Dear Jay:
I feel compelled to get into this discussion, a little late, I know but
"pressures of real life" you know.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 5, 1998 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
>From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
As far as I (referring to Marx) know he was never
>clinically diagnosed (perhaps he couldn't afford to see
>a shrink).
Permit me to point out that there was no psychology or psychairitry in the
time's that Marx lived, of course he could have went down for a little
creative lancing to reduce his fevers of intellectual ferment but that was
the state of medicine in most areas he lived in his lifetime
I should have said intellectual mistakes.
>Unfortunately, metaphysicians -- then as now -- are prone
>to this sort of bungled thinking.
"bungled thinking" sort of raises my ire a little bit. In my terms, what
Marx was trying to do was explain the social conditions of his time and
present an alternative. From 150 years later, it may be possible to see
errors in his reasoning but to use denigrating phraseology like "bungled"
seems to me to prove Brad's point that the "80+ year global campaign of the
"White" forces to crush Bolschevism" is still alive and well.
>
>Hardin showed that, in principle, communism could never
>work. Marx failed to see this and millions died because
>of his mistake.
Well, I've never read "Hardin" but one author does not a binding refutation
make. There are always other perspectives.
>
>Jay
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>"Those who deal primarily with ideas may quite unconsciously
> generalize the plus-sum property of information exchanges
> into the domains of matter and energy, where it does not
> apply. It is not uncommon for dealers in information to
> naively suppose that Karl Marx's "From each according to his
> ability, to each according to his needs" (Marx 1972) is a
> wise rule to follow in exchanges involving matter and energy
> (as well as information).
>
>"I believe I have shown in "The Tragedy of the Commons" (Hardin
> 1968) that the promiscuous sharing of matter and energy leads
> to universal ruin."
Reading this latest book by Capra, The Web of Life has given me a slightly
different perspective. Dealing with ideas, could be restated as "looking
for patterns" and patterns have no "matter and energy" or in Capra terms,
matter and energy fall under a class he identifies as structure. You cannot
weigh a pattern, or define it's physical shape, though it can be described.
To look for all answers at the level of "matter and energy" denies two other
important aspects that he calls "pattern and process". In regards to the
metaphor of the "commons" which I personally like. Capra might explain that
the downfall of the commons was the result of a change of pattern and
process that resulted in a change in matter and energy and that to identify
the problem at one level is ok, but the solution may very well be found in
your much maligned field of "metaphysics".
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
> [ http://dieoff.org/page46.htm ]
>
>
