In a message dated 12/31/02 12:59:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are free to suggest in turn that there are some differences of emphasis in what I am saying here and what Engels said in the passage you quoted. We could try joining in the middle and say what a wonderful
In a message dated 6/21/02 10:44:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my own usage, I try to follow the usage of Barbara Jeanne Fields in
her essay, "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America,"
New Left Review, May/June 1990. I like it because (a) it offers a
on 2002.1.19 02:51 AM, Justin Schwartz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Andre Gunder Frank sent us this gem.
>>
>> Milton Friedman ended his 1976 Nobel Prize lecture with the observation:
>>
>> "The drastic change that has occurred in economic theory has not been
>> the
>> result of ide
>
>Andre Gunder Frank sent us this gem.
>
>Milton Friedman ended his 1976 Nobel Prize lecture with the observation:
>
>"The drastic change that has occurred in economic theory has not been
>the
>result of ideological warfare. It has responded almost entirely to the
>force of events; brute experi
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Farming practices do create desertification, according to my
> understanding.
===
from the November 01, 2001 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1101/p16s1-sten.html
Farmers urged to beat p
Farming practices do create desertification, according to my
understanding.
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 10:41:25PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael,
> are you arguing that climate change is the result of individual farm
> practice? I just don't understand where you are coming from.
>
> Pa
Carrol, we may have been overly terse, but the plowing of the land does
affect the climate -- at least according to my understanding. For
example, mistreatment of the land leads to desertification.
Paul does not believe that to be the case, if I understand him correctly.
You are also correct th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Michael,
> are you arguing that climate change is the result of individual farm
> practice? I just don't understand where you are coming from.
>
I think that both of you are expressing yourself with undue terseness,
which is leading to sort of a galloping failure
Michael,
are you arguing that climate change is the result of individual farm
practice? I just don't understand where you are coming from.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
> I differ with you on the climate change, but I never supported the
article
> in its belief that prope
gt; Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
>
> Date sent: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 13:19:27 -0800
> From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PEN-L:19319] Re: Re: Ideology and the Environment
> To: [
plausible, minimal, even remotely rational
argument.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
Date sent: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 13:19:27 -0800
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[PEN-L:19319] Re: Re: Ideology and the Environm
Paul, of course the drought was an important cause of the dust bowl, but so
was the climate change from plowing up land that was better suited for
grass.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manitoba did not have a dust bowl because it never suffered the
drought to the same extent as the 'great American dessert'
including Palliser's Triangle in the Canadian prairies.
It is true that this part of Canada was overpopulated relative to the
long term agricultural sustainability of the
Yes, the problem was inappropriate land use. Also, smaller farmers tended
to plant wind breaks.
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 11:21:43PM -0600, Ken Hanly wrote:
> bowl conditions! If land that should not have been broken is broken into one
> section units rather than 5 or 6, what is the difference in
Well we are extremely inefficient in assigning rights to health care in
Canada. We treat people who are old and poor or young and poor and there is
no way that these people will ever be able to compensate those who have
provided the dollars for their care. As I understand it this is economically
i
Rob Schaap wrote:
> Hi again, Ajit,
>
> You write:
>
> >So at the epistemological level, what good is will for?
>
> Well, whilst historical and contemporary relations do enable and constrain,
> I do believe there is an extra-structural category. That'd be 'that which
> is enabled and constrain
William S. Lear wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 1999 at 18:02:28 (-0700) Ajit Sinha writes:
> >Rod Hay wrote:
> >
> >> "The will has no meaning in isolation. Therefore it does not exist"
> >> The heart has no meaning in isolation from a body. Therefore it does not
> >> exist.
> >> The part has n
Hi again, Ajit,
You write:
>So at the epistemological level, what good is will for?
Well, whilst historical and contemporary relations do enable and constrain,
I do believe there is an extra-structural category. That'd be 'that which
is enabled and constrained by historical and contemporary r
Jim Devine wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 8/26/99 -0700, Ajit Sinha wrote:
> > my problem with
> >your Marxism is that you make Marx too pedestrian for my taste.
>
> I find that pedestrianism is a good thing (especially in L.A.) Indeed, I
> decided today that this semester I'd save money by parking in the
Rod Hay wrote:
> "The will has no meaning in isolation. Therefore it does not exist"
> The heart has no meaning in isolation from a body. Therefore it does not
> exist.
> The part has no meaning in isolation from the whole. Therefore it does not
> exist.
> There is something wrong with this logic
On Friday, August 27, 1999 at 18:02:28 (-0700) Ajit Sinha writes:
>Rod Hay wrote:
>
>> "The will has no meaning in isolation. Therefore it does not exist"
>> The heart has no meaning in isolation from a body. Therefore it does not
>> exist.
>> The part has no meaning in isolation from the whole. T
>it is a bit difficult to
>imagine a chimpanzee as an individual, and a human individual
>is unimaginable. Try the mind experiment of stripping away every
>social relation you have ever had. What would be left?
what would happen if you were to strip away all of human biology? what
would be left?
William S. Lear wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 14:20:52 (-0500) Carrol Cox writes:
> >"William S. Lear" wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 13:29:42 (-0700) Ajit Sinha writes:
> >> >...
> >> >There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects. ...
> >>
> >> Ajit, you are usually
Rob Schaap wrote:
> G'day Ajit,
>
> You write:
>
> >There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects. Think about your own
> >'individuality'. Who are you? Your own ego is associated with your name, which
> >was given to you by others, and you learnt what it means only in the relations
> >with tho
Jim Devine wrote:
> >>There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects.
>
> what's the difference between an "individual" and a "subject"? It seems to
> be merely a matter of semantics. "Individuals" need not be atomistic or
> isolated in nature.
>
> If I understand Marx correctly, individuals/subje
Rod Hay wrote:
> And no one has answered my question. How is it possible to have relations
> when there is nothing to relate?
This is the fundamental epistemological difference between us. You, on the one
hand, are insisting that there must be atoms existing independently *be
On Thursday, August 26, 1999 at 11:57:52 (-0700) Ajit Sinha writes:
>
>Who gave us language, Bill?...
Nobody. Language grows within us as we are exposed to a language
community.
>... If you are saying
>that human beings have capacity to have l
At 11:40 AM 8/26/99 -0700, Ajit Sinha wrote:
> my problem with
>your Marxism is that you make Marx too pedestrian for my taste.
I find that pedestrianism is a good thing (especially in L.A.) Indeed, I
decided today that this semester I'd save money by parking in the free lot
on campus and then w
Rod Hay wrote:
> And no one has answered my question. How is it possible to have
> relations when there is nothing to relate?
Actually Engels has a useful formulation here. Someplace or other
he speaks of motion as the mode of existence of matter -- that
is, he denies the Aristotelian premise tha
On Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 18:53:49 (PDT) Rod Hay writes:
>...
>And I know what an emergent property is. On this I am agnostic. No one can
>explain consciousness, or the human will. Ajit may think that it is the
>result of social relations but he can not demonstrate it. Some one may
>belief
Rod Hay wrote:
> I have called no one a liar, nor denied anyone membership in the human
> species. I say everyone believes in the human will because everyone acts as
> if they do. Does Ajit really believes that he is totally determined by his
> social relations?
Rod, you are not trying to unde
>it is a bit difficult to
>imagine a chimpanzee as an individual, and a human individual
>is unimaginable. Try the mind experiment of stripping away every
>social relation you have ever had. What would be left?
>
what would happen if you were to strip away all of human biology? what
would be left
Carrol you have not read Ajit's posts. He explicitly denied causation. The
rest of the post has more to do with your imagination that what I said.
There was nothing about ghosts, either internal or external. I am simply
making the claim that intentional activity implies a belief in causation.
G'day Ajit,
You write:
>There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects. Think about your own
>'individuality'. Who are you? Your own ego is associated with your name, which
>was given to you by others, and you learnt what it means only in the relations
>with those others. Your nationality, your g
I have called no one a liar, nor denied anyone membership in the human
species. I say everyone believes in the human will because everyone acts as
if they do. Does Ajit really believes that he is totally determined by his
social relations? Does he really believe that there is no causation? (i.e
On Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 14:20:52 (-0500) Carrol Cox writes:
>"William S. Lear" wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 13:29:42 (-0700) Ajit Sinha writes:
>> >...
>> >There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects. ...
>>
>> Ajit, you are usually a bit more careful than this. Who gave us
"William S. Lear" wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 13:29:42 (-0700) Ajit Sinha writes:
> >...
> >There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects. ...
>
> Ajit, you are usually a bit more careful than this. Who gave us
> language? Who gave us the capacity for thought? If you have indeed
Rod Hay wrote:
> Relations between what? If individuals are the results of relations, what is
> relating? A mere form without content? "Full of sound and fury signifying
> nothing"
There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects. Think about your own
'individuality'. Who are you? Y
On Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 13:29:42 (-0700) Ajit Sinha writes:
>...
>There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects. ...
Ajit, you are usually a bit more careful than this. Who gave us
language? Who gave us the capacity for thought? If you have indeed
answered "Descartes' Question", we'd lo
>>There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects.
what's the difference between an "individual" and a "subject"? It seems to
be merely a matter of semantics. "Individuals" need not be atomistic or
isolated in nature.
If I understand Marx correctly, individuals/subjects reflect the ensemble
of
from Raymond Williams, _Marxism and Literature_, 1977, Oxford University
Press:
"We presuppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human...What
distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the
architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it i
Relations between what? If individuals are the results of relations, what is
relating? A mere form without content? "Full of sound and fury signifying
nothing"
It is hard to argue against a philosophy that no one believes in enough to
act upon it. Everyone believes in the theory of the human w
Rod Hay wrote:
> You must have be confused with some one else. I don't wish to argue a vulger
> materialism. I want to maintain the distinction between natural and social,
> which was characterised as vulgar.
___
I'm not sure whether this distinction could be maintained. But I'll leav
You must have be confused with some one else. I don't wish to argue a vulger
materialism. I want to maintain the distinction between natural and social,
which was characterised as vulgar.
Yes, the human will cannot be explained by natural forces. Yes, humans are
limited by socio-historical cir
Ajit Sinha wrote:
<>
This is an essential point. Nearly the whole of the metaphysical
argument over "free will" is grounded in this idealist assumption
of such a mysterious "will." The Will, in this context, is always
a euphemism for "The Soul" and hauls in religion by the back
door.
<>
This
Rod Hay wrote:
> I don't want to go to a system of relations without causation because there
> is one causal relation that it is very important not to ignore--human
> purposeful activity, the will, human agency, etc. (what ever you want to
> call it) The political consequences are passivity, ho
Charles Brown wrote:
>Sorry, I meant to say " I be a vulgar Marxist, motherfucker."
"Vulgar Marxism explains 90% of what goes on in the world." - Robert Fitch.
chaz writes:
>Sorry, I meant to say " I be a vulgar Marxist, motherfucker."
chaz! it's muthafuckah. look you have to hang out on the b=ball courts
with the kids more often
audi5000
snitgrrRl
p.s., ajit, my use of "chaz" is long standing and a term of affection.
MAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Brown
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 12:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:10265] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Ideology/consciousness
> andmaterial/social
>
>
> I am a vulgar Marxist, goddamn it.
>
> Charles Brown
>
> >&g
I am a vulgar Marxist, goddamn it.
Charles Brown
>>> Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/20/99 01:22PM >>>
Mathew Forstater wrote:
> I wasn't making a personal attack. Rod I think used the term vulgar
> himself, saying there was a value in vulgar materialism, by which we both
> meant I think s
what a great t-shirt slogan
ian
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Brown
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 12:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:10265] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Ideology/consciousness
&g
I don't want to go to a system of relations without causation because there
is one causal relation that it is very important not to ignore--human
purposeful activity, the will, human agency, etc. (what ever you want to
call it) The political consequences are passivity, hopelessness, dispair.
T
Mathew Forstater wrote:
> I wasn't making a personal attack. Rod I think used the term vulgar
> himself, saying there was a value in vulgar materialism, by which we both
> meant I think somewhat mechanical or deterministic materialism or economic
> determinism.
O.K. In any case my post was on
Rod Hay wrote:
> Abandoning some distinctions, between material and ideal causation, between
> the human and the natural world, etc. leaves us with an indeterminate
> system. In a world were anything goes. We have no grounds upon which to make
> any distinctions.
__
But why we
if
I get out of line, Carroll, we have engaged in conversations on and off list
a number of times. Mat
-Original Message-
From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 5:19 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10235] Re:
help, it is written in a rush.
Mat
-Original Message-
From: Rod Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 8:02 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10239] RE: Ideology/consciousness and material/social
>Marx's materialism var
Marx's materialism varies in sophistication depending upon the task at hand,
as should ours. For some purposes a simple dichotomy may be sufficient to
give us the understanding that we need. Other times we may have to make more
subtle distinctions. Vulgar in Marx's hand as in "vulgar economists
Mathew Forstater wrote:
> Let's be clear about one thing: you may find a usefulness in vulgar
> materialism, but that materialism is not the materialism of Marx. Mat
>
Marx spoke of "vulgar economics"; he and Engels both spoke of
"mechanical" or "metaphysical" materialism. I don't remember
eit
August 19, 1999 4:49 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:10232] RE: Ideology/consciousness and material/social
>Everything determines everything means that nothing is determinate. The old
>materialism at least had the benefit of saying something
definite--something
>that you could get a handle on. It was
The dichotomous treatment of ideology/consciousness/symbolic vs. material
reality in some of the posts on these lists really smacks of simplistic old
materialism that I thought had been left behind some time ago. As I think
has been pointed out by others here several times, Marx argued against bo
Everything determines everything means that nothing is determinate. The old
materialism at least had the benefit of saying something definite--something
that you could get a handle on. It was simplistic but for many purposes a
simplistic analysis is sufficient. Some times it is necessary to be
Jim D. writes
> Wojtek Sokolowski writes:
Why do Wojtek's post only appear in the archive?
Terry McDonough
62 matches
Mail list logo
