[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system?

[James Ma]

I know what you mean, Andy. To put these two philosophical polarities
together is a waste of time, even to try!
But what I'm really interested is looking at the polysemy and multimodality
of *subjectivism* in social science research. That's worthwhile - Peirce
would be impressed!

James

*_______________________________________________________*

*James Ma  Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
<https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 12:39, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:

> So long as we set out from subject on one side and object on the other,
> putting them together is a hopeless task, complementary or not.
> Subjectivity and objectivity are abstractions from a shared social life.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 29/01/2019 9:50 pm, James Ma wrote:
>
>
> Well said, Andy!
>
> Perhaps the complementarity of subjectivity and objectivity should be
> likened to be a linchpin around which the theory of knowledge revolves.
> Given consciousness exists beyond time and space, it is insusceptible of
> empirical experiments - which results in subjectivism as a defining feature
> of social research. To acknowledge subjectivity encapsulates the notion of
> how it comes to affect objectivity, with the latter rendering the
> researcher a passive recipient of stimuli encountered in the environment.
> Being objective requires an immediate awareness of the subjectivity of
> one’s own mind. It would be simplistic to think that social research can be
> conducted without recognition of its subjective, self-evident nature. What
> is evident to one individual is not necessarily to another. The
> subjectivity of mind can always cast a shadow over objective endeavours or
> ways of being objective in doing the research.
>
> James
>
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 00:19, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of
>> precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept,
>> as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context
>> and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in
>> law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations
>> challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals.
>>
>> andy
>> ------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal.
>> One can be quite precise and objective about that construal.
>>
>> Huw
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the
>>> meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of
>>> the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is
>>> that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes
>>> objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified
>>> and nuances notions of equality. This is not  figment of my imagination.
>>>
>>> andy
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden
>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an
>>> ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in
>>> our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do
>>> not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a
>>>> political, ideological precept!
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all
>>>>> members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put
>>>>> it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie".
>>>>> James
>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't
>>>>> speak to me!
>>>>>
>>>>> *_______________________________________________________*
>>>>>
>>>>> *James Ma  Independent Scholar *
>>>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>    *
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Harshad,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature.
>>>>>> Likewise "Injustice."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the
>>>>>> subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural
>>>>>> disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the
>>>>>> extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people
>>>>>> by the social system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope that helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following
>>>>>> query.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harshad Dave
>>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/3b5b3144/attachment.html