Well I just object to what seemed outrageous abstract academic term
slinging. I dont think it adds anything to a discussion, except to reflect
the conspicuous production of signs significant only to some elite
fraternity. This is not to say that abstractions and special terms cannot be
useful.
If I understand the passage talking about the concept of man in the
reproduction of social life etc. I think I agree but I am not sure. I still
find the terminology somewhat of a barrier. Is the following part at least
of what you are saying?
The way in which people live and continue to live is dependent on
particular forms of social organisation and relations.
I don't see why "material" is singled out. All life is material
ultimately. Of course there is a contrast possible with the material versus
thought but then thoughts, language, concepts, etc. are also dependent (to a
degree at least) upon the "social". Of course, it might be possible for
individual people to live as a castaway but the vast majority of people
llive and no doubt always will live in social groups with certain
organisational forms and relations. One of the basic errors of the
"atomic" individualist approach is to abstract from these relations and
posit a certain human nature...usually egoistic.. apart from these and to
try to interpret all collective relationships as functions of the
intereaction...eg through contract. for example....of these individuals.
What's the significance of a stream being natural? I suppose there
still are some that are relatively unaltered by human activity. But being
natural or unnatural as a stream has nothing to do with capitalism per se.
Non-capitalist societies also altered streams and transformed nature in
various ways.
Of course the physical world is altered by capitalist relations of
production. You say capital consumes both man and nature. Does this mean
that material resources and labor power are used in capitalist production?
Thats true but would surely be true in any form of production wouldnt it?
"forms of consciousness come to reflect this
relationship of man's relationship with nature.." A phrase such as "this
relationship of man's relationship with nature" just sets my brain
spinning.
Is this an example of what you mean. Under capitalism natural resources
such as trees, land, minerals, and water are seen as exploitable and
consumable for profit. Because of this people come to think of these
resources as of primarily instrumental value, and as valuable only insofar
as they are exploitable by capital. This contrasts with the viewpoint of
deep ecologists and others. This shows by the way that not all persons way
of thinking will reflect a dominant way of thinking.
While I agree that science is often ideological I dont personally see
that talk of a big bang is clerical. Do you mean clerical as in religion or
in some other manner? The practical appllication of science such as in
testing the safety of GM seeds seems a more typical. example of where
science as ideology is more evident. Just to give a dramatic example. Only
one set of test data that was used by the Canadian govt. to assess the
safety of GM seeds was made available to a panel of experts of the Canadian
Royal Society that was assessing the process for the government since the
data was regarded as proprieetary information. As the
panel pointed out, a standard requirement in science in evaluation is open
availability of data and confirmation by peer assessment. Although the
government claims its assessments are science based, the assessments violate
a basic requirement of science-based assessment. So "science" reflects
ideology. OF course in research paid for by corporations results are
proprietary and hence none of this science will be scientific as based upon
independent critiques and assessment. This is not to say that the research
results are not sound only that we do not have standard scientific
assurances that they are. Yet these research results will be used in
hearings and other fora to make the claim that GM safety assessment is
science-based.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:48 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:8185] Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
> That is ok, the "in the begenning" clause was meant
> anecdotaly in reference to a sid. hook understanding
> of the matter. of course you know this is a matter of
> definitions and it 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 orgnization 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/ capial consumes both man and nature.
> forms of consciousness come to reflect this
> relationship of man's relationship with nature, which
> under the speicifc 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 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 physiists 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 godkings 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/
>
