That is ok, the "in the beginning" clause was meant
anecdotally in reference to a Sid. Hook understanding
of the matter. of course you know this is a matter of
definitions and it is not easy to squeeze this in one
sentence, so best to skim over that in this context.
Certainly you would agree with the concept of man in
the reproduction of material life being social ie
could not exist in the physical apart from the forms
of organization of society and the social relations
attendant on it. of course analytically you can
separate the social from the physical aspects but is
this realistic, eg, is there such a thing as a natural
stream under capitalism, i for one, am “willing to
pay” to see a stream untouched by a relationsip called
capital/ capital consumes both man and nature. Forms
of consciousness come to reflect this relationship of
man's relationship with nature, which under the
specific historical condition of capitalism also
reflect class and class interests, so much so, that
natural science like nature does not escape the hold
of ideology. so you will see now in physics for
instance, a clerical like interpretation of the origin
of the universe, eg inflation theory and big bang etc.
many physicists talk like clerics. the extent to which
facts can be perverted, in this crisis age, is higher
than in the age of thales ( he was a refugee to Asia
minor escaping the wrath of god kings in the near
east). so the ether substratum of thales dims in
relative ignorance when compared to mainstream science
today.
--- Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:46 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital
>
> Everything is social to begin with? What is that
> supposed to mean.?
> In the beginning God made the social and saw that it
> was good and
> the represenation of TOTALITY. Why not Thales' view
> that in the beginning
> was water the totality that became air, and earth
> etc
> At least Thales view is not some intellectual
> gobbledygook and is
> materialist ( or may be) to boot.
>
> Also if everything is social how can there be a
> social being which reflects
> man's material relation with nature. There must at
> least be nature and man
> above and beyond the social or u have a circular
> conception since man and
> nature must also be social.. And what of the lakes,
> streams, rocks, blah
> blah...are they social too...
> CHeers, Ken Hanly
>
> > Isn't everything social to begin with, so may be
> > social represents the category of totality. hence,
> in
> > the beginning there was social being and social
> > consciousness where the former reflects man's
> material
> > relation with nature etc.. and the latter how one
> > expresses those relations.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
