Greetings Economists, On Mar 9, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
It is the dominant liberal accounts of human agency, not religion and historical materialism, that are most at odds with natural science's explanations of it.
Doyle, The Enlightenment or rationality, or human agency, supposes a boundary between mind and body. It carves out a political agreement with religions of their era in which 'knowledge' of the immaterial is sacrosanct. Liberality rests upon this distinction. It is where 'rights' and civility spring from in the nation state. Historical materialism wrestles with Liberalism about this, and Marxist have traditionally fought the good fight against a privileged religious camp. Religions intrude upon how you feel to regulate how you act in a moral way. So that they adapt to social conventions (good old morality) as a ready compromise with secular authority. Secular authority being more materialist is generally more adapted to current conditions than religions can aspire to because the religions are bound to fantasies about the meaning of life and death. As I've said before automation of say emotion structure allows materialist to manage emotions in ways religions can't even hope to get to. There is no religious theory of networked computing. There are religious theories of the mind, but beyond the cheap thrills of meditating, what can they do? The hivemind or as the British are building it surveillance on every telephone pole simply offers a cultural alternative no religion can anticipate or hope to define using their theories of mind. The struggle to manage a know it all secular authority not tied to religion (and can we say George is 'really' a christian?) imposes a demand upon for example Marxist to extend and embrace network structures that supplant and replace religious minds. One can't stop the capitalist at the door of privacy in Marxism, one has to see individual 'rights' as a fig leaf that covers the naked parts of religious thinking. thanks, Doyle
