damage we are
>>>> blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root
>>>> all over the world.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it
>>>> resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Gene Halton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I find the both the letter to the New York
>>>> Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim
>>>> that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and
>>>> misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that
>>>> "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was
>>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense
>>>> Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,”
>>>> whatever he meant by using the term, was
>>>> shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and
>>>> I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness
>>>> as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly
>>>> more about Brooks than Mumford.
>>>>
>>>> I thought I made it quite clear that I have
>>>> been "generally" quite sympathetic to
>>>> Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I
>>>> posted the group of quotations of his which I
>>>> did), but, again, I found, as did you,
>>>> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . .
>>>> .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at
>>>> least in that.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible that when I read your book
>>>> /Bereft of Reason/ a few years ago I may have
>>>> concentrated too heavily on such lines as the
>>>> one you just quoted regarding the USA's
>>>> involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
>>>> involvement did lead to the
>>>> military-industrial-academic complex and
>>>> McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>>>>
>>>> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if
>>>> indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as
>>>> you wrote, "to the
>>>> military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman
>>>> was strongly advised to leave out the third
>>>> term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was
>>>> NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what
>>>> have we now in American and, indeed, global
>>>> 'culture' but precisely the
>>>> military-industrial-congressional complex writ
>>>> large: the /military-global
>>>> corporate--governments-
>>>> corrupted-by-power-and-money
>>>> complex/? And the women and children still
>>>> suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those
>>>> "good wars," those "wars to end all wars,"
>>>> etc., etc., etc., etc.
>>>>
>>>> Your modifying the last passage from your book
>>>> which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests
>>>> to me that even you too may have some
>>>> reservations about how throwing millions of
>>>> American military lives into the WW2 fodder
>>>> (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam
>>>> War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the
>>>> Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows
>>>> what the future may bring in the way of human
>>>> fodder offered to the war machine?), that
>>>> these wars may have proved historically, at
>>>> least, /*problematic,*/especially given the
>>>> fact that those resolved nothing, and that we
>>>> have been and are still slaughtering children
>>>> and young men and women and old men and women
>>>> in battle, soldiers and civilians send to
>>>> there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what
>>>> end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
>>>> completely agree with Dewey and Tori
>>>> Alexander, most recently, that there is a case
>>>> to be made for pacifism).
>>>>
>>>> So to my way of thinking--after all the
>>>> Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not
>>>> just a black and white issue that Mumford was
>>>> completely correct and Dewey completely wrong,
>>>> say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably
>>>> less "uniformed and misguided" than you
>>>> present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I
>>>> greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or
>>>> anyone has all the answers to the question of
>>>> war and peace.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>>> *Communication Studies*
>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of
>>>> New York*
>>>> *C 745*
>>>> *718 482-5690*
>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton
>>>> <***@nd.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York
>>>> Times, and have had a long term interest
>>>> in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis
>>>> Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford’s
>>>> essay described by Brooks in my
>>>> book,/Bereft of Reason/, on page 147
>>>> forward.
>>>>
>>>> I find the both the letter to the New York
>>>> Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s
>>>> claim that Brooks misused Mumford
>>>> uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s
>>>> claim that Mumford’s position is close to
>>>> ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180
>>>> degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s
>>>> point in this context being described that
>>>> living for immediate pleasure
>>>> gratification regardless of purpose is
>>>> wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position
>>>> regarding intervention against Nazi
>>>> Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the
>>>> time before World War II was incorrect.
>>>> Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was
>>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that
>>>> sense Brooks’s understanding of
>>>> “pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using
>>>> the term, was shallow. And the term
>>>> Mumford was using was "pragmatic
>>>> liberalism."
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, by the very same logic,
>>>> Mumford came to condemn the United States'
>>>> use of the atomic bomb at the end of World
>>>> War II, and became a critic of the US
>>>> military megamachine and political
>>>> megamachine, and turned against the
>>>> Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he
>>>> had received the Presidential Medal of
>>>> Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I
>>>> would like to see what conservative David
>>>> Brooks would do with that.
>>>> I have quoted some excerpts from my
>>>> chapter in /Bereft of Reason/, on “Lewis
>>>> Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>>
>>>> excerpt from /Bereft of Reason/: “The
>>>> second confrontation with Dewey and
>>>> pragmatism occurred on the eve of World
>>>> War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed
>>>> “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford
>>>> believed that fascism would not listen to
>>>> reasonable talk and could not be appeased,
>>>> and urged strong measures as early as 1935
>>>> against Hitler and in support of European
>>>> nations which might be attacked by Hitler.
>>>> By 1938 he urged in /The New Republic/
>>>> that the United States “Strike first
>>>> against fascism; and strike hard, but
>>>> strike.”His militant position was widely
>>>> attacked by the left, and he lost a number
>>>> of friends in the process, including Frank
>>>> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles
>>>> Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.
>>>>
>>>> To give an idea of the opinions and
>>>> climate of the prewar debate, just
>>>> consider the titles of commentaries
>>>> published in the March, 1939 issue of
>>>> /Common Sense/ on the question “If War
>>>> Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?”:
>>>>
>>>> Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S.
>>>> Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic Force’
>>>> May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America
>>>> Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John T. Flynn,
>>>> “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry
>>>> Elmer Barnes, “A War for ‘Tory
>>>> Finance’?”.Dewey’s contribution was
>>>> titled, “No Matter What Happens--Stay
>>>> Out,” and it could not have been more
>>>> opposed to Mumford’s piece, “Fascism is
>>>> Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the
>>>> inability of the left to see that rational
>>>> persuasion and appeasement were inadequate
>>>> to stem Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition
>>>> indicated a corruption in the tradition of
>>>> what Mumford called “pragmatic
>>>> liberalism.”The fatal error of pragmatic
>>>> liberalism was its gutless
>>>> intellectualism, its endorsement of
>>>> emotional neutrality as a basis for
>>>> objectivity, which he characterized as
>>>> “the dread of the emotions.” He
>>>> illustrated why the emotions ought to play
>>>> a significant part in rational decisions
>>>> with an example of encountering a
>>>> poisonous snake: “If one meets a poisonous
>>>> snake on one’s path, two things are
>>>> important for a /rational/ reaction. One
>>>> is to identify it, and not make the error
>>>> of assuming that a copperhead is a
>>>> harmless adder. The other is to have a
>>>> prompt emotion of fear, if the snake /is/
>>>> poisonous; for fear starts the flow of
>>>> adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and
>>>> that will not merely put the organism as a
>>>> whole on the alert, but it will give it
>>>> the extra strength needed either to run
>>>> away or to attack. Merely to look at the
>>>> snake abstractedly, without identifying it
>>>> and without sensing danger and
>>>> experiencing fear, may lead to the highly
>>>> irrational step of permitting the snake to
>>>> draw near without being on one’s guard
>>>> against his bite.” Emotions, as this
>>>> example makes clear, are not the opposite
>>>> of the rational in the conduct of life,
>>>> and therefore should not be neutralized in
>>>> order for rational judgments to be made.
>>>> The emotion of fear in this example is a
>>>> non-rational inference which provides a
>>>> means for feeling one’s way in a
>>>> problematic situation to a rational
>>>> reaction before the rationale becomes
>>>> conscious

>>>>
>>>> 
 In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the
>>>> “context of situation” should provide the
>>>> ground for social inquiries remains an
>>>> important antidote to empty formalism and
>>>> blind empiricism. Yet the clearest
>>>> evidence of its shortcomings in the
>>>> practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the
>>>> eve of World War II that the United States
>>>> should stay out of the impending war
>>>> against Nazi Germany, because it did not
>>>> involve the American situation. As he put
>>>> it in 1939, “If we but made up our minds
>>>> that it is not inevitable, and if we now
>>>> set ourselves deliberately to seeing that
>>>> no matter what happens we stay out, we
>>>> shall save this country from the greatest
>>>> social catastrophe that could overtake us,
>>>> the destruction of all the foundations
>>>> upon which to erect a socialized
>>>> democracy.”Dewey criticized the idea that
>>>> American involvement was “inevitable”
>>>> while simultaneously assuming such
>>>> participation would somehow produce
>>>> inevitable results.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to
>>>> the military-industrial-academic complex
>>>> and McCarthyism after the war--though the
>>>> former would likely have emerged in any
>>>> case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to
>>>> the fact that Western and World
>>>> civilization were being subjected to a
>>>> barbaric assault, an assault from fascism
>>>> and from within, which would not listen to
>>>> verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question
>>>> of civilization as a legitimate broader
>>>> context of the situation and the
>>>> possibility that the unreasonable forces
>>>> unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian
>>>> ambitions could not be avoided
>>>> indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the
>>>> larger unfolding dynamic of the
>>>> twentieth-century, and was led to a false
>>>> conclusion concerning American
>>>> intervention which only the brute facts of
>>>> Pearl Harbor could change.
>>>>
>>>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the
>>>> pre-war left attacked him for being?
>>>> Consider that by the end of World War two
>>>> Mumford was attacking the allies’ adoption
>>>> of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the
>>>> firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear
>>>> bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He
>>>> decried the fall of military standards and
>>>> limits in the deliberate targeting of
>>>> civilians. Mumford was among the earliest
>>>> proponents of nuclear disarmament, having
>>>> written an essay on the nuclear bomb
>>>> within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima
>>>> and a book within a year, as well as
>>>> helping to organize the first nuclear
>>>> disarmament movement. He was an early
>>>> critic of the Vietnam War, expressing
>>>> opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost
>>>> him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly
>>>> book, /The Pentagon of Power/ (1970) was,
>>>> among other things, a fierce attack on the
>>>> antidemocratic
>>>> military-industrial-academic establishment.”
>>>>
>>>> Eugene Halton, /Bereft of Reason/,
>>>> University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM,
>>>> Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My post was a bit polemic, because
>>>> I was mad at Mumfords neglection
>>>> of the value of life and that he
>>>> called that "universalism". And I
>>>> was indeed thinking of the nazis.
>>>> I think, a culture that is not
>>>> based on the value of life is not
>>>> universalist, but the opposite:
>>>> Particularist. Universalism for me
>>>> is eg. Kants categorical
>>>> imperative, and Kants other
>>>> imperative, that humans (so also
>>>> human life) should be treated as
>>>> aims, not as means. And scientists
>>>> like Kohlberg and pragmatists like
>>>> Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my
>>>> conclusion was, that, when someone
>>>> is attacking scientists and
>>>> pragmatists, his "universalism" is
>>>> in fact particularism. And his
>>>> concept of "culture" too, because
>>>> for him, culture is not based on
>>>> the value of life, but vice versa.
>>>> But I was refering to a quote out
>>>> of its context, maybe.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Helmut
>>>>
>>>> "Gary Richmond"
>>>> <***@gmail.com>
>>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks
>>>> because I think he misuses
>>>> Mumford. and even in the choice of
>>>> this early material taken out of
>>>> context, to support his argument
>>>> /contra/ Pragmatism in the article
>>>> cited. I have always had a
>>>> generally positive take on
>>>> Mumford's ideas, although I don't
>>>> believe I have ever read an entire
>>>> book by him.
>>>> This evening as I browsed through
>>>> a selection of quotations from his
>>>> books I found more which resonated
>>>> positively with me than did
>>>> not--which is not to say that I
>>>> agree with him in each of the
>>>> ideas expressed. Still, some of
>>>> his ideas do not seem opposed to
>>>> philosophical pragmatism, although
>>>> his critical purposes aren't much
>>>> attuned to it, at least as I see
>>>> it at the moment.
>>>> See:
>>>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/
>>>> Lewis_Mumford
>>>> Best,
>>>> Gary
>>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>>> *Communication Studies*
>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City
>>>> University of New York*
>>>> *C 745*
>>>> *718 482-5690*
>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM,
>>>> Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com
>>>> <http://***@nyc.rr.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Helmut, list,
>>>>
>>>> I seldom am inclined to defend
>>>> Brooks. I haven't read
>>>> Mumford, although I have
>>>> somewhere his book on Melville
>>>> that I meant to read. For what
>>>> it's worth, I'll point out
>>>> that Mumford wrote the
>>>> Brooks-quoted remark in 1940,
>>>> when the horrors of WWII had
>>>> not fully unfolded yet. Maybe
>>>> he never backed down from it,
>>>> I don't know. In a box
>>>> somewhere I have another book
>>>> that I meant to read, about
>>>> how in the Nazi death camps
>>>> sheer survival, fighting just
>>>> to live, became a kind of
>>>> heroism. The higher ideals
>>>> ought to serve life, not tell
>>>> it that it's full of crap,
>>>> only to replace the crap with
>>>> other crap, a.k.a.
>>>> brainwashing and Mobilization
>>>> (quick flash of Pink Floyd's
>>>> marching hammers). "They want
>>>> politics and think it will
>>>> save them. At best, it gives
>>>> direction to their numbed
>>>> desires. But there is no
>>>> politics but the manipulation
>>>> of power through language.
>>>> Thus the latter’s constant
>>>> debasement." - Gilbert
>>>> Sorrentino in _Splendide-HÃŽtel_.
>>>>
>>>> Best, Ben
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut
>>>> Raulien wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford,
>>>> to whom Brooks refers, is
>>>> quite close to the Isis:
>>>> "“Life is not worth
>>>> fighting for: bare life is
>>>> worthless. Justice is
>>>> worth fighting for, order
>>>> is worth fighting for,
>>>> culture ... .is worth
>>>> fighting for: These
>>>> universal principles and
>>>> values give purpose and
>>>> direction to human life.”
>>>> That could be from an
>>>> islamist hate-preaching:
>>>> Your life is worthless, so
>>>> be a suicide bomber and go
>>>> to universalist(?)
>>>> heaven. Brooks and
>>>> Mumford are moral zealots
>>>> and relativists who
>>>> project that on the people
>>>> who have deserved it the
>>>> least. They intuitively
>>>> know that they havent
>>>> understood anything, the
>>>> least the concept of
>>>> universalism, and bark
>>>> against those who have,
>>>> because they are jealous.
>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11.
>>>> Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond"
>>>> <***@gmail.com>
>>>> <
>>>> http://***@gmail.com>
>>>> *An:* Peirce-L
>>>> <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>> <
>>>> http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L]
>>>> "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>> List,
>>>> Joseph Esposito responded
>>>> to David Brooks' Oct.3 New
>>>> York Times column, "The
>>>> Problem with Pragmatism,"
>>>> with this letter to the
>>>> editor today.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-
>>>> not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>>>
>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>
>>>> David Brooks paints an all
>>>> too convenient caricature
>>>> of American pragmatism
>>>> (“The Problem With
>>>> Pragmatism
>>>> <
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-
>>>> the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=
>>>> relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,”
>>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the
>>>> slightest reading of
>>>> Charles Peirce, William
>>>> James, John Dewey and
>>>> Sidney Hook will reveal
>>>> pragmatists who were
>>>> passionate about values as
>>>> well as the means of
>>>> realizing them in enduring
>>>> democratic social
>>>> institutions.
>>>>
>>>> The problem the United
>>>> States confronts in the
>>>> Middle East is not
>>>> paralysis or doubt but the
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to ***@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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Gary Richmond]

Gene, list,

Thank you for this thoughtful analysis which shows that Esposito and I were
indeed "uniformed and misguided" at least as to the historical context of
Mumford's remarks.

Best,

Gary



*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu>
wrote:

> Given my response concerned the initial post on Brooks' article, Mumford,
> and pragmatism, and the one I just finished before looking at recent posts
> is focused on that topic also, I will respond.
>
> Dear Gary,
>
> The specific reason I found your and Esposito's opinions "uninformed and
> misguided" was that they never considered the direct evidence for Mumford's
> statements concerning what he called "pragmatic liberalism," especially in
> its more specific context of Dewey's statements that I cited, and you
> claimed that David Brooks "misuses" Mumford. Brooks quoted Mumford's 1940
> essay, "The Corruption of Liberalism," where Mumford said, "Liberalism has
> been on the side of passivism in the face of danger. Liberalism has been on
> the side of 'isolation' when confronted with the imminent threat of a
> worldwide upsurge in barbarism."
>
> Note that Mumford here criticized "passivism," not pacifism, and also
> isolationism. Note Dewey's title for his 1939 contribution to the *Common
> Sense *short pieces I cited in my first reply, "No Matter What
> Happens--Stay Out." Note the titles from the other contributors I cited
> as well, which are similar to Dewey's. You said that Brooks "misuses"
> Mumford, but it seems to me obvious that Brooks accurately conveyed
> Mumford's intent in that essay, whether one agrees with Mumford or not.
>
> Brooks did generalize from Mumford's "pragmatic liberalism" to
> "pragmatism," and clearly seems to be broadening it to mean practicalism
> or realpolitik and not just philosophical pragmatism, as is frequently (and
> unfortunately) done in the vernacular use of the word. But as Dewey's
> remarks show, Dewey taken as a philosophical pragmatist directly fit
> Mumford's critique, and that is something Esposito should have addressed,
> instead of bypassing it to defend philosophical pragmatism. Joseph
> Esposito's letter says nothing concrete, and wallows in blanket assertions
> about pragmatism, claiming that pragmatists, "were passionate about
> values," completely bypassing the "context of situation," to use Dewey's
> term, that Mumford was addressing, namely, that thinking forcible conflict
> against Hitler could be avoided betrayed an insufficient instinctive and
> historical appreciation for the dark forces welling up that Hitler promised
> to release.
>
> I claimed that Dewey's position was wrong, and that the axis alliance
> formed between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, which led to the unprovoked
> attack of Japan upon the US at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941,
> demonstrated that, contrary to Dewey's "no matter what happens," the United
> States ultimately could not stay out. Mumford had earlier said that Hitler
> had revealed his expansionist fascist intentions, and that they represented
> a fundamental attack on democracy and needed to be countered by force."
> Mumford argued that argument was not sufficient to appease Hitler, that he
> would only respond to force, and I claimed that on this point Mumford was
> correct, and Dewey's isolationist view was false. Mumford saw "pragmatic
> liberalism," as he characterized it, and its over-reliance on abstract
> thought and technique, as deficient in emotionally centered practical
> reasoning, capable of sensing the dark forces at work in that time.
> Mumford's gut was proven correct, accurately foretelling the actual world
> that came to be, and Dewey's view proved inadequate to comprehend what
> actually was to be.
>
> Mumford claimed that, awful though war is, "Fascism is Worse than War,"
> because it kills democratic life and freedom, and for this reason fascism
> at that time had be resisted through the only means it would respond to,
> armed force. It was the same reasoning he applied to criticizing US
> saturation bombing of Dresden, and nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki, of totalizing instruments of power overstepping humane limits.
> And he made those critiques in 1945 when his own son had been killed in the
> war the year before.
>
> Gene, and more below.
>
>
>
> GARY R.: Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement
> in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic
> complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that
> diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And
> what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely
> the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the *military-global
> corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex*? And the
> women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good
> wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
> "Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with
> "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about
> how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and
> the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars
> fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the
> future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?),
> that these wars may have proved historically, at least, *problematic,*
> especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have
> been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old
> men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. .
> .. what values?--to what end?"
>
>
>
> GENE: As I said, the anti-interventionist views of the prewar American
> left, as well as Bertrand Russell, were not justified by the
> military-industrial complex that bloomed in America after the war. They
> were wrong, just as that military-industrial complex was. And who was in
> the forefront of calling attention to that postwar complex? Lewis Mumford,
> and for the same reasons he called for active engagement against Hitler in
> the late thirties: to serve democracy and freedom. But obviously Mumford's
> arguments from the beginning of the postwar period though his book *The
> Pentagon of Power* were ignored.
>
> Gary R., you say that "the World War 2 fodder" was
> "problematic" and "resolved nothing" and link it to all subsequent wars. I
> believe that "American military lives" were necessary in World War 2,
> though later wars, such as Vietnam, represented imperial expansions of what
> former general and later president Dwight D. Eisenhower termed "the
> military industrial complex." Destroying Hitler resolved something
> significant, in my opinion, namely that totalitarian rule is
> catastrophically inhuman. But the dangers of any wars involve becoming the
> very evil you are combating, and as Mumford himself said, Hitler may have
> lost the war while the spirit of Hitler, of Guernica, of mass saturation
> bombing and extermination, of machine purposes dominant over human
> interests, in effect endured. Here is where all the ambiguities enter,
> considering the postwar military-industrial dot-dot-fill-in-the-blank
> complex which came to dominate American life. But on the specific issue of
> Mumford and Dewey just before World War 2, which is just a portion of
> "pragmatic liberalism," I do not see ambiguity. Dewey got it wrong, and
> shrunk away from what what turned out to be necessary, and Mumford felt and
> saw clearly what was to be, and what then actualized. Dewey's appreciation
> of emotional reasonableness did not go as deeply as Mumford's did, and
> Mumford's understanding of what was emerging proved correct. And there is a
> gulf between Dewey's appreciation of the depth of emotional reasonableness
> and that of Peirce, who allows much more of a place for deep instinctive
> and emotional reasonableness in practical life.
>
> And Mumford applied the same ways of thinking after the war
> to develop a profound critique against the modern "megamachine" of power,
> especially in its American incarnation, and in ways David Brooks could
> never brook.
>
> Gene
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike, list,
>>
>> Mike, I completely agree with you and would like to strongly recommend
>> that list members not continue this thread as it has considerable
>> destructive potential. One of the strengths of peirce-l has been that it
>> has avoided these sorts of 'flame wars' which have destroyed any number of
>> lists as Mike noted.
>>
>> Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)
>>
>>
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>> *C 745*
>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Mike Bergman <***@mkbergman.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> None of you know me; I've never commented before on this forum; I'm a
>>> classic lurker.
>>>
>>> Generally, I find a small, but significant, percentage of the commentary
>>> on this list as extremely informative and educational. I'm keenly
>>> interested in Peirce.
>>>
>>> But I find these threads that bring in politics, or personal commentary,
>>> or obstinate viewpoints to be trying and off-putting. Unfortunately, any of
>>> us who have participated on various lists across the years have seen other
>>> effective forums degenerate.
>>>
>>> I do not know who those are that consider themselves as the adults on
>>> this forum, but I encourage you to steer these discussions back on point.
>>>
>>> Thank you, Mike
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2014 8:58 PM, Dennis Leri wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who decides your universal values? How? Room for Mercy or Grace? Who
>>>> adjudicates?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Stephen C. Rose <***@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good and evil are needlessly mystified. If you have a values based
>>>>> ethic, which is the only ethic that makes sense and produces
>>>>> measurable results, good and evil can be seen as a spectrum that is an
>>>>> index that moves from the depth of evil which is willful injury and
>>>>> inflicting death to selfishness and good which runs through
>>>>> mindfulness, tolerance, helpfulness all the way to acting to create
>>>>> truth and beauty. This index is universal and applies in all contexts.
>>>>> It is a dynamic spectrum. Good and evil are values that signify modes
>>>>> of behavior that we enact all the time. Life is the sum of such
>>>>> actions, achieving mega force when people act in concert through
>>>>> various means. The demythologizing and acceptance of our
>>>>> responsibility to know what is good and what not is the project of
>>>>> this century as folk from Nietzsche to Nozick have suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de
>>>>> <mailto:***@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Edwina!
>>>>> I am completely with you, no objections. There is the reality of
>>>>> evil, and human societies do not have an innate knowledge base to
>>>>> distinguish between good and evil. But I think, humans have,
>>>>> because they are creatures of: "God", say religious people,
>>>>> "evolution" say agnostics. God is "logos", logic, and "evolution"
>>>>> is based on logic too. So I think, it does not matter whether one
>>>>> is religious or is trying to understand the world by logical
>>>>> analysis. It is a matter of temperament or which way one can grasp
>>>>> it better, by allegoric pictures or by abstraction. Angels or the
>>>>> power of compassion, the devil, or the evil logic of a vicious
>>>>> circle? I myself believe in God, but do not know, what "to
>>>>> believe" is. Because I think, that all you can believe in you as
>>>>> well can reach by thinking, reflection, the capacities God has
>>>>> given us. Now this is a circular argument, I admit. But I (sort
>>>>> of) believe, that we also have the capacity (God-given?) to
>>>>> uncover evil as false. I think, there is something wrong with
>>>>> evil. It is false. And with logic (logos, God) we are able to
>>>>> prove it like that. So: Evil is real, but not true. Its reality is
>>>>> only temporary, and lasts only until it is proven for wrong,
>>>>> falsified. This is what I believe in, not knowing, but only
>>>>> intuitively feeling, what "to believe" is. How to overcome evil?
>>>>> See, that it is real, but not true, and look for ways to prove it
>>>>> wrong, but it is homeostatic, self-affirming, self-keeping. It has
>>>>> the form of a circle, a vicious one. So, how to break a circle,
>>>>> that is not based on truth? I think, with truth. Truth is an
>>>>> universalist concept, such as the value of life. Pragmatism is the
>>>>> quest for truth, and triadically, I would say:
>>>>> cat.1, iconical: beautiful, ugly
>>>>> cat.2, indexical: technically good (making things work),
>>>>> technically bad (things do not work)
>>>>> cat.3, symbolical: moralically good: Providing reasons for beauty
>>>>> and good working, evil: Reasons for ugliness and failure.
>>>>> And I think, that as you have said, social systems are not wise.
>>>>> Their nature is nothing but to make them more powerful, as this is
>>>>> the nature of any system, left to its own. This is something one
>>>>> can learn from Luhmann. Sytems take advantage of anything they
>>>>> can, be it good or evil. They even pervert, mix the concepts, and
>>>>> create super-evil situations, like: seemingly beautiful (utopies,
>>>>> huri-heaven, "arian" lunacy, to whom ever this may be attractive),
>>>>> technically good, providing reasons for good working, but in the
>>>>> end, they are a reason for extreme ugliness and total failure.
>>>>> This is eg. the isis and the nazis. So, never trust a system I
>>>>> would say. That is why I think, systems theory is good: Know the
>>>>> enemy. For my taste, Mumford is a bit too fascinated by cities.
>>>>> Cities are a sort of systems. I am writing too much.
>>>>> Best!
>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>
>>>>> "Edwina Taborsky" <***@primus.ca <mailto:***@primus.ca>>
>>>>> Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of
>>>>> 'Thou shalt not kill'; it's over several other issues.
>>>>> First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus,
>>>>> evaluation of 'what is good and what is bad'. Since human
>>>>> societies do not have an innate knowledge base but must develop it
>>>>> within that society, then, they must have an evaluative capacity.
>>>>> Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it
>>>>> exists in the non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't
>>>>> see it. This requires evaluation on our part.
>>>>> Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both
>>>>> refuse to acknowledge the reality of evil.
>>>>> Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our
>>>>> electronic informational network and our networked global economy
>>>>> - a 'world society'. Therefore, what goes on in one area is known
>>>>> - and we cannot stand by and ignore the reality of evil. This is
>>>>> the technical articulation of Peirce's synechism; we are actually
>>>>> physically (Secondness) connected.
>>>>> Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the
>>>>> global world - we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE
>>>>> global society, each part existing as it does within vastly
>>>>> different ecological realities - from desert, to rainforest, to
>>>>> deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains to mountains to
>>>>> ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which has
>>>>> increased exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes
>>>>> - extreme poverty - as is found in the Middle East, Africa,
>>>>> Central America and elsewhere - to extreme wealth - as is found in
>>>>> these same countries as well! And - we can't have extremes of
>>>>> lifestyle where, in one domain, women are enslaved and forbidden
>>>>> to get an education while in another, they are free. And so on.
>>>>> The world is now too economically and informationally small to
>>>>> functionally handle such extreme variations. This economic and
>>>>> societal imbalance and its resultant economic and political
>>>>> vacuums is why we are seeing the various implosions around the
>>>>> world. [No, they aren't due to the big bad USA].
>>>>> What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for
>>>>> example, is an extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they
>>>>> were in power, THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I
>>>>> won't go into here. But to attain that power, requires massive
>>>>> brutality and killing. And massive repression, where a huge
>>>>> section of the population are reduced to slavery.
>>>>> Am I my brother's keeper?
>>>>> Edwina
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> *From:* Helmut Raulien <http://***@gmx.de>
>>>>> *To:* peirce-***@list.iupui.edu <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
>>>>> *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism,
>>>>> Not Less"
>>>>> Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was
>>>>> amazingly thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent
>>>>> known anything about Mumford but these quotes by Brooks. Now,
>>>>> when I see that what I have called "neglectiion of the value
>>>>> of life" in the context of his position against appeasement
>>>>> poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I
>>>>> think, that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction.
>>>>> There are dilemma situations, in which pacifism does not work,
>>>>> or even produces very bad results. But not being a pacifist
>>>>> anymore does not mean that you must throw the principles you
>>>>> have had when you were one over board: You still can say, that
>>>>> the value of life is the most important thing, and usually
>>>>> "thou shalt not kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is
>>>>> better to kill them, because, if you dont, they kill far more
>>>>> people. So this is blending some utilitarism (highest
>>>>> advantage for the highest number of people) into the else no
>>>>> more working categorical imperative. But all this is still
>>>>> universalism based on the value of life. A psychologist I like
>>>>> very much, who has explored human morality in dilemma
>>>>> situations, is (was) Lawrence Kohlberg.
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stephen C. Rose" <***@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First
>>>>> Commandment, will add "and none" while adhering to these sage
>>>>> rules..
>>>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>>>>> <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the
>>>>> wolves' for my views]. That quote on synechism, from
>>>>> Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed relevant. As he
>>>>> continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous
>>>>> circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not
>>>>> quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you".
>>>>> That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness)
>>>>> and also, members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We
>>>>> have a duty to live within both modes. Not just one mode
>>>>> of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of
>>>>> denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism
>>>>> of 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.
>>>>> Edwina
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> *From:* Stephen C. Rose
>>>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
>>>>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
>>>>> Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>>> This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone
>>>>> voice. Peirce himself said. "Nor must any synechist
>>>>> say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If
>>>>> you embrace synechism, you must abjure this
>>>>> metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your
>>>>> neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far
>>>>> greater measure than, without deep studies in
>>>>> psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood
>>>>> you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most
>>>>> part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity."
>>>>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>>>>> <***@primus.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to
>>>>> debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know
>>>>> I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems
>>>>> heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies
>>>>> which to me, are always utopian rather than
>>>>> pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist.
>>>>> That's because I support the rule of law versus
>>>>> the rule of thugs.
>>>>> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy
>>>>> can really be compared with fascist and
>>>>> fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying
>>>>> that rather than confronting them and denying
>>>>> their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them
>>>>> alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the
>>>>> Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful
>>>>> and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any
>>>>> 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more
>>>>> powerful'?
>>>>> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't
>>>>> function by 'whichever is more powerful.
>>>>> Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by
>>>>> browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of
>>>>> protein and other minerals.
>>>>> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they
>>>>> keep their ideologies and actions confined to
>>>>> themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But
>>>>> when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the
>>>>> actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their
>>>>> beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think
>>>>> that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral
>>>>> as well as legal, to step in and stop them.
>>>>> Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
>>>>> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were
>>>>> far greater in power than the people of
>>>>> Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its
>>>>> stoning of women, its refusal to allow education,
>>>>> be allowed to do this?
>>>>> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings,
>>>>> stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of
>>>>> taking over villages and towns and forcing people
>>>>> into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to
>>>>> continue to do this to people who simply don't
>>>>> have the strength to defend themselves?
>>>>> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' .
>>>>> There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who
>>>>> also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
>>>>> State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against
>>>>> Terror: The burden of American power in a violent
>>>>> world'.
>>>>> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people
>>>>> refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the
>>>>> word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
>>>>> similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused
>>>>> disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling
>>>>> ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we
>>>>> can't hide from it.
>>>>> Taking over a population by ruthless force,
>>>>> dictated by an ideology of biological or religious
>>>>> or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
>>>>> repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone
>>>>> who does not submit to this ideology...I don't
>>>>> think that pacifism is the moral response to such
>>>>> thuggish behaviour.
>>>>> Edwina
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> *From:* Phyllis Chiasson
>>>>> *To:* Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
>>>>> *Cc:* Peirce List
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
>>>>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
>>>>> Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>>>
>>>>> Main
>>>>>
>>>>> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969
>>>>> by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the
>>>>> time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban
>>>>> affairs adviser.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the
>>>>> problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a
>>>>> sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want
>>>>> them gone from my life. Several years ago I
>>>>> began a campaign to extract them from the
>>>>> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as
>>>>> neither my husband nor i support the use of
>>>>> chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion
>>>>> extractor and began pulling them out by the
>>>>> roots. For a short time (very short
>>>>> considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion
>>>>> free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions.
>>>>> I tried a new approach, a weed burner,
>>>>> guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
>>>>> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even
>>>>> more dandelions than before. I tried an all
>>>>> organic herbicide, but without any luck at
>>>>> all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the
>>>>> grass too.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was around that time of the salt discussion
>>>>> that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot
>>>>> next door to us was practically dandelion
>>>>> free. Someone comes around every year with a
>>>>> big mower to keep the grass down and that is
>>>>> the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, it did not require a degree in
>>>>> horticulture for me to understand what i had
>>>>> been doing by means of my exertions. I had
>>>>> been preparing the soil for to receive and
>>>>> sprout ever more of the very things that i
>>>>> didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have
>>>>> herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read
>>>>> Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several
>>>>> times.)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I still think there is a big
>>>>> connection between my attempts to eradicate
>>>>> dandelions and our country's attempt to
>>>>> eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are
>>>>> just preparing the ground for more dandelions,
>>>>> only in this case, dandelions with bombs and
>>>>> rocket launchers. So, to me, the most
>>>>> problematic effect of our
>>>>> military/industrial/congressional complex is
>>>>> that they just keep tilling the soil to
>>>>> encourage more and more dandelions to take
>>>>> root.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on intentions measured against results,
>>>>> which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we
>>>>> are not really eradicating ISIS; we are
>>>>> recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil
>>>>> by previous wars and skirmishes and every time
>>>>> a drone hit produces collateral damage we are
>>>>> blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root
>>>>> all over the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it
>>>>> resides in Retroduction, not just in
>>>>> pragmatism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Gene Halton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I find the both the letter to the New York
>>>>> Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R's claim
>>>>> that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and
>>>>> misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that
>>>>> "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>>>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense
>>>>> Brooks's understanding of "pragmatism,"
>>>>> whatever he meant by using the term, was
>>>>> shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and
>>>>> I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness
>>>>> as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly
>>>>> more about Brooks than Mumford.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought I made it quite clear that I have
>>>>> been "generally" quite sympathetic to
>>>>> Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I
>>>>> posted the group of quotations of his which I
>>>>> did), but, again, I found, as did you,
>>>>> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . .
>>>>> .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at
>>>>> least in that.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible that when I read your book
>>>>> /Bereft of Reason/ a few years ago I may have
>>>>> concentrated too heavily on such lines as the
>>>>> one you just quoted regarding the USA's
>>>>> involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
>>>>> involvement did lead to the
>>>>> military-industrial-academic complex and
>>>>> McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if
>>>>> indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as
>>>>> you wrote, "to the
>>>>> military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman
>>>>> was strongly advised to leave out the third
>>>>> term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was
>>>>> NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what
>>>>> have we now in American and, indeed, global
>>>>> 'culture' but precisely the
>>>>> military-industrial-congressional complex writ
>>>>> large: the /military-global
>>>>> corporate--governments-
>>>>> corrupted-by-power-and-money
>>>>> complex/? And the women and children still
>>>>> suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those
>>>>> "good wars," those "wars to end all wars,"
>>>>> etc., etc., etc., etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your modifying the last passage from your book
>>>>> which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests
>>>>> to me that even you too may have some
>>>>> reservations about how throwing millions of
>>>>> American military lives into the WW2 fodder
>>>>> (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam
>>>>> War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the
>>>>> Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows
>>>>> what the future may bring in the way of human
>>>>> fodder offered to the war machine?), that
>>>>> these wars may have proved historically, at
>>>>> least, /*problematic,*/especially given the
>>>>> fact that those resolved nothing, and that we
>>>>> have been and are still slaughtering children
>>>>> and young men and women and old men and women
>>>>> in battle, soldiers and civilians send to
>>>>> there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what
>>>>> end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
>>>>> completely agree with Dewey and Tori
>>>>> Alexander, most recently, that there is a case
>>>>> to be made for pacifism).
>>>>>
>>>>> So to my way of thinking--after all the
>>>>> Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not
>>>>> just a black and white issue that Mumford was
>>>>> completely correct and Dewey completely wrong,
>>>>> say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably
>>>>> less "uniformed and misguided" than you
>>>>> present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I
>>>>> greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or
>>>>> anyone has all the answers to the question of
>>>>> war and peace.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>>>> *Communication Studies*
>>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of
>>>>> New York*
>>>>> *C 745*
>>>>> *718 482-5690*
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton
>>>>> <***@nd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I read David Brooks' piece in the New York
>>>>> Times, and have had a long term interest
>>>>> in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis
>>>>> Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford's
>>>>> essay described by Brooks in my
>>>>> book,/Bereft of Reason/, on page 147
>>>>> forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find the both the letter to the New York
>>>>> Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R's
>>>>> claim that Brooks misused Mumford
>>>>> uninformed and misguided, and Helmut's
>>>>> claim that Mumford's position is close to
>>>>> ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180
>>>>> degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's
>>>>> point in this context being described that
>>>>> living for immediate pleasure
>>>>> gratification regardless of purpose is
>>>>> wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position
>>>>> regarding intervention against Nazi
>>>>> Germany was correct and Dewey's at the
>>>>> time before World War II was incorrect.
>>>>> Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>>>>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that
>>>>> sense Brooks's understanding of
>>>>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using
>>>>> the term, was shallow. And the term
>>>>> Mumford was using was "pragmatic
>>>>> liberalism."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ironically, by the very same logic,
>>>>> Mumford came to condemn the United States'
>>>>> use of the atomic bomb at the end of World
>>>>> War II, and became a critic of the US
>>>>> military megamachine and political
>>>>> megamachine, and turned against the
>>>>> Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he
>>>>> had received the Presidential Medal of
>>>>> Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I
>>>>> would like to see what conservative David
>>>>> Brooks would do with that.
>>>>> I have quoted some excerpts from my
>>>>> chapter in /Bereft of Reason/, on "Lewis
>>>>> Mumford's Organic World-View" below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gene
>>>>>
>>>>> excerpt from /Bereft of Reason/: "The
>>>>> second confrontation with Dewey and
>>>>> pragmatism occurred on the eve of World
>>>>> War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed
>>>>> "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford
>>>>> believed that fascism would not listen to
>>>>> reasonable talk and could not be appeased,
>>>>> and urged strong measures as early as 1935
>>>>> against Hitler and in support of European
>>>>> nations which might be attacked by Hitler.
>>>>> By 1938 he urged in /The New Republic/
>>>>> that the United States "Strike first
>>>>> against fascism; and strike hard, but
>>>>> strike."His militant position was widely
>>>>> attacked by the left, and he lost a number
>>>>> of friends in the process, including Frank
>>>>> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles
>>>>> Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.
>>>>>
>>>>> To give an idea of the opinions and
>>>>> climate of the prewar debate, just
>>>>> consider the titles of commentaries
>>>>> published in the March, 1939 issue of
>>>>> /Common Sense/ on the question "If War
>>>>> Comes--Shall We Participate or be
>>>>> Neutral?":
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S.
>>>>> Neutrality;" Max Lerner, "`Economic Force'
>>>>> May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America
>>>>> Cannot 'Save' Europe;" John T. Flynn,
>>>>> "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry
>>>>> Elmer Barnes, "A War for 'Tory
>>>>> Finance'?".Dewey's contribution was
>>>>> titled, "No Matter What Happens--Stay
>>>>> Out," and it could not have been more
>>>>> opposed to Mumford's piece, "Fascism is
>>>>> Worse than War." Mumford believed that the
>>>>> inability of the left to see that rational
>>>>> persuasion and appeasement were inadequate
>>>>> to stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition
>>>>> indicated a corruption in the tradition of
>>>>> what Mumford called "pragmatic
>>>>> liberalism."The fatal error of pragmatic
>>>>> liberalism was its gutless
>>>>> intellectualism, its endorsement of
>>>>> emotional neutrality as a basis for
>>>>> objectivity, which he characterized as
>>>>> "the dread of the emotions." He
>>>>> illustrated why the emotions ought to play
>>>>> a significant part in rational decisions
>>>>> with an example of encountering a
>>>>> poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous
>>>>> snake on one's path, two things are
>>>>> important for a /rational/ reaction. One
>>>>> is to identify it, and not make the error
>>>>> of assuming that a copperhead is a
>>>>> harmless adder. The other is to have a
>>>>> prompt emotion of fear, if the snake /is/
>>>>> poisonous; for fear starts the flow of
>>>>> adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and
>>>>> that will not merely put the organism as a
>>>>> whole on the alert, but it will give it
>>>>> the extra strength needed either to run
>>>>> away or to attack. Merely to look at the
>>>>> snake abstractedly, without identifying it
>>>>> and without sensing danger and
>>>>> experiencing fear, may lead to the highly
>>>>> irrational step of permitting the snake to
>>>>> draw near without being on one's guard
>>>>> against his bite." Emotions, as this
>>>>> example makes clear, are not the opposite
>>>>> of the rational in the conduct of life,
>>>>> and therefore should not be neutralized in
>>>>> order for rational judgments to be made.
>>>>> The emotion of fear in this example is a
>>>>> non-rational inference which provides a
>>>>> means for feeling one's way in a
>>>>> problematic situation to a rational
>>>>> reaction before the rationale becomes
>>>>> conscious...
>>>>>
>>>>> ... In my opinion Dewey's concept that the
>>>>> "context of situation" should provide the
>>>>> ground for social inquiries remains an
>>>>> important antidote to empty formalism and
>>>>> blind empiricism. Yet the clearest
>>>>> evidence of its shortcomings in the
>>>>> practice of life was Dewey's belief on the
>>>>> eve of World War II that the United States
>>>>> should stay out of the impending war
>>>>> against Nazi Germany, because it did not
>>>>> involve the American situation. As he put
>>>>> it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds
>>>>> that it is not inevitable, and if we now
>>>>> set ourselves deliberately to seeing that
>>>>> no matter what happens we stay out, we
>>>>> shall save this country from the greatest
>>>>> social catastrophe that could overtake us,
>>>>> the destruction of all the foundations
>>>>> upon which to erect a socialized
>>>>> democracy."Dewey criticized the idea that
>>>>> American involvement was "inevitable"
>>>>> while simultaneously assuming such
>>>>> participation would somehow produce
>>>>> inevitable results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to
>>>>> the military-industrial-academic complex
>>>>> and McCarthyism after the war--though the
>>>>> former would likely have emerged in any
>>>>> case--but Dewey's localism blinded him to
>>>>> the fact that Western and World
>>>>> civilization were being subjected to a
>>>>> barbaric assault, an assault from fascism
>>>>> and from within, which would not listen to
>>>>> verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question
>>>>> of civilization as a legitimate broader
>>>>> context of the situation and the
>>>>> possibility that the unreasonable forces
>>>>> unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian
>>>>> ambitions could not be avoided
>>>>> indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the
>>>>> larger unfolding dynamic of the
>>>>> twentieth-century, and was led to a false
>>>>> conclusion concerning American
>>>>> intervention which only the brute facts of
>>>>> Pearl Harbor could change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the
>>>>> pre-war left attacked him for being?
>>>>> Consider that by the end of World War two
>>>>> Mumford was attacking the allies' adoption
>>>>> of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the
>>>>> firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear
>>>>> bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He
>>>>> decried the fall of military standards and
>>>>> limits in the deliberate targeting of
>>>>> civilians. Mumford was among the earliest
>>>>> proponents of nuclear disarmament, having
>>>>> written an essay on the nuclear bomb
>>>>> within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima
>>>>> and a book within a year, as well as
>>>>> helping to organize the first nuclear
>>>>> disarmament movement. He was an early
>>>>> critic of the Vietnam War, expressing
>>>>> opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost
>>>>> him friendships. Mumford's last scholarly
>>>>> book, /The Pentagon of Power/ (1970) was,
>>>>> among other things, a fierce attack on the
>>>>> antidemocratic
>>>>> military-industrial-academic
>>>>> establishment."
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugene Halton, /Bereft of Reason/,
>>>>> University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM,
>>>>> Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> My post was a bit polemic, because
>>>>> I was mad at Mumfords neglection
>>>>> of the value of life and that he
>>>>> called that "universalism". And I
>>>>> was indeed thinking of the nazis.
>>>>> I think, a culture that is not
>>>>> based on the value of life is not
>>>>> universalist, but the opposite:
>>>>> Particularist. Universalism for me
>>>>> is eg. Kants categorical
>>>>> imperative, and Kants other
>>>>> imperative, that humans (so also
>>>>> human life) should be treated as
>>>>> aims, not as means. And scientists
>>>>> like Kohlberg and pragmatists like
>>>>> Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my
>>>>> conclusion was, that, when someone
>>>>> is attacking scientists and
>>>>> pragmatists, his "universalism" is
>>>>> in fact particularism. And his
>>>>> concept of "culture" too, because
>>>>> for him, culture is not based on
>>>>> the value of life, but vice versa.
>>>>> But I was refering to a quote out
>>>>> of its context, maybe.
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gary Richmond"
>>>>> <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>>>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks
>>>>> because I think he misuses
>>>>> Mumford. and even in the choice of
>>>>> this early material taken out of
>>>>> context, to support his argument
>>>>> /contra/ Pragmatism in the article
>>>>> cited. I have always had a
>>>>> generally positive take on
>>>>> Mumford's ideas, although I don't
>>>>> believe I have ever read an entire
>>>>> book by him.
>>>>> This evening as I browsed through
>>>>> a selection of quotations from his
>>>>> books I found more which resonated
>>>>> positively with me than did
>>>>> not--which is not to say that I
>>>>> agree with him in each of the
>>>>> ideas expressed. Still, some of
>>>>> his ideas do not seem opposed to
>>>>> philosophical pragmatism, although
>>>>> his critical purposes aren't much
>>>>> attuned to it, at least as I see
>>>>> it at the moment.
>>>>> See:
>>>>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/
>>>>> Lewis_Mumford
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Gary
>>>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>>>> *Communication Studies*
>>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City
>>>>> University of New York*
>>>>> *C 745*
>>>>> *718 482-5690*
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM,
>>>>> Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com
>>>>> <http://***@nyc.rr.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Helmut, list,
>>>>>
>>>>> I seldom am inclined to defend
>>>>> Brooks. I haven't read
>>>>> Mumford, although I have
>>>>> somewhere his book on Melville
>>>>> that I meant to read. For what
>>>>> it's worth, I'll point out
>>>>> that Mumford wrote the
>>>>> Brooks-quoted remark in 1940,
>>>>> when the horrors of WWII had
>>>>> not fully unfolded yet. Maybe
>>>>> he never backed down from it,
>>>>> I don't know. In a box
>>>>> somewhere I have another book
>>>>> that I meant to read, about
>>>>> how in the Nazi death camps
>>>>> sheer survival, fighting just
>>>>> to live, became a kind of
>>>>> heroism. The higher ideals
>>>>> ought to serve life, not tell
>>>>> it that it's full of crap,
>>>>> only to replace the crap with
>>>>> other crap, a.k.a.
>>>>> brainwashing and Mobilization
>>>>> (quick flash of Pink Floyd's
>>>>> marching hammers). "They want
>>>>> politics and think it will
>>>>> save them. At best, it gives
>>>>> direction to their numbed
>>>>> desires. But there is no
>>>>> politics but the manipulation
>>>>> of power through language.
>>>>> Thus the latter's constant
>>>>> debasement." - Gilbert
>>>>> Sorrentino in
>>>>> _Splendide-Hôtel_.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Ben
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut
>>>>> Raulien wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford,
>>>>> to whom Brooks refers, is
>>>>> quite close to the Isis:
>>>>> ""Life is not worth
>>>>> fighting for: bare life is
>>>>> worthless. Justice is
>>>>> worth fighting for, order
>>>>> is worth fighting for,
>>>>> culture ... .is worth
>>>>> fighting for: These
>>>>> universal principles and
>>>>> values give purpose and
>>>>> direction to human life."
>>>>> That could be from an
>>>>> islamist hate-preaching:
>>>>> Your life is worthless, so
>>>>> be a suicide bomber and go
>>>>> to universalist(?)
>>>>> heaven. Brooks and
>>>>> Mumford are moral zealots
>>>>> and relativists who
>>>>> project that on the people
>>>>> who have deserved it the
>>>>> least. They intuitively
>>>>> know that they havent
>>>>> understood anything, the
>>>>> least the concept of
>>>>> universalism, and bark
>>>>> against those who have,
>>>>> because they are jealous.
>>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11.
>>>>> Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>>>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond"
>>>>> <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> <
>>>>> http://***@gmail.com>
>>>>> *An:* Peirce-L
>>>>> <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>>> <
>>>>> http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L]
>>>>> "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>>> List,
>>>>> Joseph Esposito responded
>>>>> to David Brooks' Oct.3 New
>>>>> York Times column, "The
>>>>> Problem with Pragmatism,"
>>>>> with this letter to the
>>>>> editor today.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-
>>>>> not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>>>>
>>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>>
>>>>> David Brooks paints an all
>>>>> too convenient caricature
>>>>> of American pragmatism
>>>>> ("The Problem With
>>>>> Pragmatism
>>>>> <
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-
>>>>> the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=
>>>>> relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,"
>>>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the
>>>>> slightest reading of
>>>>> Charles Peirce, William
>>>>> James, John Dewey and
>>>>> Sidney Hook will reveal
>>>>> pragmatists who were
>>>>> passionate about values as
>>>>> well as the means of
>>>>> realizing them in enduring
>>>>> democratic social
>>>>> institutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem the United
>>>>> States confronts in the
>>>>> Middle East is not
>>>>> paralysis or doubt but the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>>> PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to ***@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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jon Awbrey]

Well, we all love a man in uniform ...

;}

[Gary Richmond]

Thanks for catching that typo, Jon. GR


*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jon Awbrey <***@att.net> wrote:

> Well, we all love a man in uniform ...
>
> ;}
>

[Jon Awbrey]

It's actually one of my favorite stat geek puns, since a Uniform Distribution
is a Maximally Uninformed Distribution (MUD).

Jon

[Edwina Taborsky]

Eugene Halton - excellent post. Many thanks. My view is that societies are semiotic organisms and can be analyzed within Peircean analytic frames as readily as can language utterances. Therefore, politics (as well as economics and ideology) is an integral part of the whole organism. Your reference to

“pragmatic liberalism,” as he characterized it, and its over-reliance on abstract thought and technique, as deficient in emotionally centered practical reasoning, capable of sensing the dark forces at work in that time. Mumford’s gut was proven correct, accurately foretelling the actual world that came to be, and Dewey’s view proved inadequate to comprehend what actually was to be.

is, in my view, an accurate description of the difference between a reductionist mechanical view of societal forces and a semiosic view. The first one sees societies as 'an Agent' only operating in Secondness, purely mechanical and reactive. And thus, subject to verbal repression or negotiation, to control the simple mechanisms of action and reaction. It ignores the deeper infrastructure (Thirdness) of connections to other semiosic forces (economy, ideology, size of the organism) - and ignores the emotional 'bubbling up' of the potentialities of Firstness. Mumford 'saw' the generating force of totalitarian fascism and also, recognized that societies were more complex than simple reductionist act-react machines.

However, this list does not want to deal with the expansion of semiosis into the societal realm - so, I won't say any more.

Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Halton
To: Peirce List
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"


Given my response concerned the initial post on Brooks' article, Mumford, and pragmatism, and the one I just finished before looking at recent posts is focused on that topic also, I will respond.


Dear Gary,

The specific reason I found your and Esposito’s opinions “uninformed and misguided” was that they never considered the direct evidence for Mumford’s statements concerning what he called “pragmatic liberalism,” especially in its more specific context of Dewey’s statements that I cited, and you claimed that David Brooks “misuses” Mumford. Brooks quoted Mumford’s 1940 essay, “The Corruption of Liberalism,” where Mumford said, “Liberalism has been on the side of passivism in the face of danger. Liberalism has been on the side of ‘isolation’ when confronted with the imminent threat of a worldwide upsurge in barbarism.”

Note that Mumford here criticized “passivism,” not pacifism, and also isolationism. Note Dewey’s title for his 1939 contribution to the Common Sense short pieces I cited in my first reply, “No Matter What Happens--Stay Out.” Note the titles from the other contributors I cited as well, which are similar to Dewey’s. You said that Brooks “misuses” Mumford, but it seems to me obvious that Brooks accurately conveyed Mumford’s intent in that essay, whether one agrees with Mumford or not.

Brooks did generalize from Mumford’s “pragmatic liberalism” to “pragmatism,” and clearly seems to be broadening it to mean practicalism or realpolitik and not just philosophical pragmatism, as is frequently (and unfortunately) done in the vernacular use of the word. But as Dewey’s remarks show, Dewey taken as a philosophical pragmatist directly fit Mumford’s critique, and that is something Esposito should have addressed, instead of bypassing it to defend philosophical pragmatism. Joseph Esposito’s letter says nothing concrete, and wallows in blanket assertions about pragmatism, claiming that pragmatists, “were passionate about values,” completely bypassing the “context of situation,” to use Dewey’s term, that Mumford was addressing, namely, that thinking forcible conflict against Hitler could be avoided betrayed an insufficient instinctive and historical appreciation for the dark forces welling up that Hitler promised to release.

I claimed that Dewey’s position was wrong, and that the axis alliance formed between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, which led to the unprovoked attack of Japan upon the US at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, demonstrated that, contrary to Dewey’s “no matter what happens,” the United States ultimately could not stay out. Mumford had earlier said that Hitler had revealed his expansionist fascist intentions, and that they represented a fundamental attack on democracy and needed to be countered by force.” Mumford argued that argument was not sufficient to appease Hitler, that he would only respond to force, and I claimed that on this point Mumford was correct, and Dewey’s isolationist view was false. Mumford saw “pragmatic liberalism,” as he characterized it, and its over-reliance on abstract thought and technique, as deficient in emotionally centered practical reasoning, capable of sensing the dark forces at work in that time. Mumford’s gut was proven correct, accurately foretelling the actual world that came to be, and Dewey’s view proved inadequate to comprehend what actually was to be.

Mumford claimed that, awful though war is, “Fascism is Worse than War,” because it kills democratic life and freedom, and for this reason fascism at that time had be resisted through the only means it would respond to, armed force. It was the same reasoning he applied to criticizing US saturation bombing of Dresden, and nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of totalizing instruments of power overstepping humane limits. And he made those critiques in 1945 when his own son had been killed in the war the year before.

Gene, and more below.



GARY R.: Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.

“Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may have proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end?”



GENE: As I said, the anti-interventionist views of the prewar American left, as well as Bertrand Russell, were not justified by the military-industrial complex that bloomed in America after the war. They were wrong, just as that military-industrial complex was. And who was in the forefront of calling attention to that postwar complex? Lewis Mumford, and for the same reasons he called for active engagement against Hitler in the late thirties: to serve democracy and freedom. But obviously Mumford’s arguments from the beginning of the postwar period though his book The Pentagon of Power were ignored.

Gary R., you say that “the World War 2 fodder” was “problematic” and “resolved nothing” and link it to all subsequent wars. I believe that “American military lives” were necessary in World War 2, though later wars, such as Vietnam, represented imperial expansions of what former general and later president Dwight D. Eisenhower termed “the military industrial complex.” Destroying Hitler resolved something significant, in my opinion, namely that totalitarian rule is catastrophically inhuman. But the dangers of any wars involve becoming the very evil you are combating, and as Mumford himself said, Hitler may have lost the war while the spirit of Hitler, of Guernica, of mass saturation bombing and extermination, of machine purposes dominant over human interests, in effect endured. Here is where all the ambiguities enter, considering the postwar military-industrial dot-dot-fill-in-the-blank complex which came to dominate American life. But on the specific issue of Mumford and Dewey just before World War 2, which is just a portion of “pragmatic liberalism,” I do not see ambiguity. Dewey got it wrong, and shrunk away from what what turned out to be necessary, and Mumford felt and saw clearly what was to be, and what then actualized. Dewey’s appreciation of emotional reasonableness did not go as deeply as Mumford’s did, and Mumford’s understanding of what was emerging proved correct. And there is a gulf between Dewey’s appreciation of the depth of emotional reasonableness and that of Peirce, who allows much more of a place for deep instinctive and emotional reasonableness in practical life.


And Mumford applied the same ways of thinking after the war to develop a profound critique against the modern “megamachine” of power, especially in its American incarnation, and in ways David Brooks could never brook.

Gene





On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike, list,


Mike, I completely agree with you and would like to strongly recommend that list members not continue this thread as it has considerable destructive potential. One of the strengths of peirce-l has been that it has avoided these sorts of 'flame wars' which have destroyed any number of lists as Mike noted.


Gary Richmond (writing as list moderator)




Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690


On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Mike Bergman <***@mkbergman.com> wrote:

Hi All,

None of you know me; I've never commented before on this forum; I'm a classic lurker.

Generally, I find a small, but significant, percentage of the commentary on this list as extremely informative and educational. I'm keenly interested in Peirce.

But I find these threads that bring in politics, or personal commentary, or obstinate viewpoints to be trying and off-putting. Unfortunately, any of us who have participated on various lists across the years have seen other effective forums degenerate.

I do not know who those are that consider themselves as the adults on this forum, but I encourage you to steer these discussions back on point.

Thank you, Mike

On 10/13/2014 8:58 PM, Dennis Leri wrote:

Who decides your universal values? How? Room for Mercy or Grace? Who
adjudicates?

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 13, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Stephen C. Rose <***@gmail.com
<mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:


Good and evil are needlessly mystified. If you have a values based
ethic, which is the only ethic that makes sense and produces
measurable results, good and evil can be seen as a spectrum that is an
index that moves from the depth of evil which is willful injury and
inflicting death to selfishness and good which runs through
mindfulness, tolerance, helpfulness all the way to acting to create
truth and beauty. This index is universal and applies in all contexts.
It is a dynamic spectrum. Good and evil are values that signify modes
of behavior that we enact all the time. Life is the sum of such
actions, achieving mega force when people act in concert through
various means. The demythologizing and acceptance of our
responsibility to know what is good and what not is the project of
this century as folk from Nietzsche to Nozick have suggested.

*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de
<mailto:***@gmx.de>> wrote:

Hi Edwina!
I am completely with you, no objections. There is the reality of
evil, and human societies do not have an innate knowledge base to
distinguish between good and evil. But I think, humans have,
because they are creatures of: "God", say religious people,
"evolution" say agnostics. God is "logos", logic, and "evolution"
is based on logic too. So I think, it does not matter whether one
is religious or is trying to understand the world by logical
analysis. It is a matter of temperament or which way one can grasp
it better, by allegoric pictures or by abstraction. Angels or the
power of compassion, the devil, or the evil logic of a vicious
circle? I myself believe in God, but do not know, what "to
believe" is. Because I think, that all you can believe in you as
well can reach by thinking, reflection, the capacities God has
given us. Now this is a circular argument, I admit. But I (sort
of) believe, that we also have the capacity (God-given?) to
uncover evil as false. I think, there is something wrong with
evil. It is false. And with logic (logos, God) we are able to
prove it like that. So: Evil is real, but not true. Its reality is
only temporary, and lasts only until it is proven for wrong,
falsified. This is what I believe in, not knowing, but only
intuitively feeling, what "to believe" is. How to overcome evil?
See, that it is real, but not true, and look for ways to prove it
wrong, but it is homeostatic, self-affirming, self-keeping. It has
the form of a circle, a vicious one. So, how to break a circle,
that is not based on truth? I think, with truth. Truth is an
universalist concept, such as the value of life. Pragmatism is the
quest for truth, and triadically, I would say:
cat.1, iconical: beautiful, ugly
cat.2, indexical: technically good (making things work),
technically bad (things do not work)
cat.3, symbolical: moralically good: Providing reasons for beauty
and good working, evil: Reasons for ugliness and failure.
And I think, that as you have said, social systems are not wise.
Their nature is nothing but to make them more powerful, as this is
the nature of any system, left to its own. This is something one
can learn from Luhmann. Sytems take advantage of anything they
can, be it good or evil. They even pervert, mix the concepts, and
create super-evil situations, like: seemingly beautiful (utopies,
huri-heaven, "arian" lunacy, to whom ever this may be attractive),
technically good, providing reasons for good working, but in the
end, they are a reason for extreme ugliness and total failure.
This is eg. the isis and the nazis. So, never trust a system I
would say. That is why I think, systems theory is good: Know the
enemy. For my taste, Mumford is a bit too fascinated by cities.
Cities are a sort of systems. I am writing too much.
Best!
Helmut

"Edwina Taborsky" <***@primus.ca <mailto:***@primus.ca>>
Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of
'Thou shalt not kill'; it's over several other issues.
First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus,
evaluation of 'what is good and what is bad'. Since human
societies do not have an innate knowledge base but must develop it
within that society, then, they must have an evaluative capacity.
Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it
exists in the non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't
see it. This requires evaluation on our part.
Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both
refuse to acknowledge the reality of evil.
Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our
electronic informational network and our networked global economy
- a 'world society'. Therefore, what goes on in one area is known
- and we cannot stand by and ignore the reality of evil. This is
the technical articulation of Peirce's synechism; we are actually
physically (Secondness) connected.
Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the
global world - we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE
global society, each part existing as it does within vastly
different ecological realities - from desert, to rainforest, to
deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains to mountains to
ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which has
increased exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes
- extreme poverty - as is found in the Middle East, Africa,
Central America and elsewhere - to extreme wealth - as is found in
these same countries as well! And - we can't have extremes of
lifestyle where, in one domain, women are enslaved and forbidden
to get an education while in another, they are free. And so on.
The world is now too economically and informationally small to
functionally handle such extreme variations. This economic and
societal imbalance and its resultant economic and political
vacuums is why we are seeing the various implosions around the
world. [No, they aren't due to the big bad USA].
What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for
example, is an extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they
were in power, THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I
won't go into here. But to attain that power, requires massive
brutality and killing. And massive repression, where a huge
section of the population are reduced to slavery.
Am I my brother's keeper?
Edwina

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Helmut Raulien <http://***@gmx.de>
*To:* peirce-***@list.iupui.edu <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
*Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
*Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism,
Not Less"
Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was
amazingly thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent
known anything about Mumford but these quotes by Brooks. Now,
when I see that what I have called "neglectiion of the value
of life" in the context of his position against appeasement
poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I
think, that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction.
There are dilemma situations, in which pacifism does not work,
or even produces very bad results. But not being a pacifist
anymore does not mean that you must throw the principles you
have had when you were one over board: You still can say, that
the value of life is the most important thing, and usually
"thou shalt not kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is
better to kill them, because, if you dont, they kill far more
people. So this is blending some utilitarism (highest
advantage for the highest number of people) into the else no
more working categorical imperative. But all this is still
universalism based on the value of life. A psychologist I like
very much, who has explored human morality in dilemma
situations, is (was) Lawrence Kohlberg.
Best,
Helmut

"Stephen C. Rose" <***@gmail.com
<mailto:***@gmail.com>> wrote:
And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First
Commandment, will add "and none" while adhering to these sage
rules..
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky
<***@primus.ca> wrote:

Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the
wolves' for my views]. That quote on synechism, from
Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed relevant. As he
continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous
circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not
quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you".
That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness)
and also, members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We
have a duty to live within both modes. Not just one mode
of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of
denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism
of 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task.
Edwina

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Stephen C. Rose
*To:* Edwina Taborsky
*Cc:* Peirce List
*Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
Pragmatism, Not Less"
This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone
voice. Peirce himself said. “Nor must any synechist
say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If
you embrace synechism, you must abjure this
metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your
neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far
greater measure than, without deep studies in
psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood
you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most
part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity.”
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky
<***@primus.ca> wrote:

Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to
debate the values of war versus no-war, and I know
I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems
heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies
which to me, are always utopian rather than
pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist.
That's because I support the rule of law versus
the rule of thugs.
Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy
can really be compared with fascist and
fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying
that rather than confronting them and denying
their legitimacy, one should 'just leave them
alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the
Rule of Thugs. Dandelions can be far more powerful
and invasive than grass. Now, does grass have any
'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more
powerful'?
The interesting thing is that nature doesn't
function by 'whichever is more powerful.
Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by
browsing herbivores, supplying a certain amount of
protein and other minerals.
I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they
keep their ideologies and actions confined to
themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But
when their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the
actual necessity to kill others, to enforce their
beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think
that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral
as well as legal, to step in and stop them.
Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were
far greater in power than the people of
Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its
stoning of women, its refusal to allow education,
be allowed to do this?
Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings,
stonings, mass slaughter, openly stated agenda of
taking over villages and towns and forcing people
into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to
continue to do this to people who simply don't
have the strength to defend themselves?
I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' .
There's a nice book by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who
also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against
Terror: The burden of American power in a violent
world'.
She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people
refuse to see evil; they have simply banished the
word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused
disasters'; or 'work-place violence' or calling
ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we
can't hide from it.
Taking over a population by ruthless force,
dictated by an ideology of biological or religious
or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone
who does not submit to this ideology...I don't
think that pacifism is the moral response to such
thuggish behaviour.
Edwina

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Phyllis Chiasson
*To:* Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
*Cc:* Peirce List
*Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
*Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More
Pragmatism, Not Less"

Main

Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969
by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the
time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban
affairs adviser.

I see the problem of wars in the way I see the
problem of dandelions. I admit that I feel a
sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want
them gone from my life. Several years ago I
began a campaign to extract them from the
yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as
neither my husband nor i support the use of
chemical pesticides or herbicides.

So, I bought a nifty little dandelion
extractor and began pulling them out by the
roots. For a short time (very short
considering all my efforts) I had a dandelion
free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions.
I tried a new approach, a weed burner,
guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even
more dandelions than before. I tried an all
organic herbicide, but without any luck at
all. We vetoed salt, as that would kill the
grass too.

It was around that time of the salt discussion
that Hal pointed out to me that the empty lot
next door to us was practically dandelion
free. Someone comes around every year with a
big mower to keep the grass down and that is
the sum total of gardening work on that lot.

Of course, it did not require a degree in
horticulture for me to understand what i had
been doing by means of my exertions. I had
been preparing the soil for to receive and
sprout ever more of the very things that i
didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have
herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read
Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several
times.)

However, I still think there is a big
connection between my attempts to eradicate
dandelions and our country's attempt to
eradicate radical Muslim organizations. We are
just preparing the ground for more dandelions,
only in this case, dandelions with bombs and
rocket launchers. So, to me, the most
problematic effect of our
military/industrial/congressional complex is
that they just keep tilling the soil to
encourage more and more dandelions to take root.

Based on intentions measured against results,
which I see as the essence of pragmatism, we
are not really eradicating ISIS; we are
recruiting for them. We have prepared the soil
by previous wars and skirmishes and every time
a drone hit produces collateral damage we are
blowing fluffy dandelion seeds to take root
all over the world.

I don't have THE solution; but I do think it
resides in Retroduction, not just in pragmatism.


Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Gene Halton wrote:

I find the both the letter to the New York
Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s claim
that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and
misguided and yet you continue, Gene, that
"Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was
closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense
Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,”
whatever he meant by using the term, was
shallow." So which is it Gene? Did Joseph and
I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness
as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly
more about Brooks than Mumford.

I thought I made it quite clear that I have
been "generally" quite sympathetic to
Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I
posted the group of quotations of his which I
did), but, again, I found, as did you,
"Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . .
.shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you at
least in that.

It is possible that when I read your book
/Bereft of Reason/ a few years ago I may have
concentrated too heavily on such lines as the
one you just quoted regarding the USA's
involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
involvement did lead to the
military-industrial-academic complex and
McCarthyism after the war. . ."

Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if
indeed our involvement in WW2 perhaps led, as
you wrote, "to the
military-industrial-academic complex" (Truman
was strongly advised to leave out the third
term of that diabolical triad, btw, which was
NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what
have we now in American and, indeed, global
'culture' but precisely the
military-industrial-congressional complex writ
large: the /military-global
corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money
complex/? And the women and children still
suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those
"good wars," those "wars to end all wars,"
etc., etc., etc., etc.

Your modifying the last passage from your book
which I quoted above with "perhaps" suggests
to me that even you too may have some
reservations about how throwing millions of
American military lives into the WW2 fodder
(and the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam
War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder, and the
Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows
what the future may bring in the way of human
fodder offered to the war machine?), that
these wars may have proved historically, at
least, /*problematic,*/especially given the
fact that those resolved nothing, and that we
have been and are still slaughtering children
and young men and women and old men and women
in battle, soldiers and civilians send to
there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what
end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
completely agree with Dewey and Tori
Alexander, most recently, that there is a case
to be made for pacifism).

So to my way of thinking--after all the
Brooks' nonsense is cleared away--it's not
just a black and white issue that Mumford was
completely correct and Dewey completely wrong,
say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably
less "uniformed and misguided" than you
present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I
greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or
anyone has all the answers to the question of
war and peace.

Best,

Gary

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of
New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton
<***@nd.edu> wrote:

I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York
Times, and have had a long term interest
in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis
Mumford. I actually discuss Mumford’s
essay described by Brooks in my
book,/Bereft of Reason/, on page 147 forward.

I find the both the letter to the New York
Times from Joseph Esposito and Gary R’s
claim that Brooks misused Mumford
uninformed and misguided, and Helmut’s
claim that Mumford’s position is close to
ISIS to be amazingly thoughtless, 180
degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s
point in this context being described that
living for immediate pleasure
gratification regardless of purpose is
wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position
regarding intervention against Nazi
Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the
time before World War II was incorrect.
Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was
closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that
sense Brooks’s understanding of
“pragmatism,” whatever he meant by using
the term, was shallow. And the term
Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."

Ironically, by the very same logic,
Mumford came to condemn the United States'
use of the atomic bomb at the end of World
War II, and became a critic of the US
military megamachine and political
megamachine, and turned against the
Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he
had received the Presidential Medal of
Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I
would like to see what conservative David
Brooks would do with that.
I have quoted some excerpts from my
chapter in /Bereft of Reason/, on “Lewis
Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.

Gene

excerpt from /Bereft of Reason/: “The
second confrontation with Dewey and
pragmatism occurred on the eve of World
War Two, and concerned what Mumford termed
“The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford
believed that fascism would not listen to
reasonable talk and could not be appeased,
and urged strong measures as early as 1935
against Hitler and in support of European
nations which might be attacked by Hitler.
By 1938 he urged in /The New Republic/
that the United States “Strike first
against fascism; and strike hard, but
strike.”His militant position was widely
attacked by the left, and he lost a number
of friends in the process, including Frank
Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles
Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.

To give an idea of the opinions and
climate of the prewar debate, just
consider the titles of commentaries
published in the March, 1939 issue of
/Common Sense/ on the question “If War
Comes--Shall We Participate or be Neutral?”:

Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S.
Neutrality;” Max Lerner, “`Economic Force’
May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America
Cannot ‘Save’ Europe;” John T. Flynn,
“Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry
Elmer Barnes, “A War for ‘Tory
Finance’?”.Dewey’s contribution was
titled, “No Matter What Happens--Stay
Out,” and it could not have been more
opposed to Mumford’s piece, “Fascism is
Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the
inability of the left to see that rational
persuasion and appeasement were inadequate
to stem Hitler’s Hell-bound ambition
indicated a corruption in the tradition of
what Mumford called “pragmatic
liberalism.”The fatal error of pragmatic
liberalism was its gutless
intellectualism, its endorsement of
emotional neutrality as a basis for
objectivity, which he characterized as
“the dread of the emotions.” He
illustrated why the emotions ought to play
a significant part in rational decisions
with an example of encountering a
poisonous snake: “If one meets a poisonous
snake on one’s path, two things are
important for a /rational/ reaction. One
is to identify it, and not make the error
of assuming that a copperhead is a
harmless adder. The other is to have a
prompt emotion of fear, if the snake /is/
poisonous; for fear starts the flow of
adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and
that will not merely put the organism as a
whole on the alert, but it will give it
the extra strength needed either to run
away or to attack. Merely to look at the
snake abstractedly, without identifying it
and without sensing danger and
experiencing fear, may lead to the highly
irrational step of permitting the snake to
draw near without being on one’s guard
against his bite.” Emotions, as this
example makes clear, are not the opposite
of the rational in the conduct of life,
and therefore should not be neutralized in
order for rational judgments to be made.
The emotion of fear in this example is a
non-rational inference which provides a
means for feeling one’s way in a
problematic situation to a rational
reaction before the rationale becomes
conscious



 In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the
“context of situation” should provide the
ground for social inquiries remains an
important antidote to empty formalism and
blind empiricism. Yet the clearest
evidence of its shortcomings in the
practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the
eve of World War II that the United States
should stay out of the impending war
against Nazi Germany, because it did not
involve the American situation. As he put
it in 1939, “If we but made up our minds
that it is not inevitable, and if we now
set ourselves deliberately to seeing that
no matter what happens we stay out, we
shall save this country from the greatest
social catastrophe that could overtake us,
the destruction of all the foundations
upon which to erect a socialized
democracy.”Dewey criticized the idea that
American involvement was “inevitable”
while simultaneously assuming such
participation would somehow produce
inevitable results.

Perhaps American involvement did lead to
the military-industrial-academic complex
and McCarthyism after the war--though the
former would likely have emerged in any
case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him to
the fact that Western and World
civilization were being subjected to a
barbaric assault, an assault from fascism
and from within, which would not listen to
verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question
of civilization as a legitimate broader
context of the situation and the
possibility that the unreasonable forces
unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian
ambitions could not be avoided
indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the
larger unfolding dynamic of the
twentieth-century, and was led to a false
conclusion concerning American
intervention which only the brute facts of
Pearl Harbor could change.

Was Mumford the reactionary that the
pre-war left attacked him for being?
Consider that by the end of World War two
Mumford was attacking the allies’ adoption
of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the
firebombing of Dresden and in the nuclear
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He
decried the fall of military standards and
limits in the deliberate targeting of
civilians. Mumford was among the earliest
proponents of nuclear disarmament, having
written an essay on the nuclear bomb
within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima
and a book within a year, as well as
helping to organize the first nuclear
disarmament movement. He was an early
critic of the Vietnam War, expressing
opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost
him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly
book, /The Pentagon of Power/ (1970) was,
among other things, a fierce attack on the
antidemocratic
military-industrial-academic establishment.”

Eugene Halton, /Bereft of Reason/,
University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.







---

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM,
Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de> wrote:

My post was a bit polemic, because
I was mad at Mumfords neglection
of the value of life and that he
called that "universalism". And I
was indeed thinking of the nazis.
I think, a culture that is not
based on the value of life is not
universalist, but the opposite:
Particularist. Universalism for me
is eg. Kants categorical
imperative, and Kants other
imperative, that humans (so also
human life) should be treated as
aims, not as means. And scientists
like Kohlberg and pragmatists like
Peirce were scolars of Kant. So my
conclusion was, that, when someone
is attacking scientists and
pragmatists, his "universalism" is
in fact particularism. And his
concept of "culture" too, because
for him, culture is not based on
the value of life, but vice versa.
But I was refering to a quote out
of its context, maybe.
Best,
Helmut

"Gary Richmond"
<***@gmail.com>
Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
I certainly won't defend Brooks
because I think he misuses
Mumford. and even in the choice of
this early material taken out of
context, to support his argument
/contra/ Pragmatism in the article
cited. I have always had a
generally positive take on
Mumford's ideas, although I don't
believe I have ever read an entire
book by him.
This evening as I browsed through
a selection of quotations from his
books I found more which resonated
positively with me than did
not--which is not to say that I
agree with him in each of the
ideas expressed. Still, some of
his ideas do not seem opposed to
philosophical pragmatism, although
his critical purposes aren't much
attuned to it, at least as I see
it at the moment.
See:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
Best,
Gary
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City
University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM,
Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com
<http://***@nyc.rr.com>> wrote:

Helmut, list,

I seldom am inclined to defend
Brooks. I haven't read
Mumford, although I have
somewhere his book on Melville
that I meant to read. For what
it's worth, I'll point out
that Mumford wrote the
Brooks-quoted remark in 1940,
when the horrors of WWII had
not fully unfolded yet. Maybe
he never backed down from it,
I don't know. In a box
somewhere I have another book
that I meant to read, about
how in the Nazi death camps
sheer survival, fighting just
to live, became a kind of
heroism. The higher ideals
ought to serve life, not tell
it that it's full of crap,
only to replace the crap with
other crap, a.k.a.
brainwashing and Mobilization
(quick flash of Pink Floyd's
marching hammers). "They want
politics and think it will
save them. At best, it gives
direction to their numbed
desires. But there is no
politics but the manipulation
of power through language.
Thus the latter’s constant
debasement." - Gilbert
Sorrentino in _Splendide-HÃŽtel_.

Best, Ben

On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut
Raulien wrote:

Hi! I think, that Mumford,
to whom Brooks refers, is
quite close to the Isis:
"“Life is not worth
fighting for: bare life is
worthless. Justice is
worth fighting for, order
is worth fighting for,
culture ... .is worth
fighting for: These
universal principles and
values give purpose and
direction to human life.”
That could be from an
islamist hate-preaching:
Your life is worthless, so
be a suicide bomber and go
to universalist(?)
heaven. Brooks and
Mumford are moral zealots
and relativists who
project that on the people
who have deserved it the
least. They intuitively
know that they havent
understood anything, the
least the concept of
universalism, and bark
against those who have,
because they are jealous.
*Gesendet:* Samstag, 11.
Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
*Von:* "Gary Richmond"
<***@gmail.com>
<http://***@gmail.com>
*An:* Peirce-L
<peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
<http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
*Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L]
"More Pragmatism, Not Less"
List,
Joseph Esposito responded
to David Brooks' Oct.3 New
York Times column, "The
Problem with Pragmatism,"
with this letter to the
editor today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion

To the Editor:

David Brooks paints an all
too convenient caricature
of American pragmatism
(“The Problem With
Pragmatism
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,”
column, Oct. 3). Even the
slightest reading of
Charles Peirce, William
James, John Dewey and
Sidney Hook will reveal
pragmatists who were
passionate about values as
well as the means of
realizing them in enduring
democratic social
institutions.

The problem the United
States confronts in the
Middle East is not
paralysis or doubt but the


-----------------------------
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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to ***@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 .

[Gary Richmond]

Phyllis, list,

I had been thinking about your dandelion metaphor when at breakfast today I
read Thomas Friedman's article, "I.S. = Invasive Species"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-is-invasive-species.html
in which he uses a similar metaphor to describe the rapid growth of ISIS as
a kind of 'invasive species'. He writes:

I can't think of a better way to understand ISIS. It is a coalition. One
part consists of Sunni Muslim jihadist fighters from all over the world:
Chechnya, Libya, Britain, France, Australia and especially Saudi Arabia.
They spread so far, so fast, despite their relatively small numbers,
because the disturbed Iraqi and Syrian societies enabled these foreign
jihadists to forge alliances with secular, native-born, Iraqi and Syrian
Sunni tribesmen and former Baathist army officers, whose grievances were
less religious and more about how Iraq and Syria were governed.


I'm not going to comment on whether I think he's correct in this analysis
or not, Indeed I'm going to leave this thread/discussion and hope that it
either returns to things related to Peirce, semiotics, or pragmatism, or
itself quickly dies down. I had originally meant only to comment that a
well-known Peircean pragmatist, Joseph Esposito, had written in the Times
that Peirce and certain other pragmatists were "passionate about values as
well as the means of realizing them" which I think is correct. But
peirce-l is certainly not the place for discussing politics and such if
that discussion isn't much connected to Peirce, etc. And while I had
introduced the topic in a Peircean context, I should have known from past
experience that it would quickly morph into something else.

Best,

Gary




*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Phyllis Chiasson <***@olympus.net>
wrote:

>
> Main
>
> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
> who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs
> adviser.
>
> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I
> admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone
> from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the
> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i
> support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.
>
> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out
> by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I
> had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a
> new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not
> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I
> tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed
> salt, as that would kill the grass too.
>
> It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me
> that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone
> comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is
> the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
>
> Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to
> understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been
> preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things
> that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses;
> I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)
>
> However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to
> eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim
> organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only
> in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the
> most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is
> that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions
> to take root.
>
> Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence
> of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for
> them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every
> time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion
> seeds to take root all over the world.
>
> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not
> just in pragmatism.
>
>
> Gary Richmond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gene Halton wrote:
>
> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and
> Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and
> yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of
> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which
> is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as
> you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.
>
>
> I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite
> sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the
> group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you,
> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I
> agree with you at least in that.
>
>
> It is possible that when I read your book *Bereft of Reason* a few years
> ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just
> quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
> involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and
> McCarthyism after the war. . ."
>
>
> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2
> perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex"
> (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical
> triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we
> now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the
> military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the *military-global
> corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex*? And the
> women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good
> wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
>
> Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with
> "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about
> how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and
> the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars
> fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the
> future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?),
> that these wars may have proved historically, at least, *problematic,*
> especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have
> been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old
> men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. .
> .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I
> completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there
> is a case to be made for pacifism).
>
>
> So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared
> away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely
> correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself
> considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph
> Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has
> all the answers to the question of war and peace.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <***@nd.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I read David Brooks' piece in the New York Times, and have had a long
>> term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually
>> discuss Mumford's essay described by Brooks in my book,* Bereft of
>> Reason*, on page 147 forward.
>>
>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and
>> Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and
>> Helmut's claim that Mumford's position is close to ISIS to be amazingly
>> thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's point in this
>> context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification
>> regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position regarding
>> intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey's at the time
>> before World War II was incorrect. Mumford's allowance of the emotions was
>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of
>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the
>> term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism."
>>
>> Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United
>> States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a
>> critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned
>> against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the
>> Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like
>> to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
>> I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in *Bereft of
>> Reason*, on "Lewis Mumford's Organic World-View" below.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>>
>>
>> excerpt from *Bereft of Reason*: "The second confrontation with Dewey
>> and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what
>> Mumford termed "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford believed that
>> fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and
>> urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of
>> European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in *The
>> New Republic* that the United States "Strike first against fascism; and
>> strike hard, but strike." His militant position was widely attacked by
>> the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank
>> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among
>> others.
>>
>> To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just
>> consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of *Common
>> Sense* on the question "If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be
>> Neutral?":
>>
>> Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S. Neutrality;" Max Lerner, "`Economic
>> Force' May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America Cannot 'Save' Europe;"
>> John T. Flynn, "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry Elmer Barnes, "A War
>> for 'Tory Finance'?". Dewey's contribution was titled, "No Matter What
>> Happens--Stay Out," and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford's
>> piece, "Fascism is Worse than War." Mumford believed that the inability of
>> the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to
>> stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition
>> of what Mumford called "pragmatic liberalism." The fatal error of
>> pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of
>> emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as
>> "the dread of the emotions." He illustrated why the emotions ought to play
>> a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a
>> poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous snake on one's path, two things
>> are important for a *rational* reaction. One is to identify it, and not
>> make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other
>> is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake *is* poisonous; for
>> fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will
>> not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it
>> the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look
>> at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing
>> danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of
>> permitting the snake to draw near without being on one's guard against his
>> bite." Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the
>> rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in
>> order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this
>> example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling
>> one's way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the
>> rationale becomes conscious...
>>
>> ... In my opinion Dewey's concept that the "context of situation" should
>> provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to
>> empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its
>> shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey's belief on the eve of World
>> War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against
>> Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put
>> it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if
>> we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we
>> stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe
>> that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which
>> to erect a socialized democracy." Dewey criticized the idea that
>> American involvement was "inevitable" while simultaneously assuming such
>> participation would somehow produce inevitable results.
>>
>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic
>> complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have
>> emerged in any case--but Dewey's localism blinded him to the fact that
>> Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault,
>> an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal
>> reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader
>> context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces
>> unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided
>> indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the
>> twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American
>> intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.
>>
>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being?
>> Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies'
>> adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and
>> in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of
>> military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians.
>> Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having
>> written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of
>> Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the
>> first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam
>> War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships.
>> Mumford's last scholarly book, *The Pentagon of Power* (1970) was, among
>> other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic
>> military-industrial-academic establishment."
>>
>> Eugene Halton, *Bereft of Reason*, University of Chicago Press, 1995,
>> pp147f.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <***@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection
>>> of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was
>>> indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the
>>> value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist.
>>> Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other
>>> imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not
>>> as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were
>>> scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking
>>> scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism.
>>> And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on
>>> the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its
>>> context, maybe.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
>>>
>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and
>>> even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support
>>> his argument *contra* Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always
>>> had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe
>>> I have ever read an entire book by him.
>>>
>>> This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his
>>> books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which
>>> is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still,
>>> some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although
>>> his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at
>>> the moment.
>>> See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>> *Communication Studies*
>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>>> *C 745*
>>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <***@nyc.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Helmut, list,
>>>>
>>>> I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although
>>>> I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's
>>>> worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940,
>>>> when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed
>>>> down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I
>>>> meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting
>>>> just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve
>>>> life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with
>>>> other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink
>>>> Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them.
>>>> At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no
>>>> politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter's
>>>> constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-Hôtel_.
>>>>
>>>> Best, Ben
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to
>>>> the Isis: ""Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless.
>>>> Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is
>>>> worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and
>>>> direction to human life." That could be from an islamist hate-preaching:
>>>> Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?)
>>>> heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project
>>>> that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know
>>>> that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of
>>>> universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous.
>>>>
>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
>>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond" <***@gmail.com>
>>>> <http://***@gmail.com>
>>>> *An:* Peirce-L <peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>> <http://peirce-***@list.iupui.edu>
>>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
>>>> List,
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column,
>>>> "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today.
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the Editor:
>>>>
>>>> David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American
>>>> pragmatism ("The Problem With Pragmatism
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>,"
>>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William
>>>> James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were
>>>> passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring
>>>> democratic social institutions.
>>>>
>>>> The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not
>>>> paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and
>>>> self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is
>>>> needed is more pragmatism, not less.
>>>>
>>>> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
>>>> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.*
>>>>
>>>> Brooks
>>>> ' article,
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D
>>>> which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism,
>>>> may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito
>>>> points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in *Evidence and Inquiry* terms
>>>> "vulgar Pragmatism"
>>>> (182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version.
>>>>
>>>> Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter
>>>> "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing:
>>>> ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is
>>>> for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a
>>>> great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
>>>> op. cit.
>>>> 201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a
>>>> logician.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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-***@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to ***@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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>