[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system?
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Tue Jan 29 16:56:01 PST 2019
as Mike says, we notice them when there's a "perturbation"!
December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, but
the current Australian government is still promoting coal,
so what does that tell us?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote:
> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course Taylor
> also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on Hegel.
>
> Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your
> spellchecker. :)
>
> The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to
> forget, is that they become invisible in action. Language
> seems like a window on another person’s consciousness; the
> plough is simply handy when the soil needs turning. The
> government is just those idiots in Washington (or
> Canberra?)… When we notice the myriad of mediators, they
> seem like simple links between us and whatever we’re
> interacting with, when in fact neither would exist without
> them. Without language, ploughs, and governments life
> would be brutish and short.
>
> Martin
>
>
>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both
>> defending the same view.
>>
>> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I
>> thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his
>> 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been supplanted
>> by others much later. I think he used the term to mean
>> something "in between" objective truth (things fall when
>> you drop them) and subjective truth (heights are scary),
>> which is culturally produced (falling is due to gravity,
>> acrophobia is a panic disorder).
>>
>> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who
>> began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of
>> "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel,
>> in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead
>> of that curve, I would agree, but I don't think he took
>> the spirit-is-human-activity reading down to the detailed
>> level that this later intersubjective reading did. I
>> agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering.
>>
>> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a
>> "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age
>> kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my
>> spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as
>> "intersubjectivity.")
>>
>> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul
>> Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian
>> Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me telling
>> him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to
>> see that our interaction was *mediated* by 2 computers
>> and the internet and by the English language, but he
>> utterly rejected this, insisting that the only sense in
>> which our communication of mediated was that in Sydney as
>> well as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had
>> experience of rain. We never got past that point. The
>> concept of artefact-mediation was utterly impenetrable
>> for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote:
>>> I feel we’re still talking past each other, Andy. You
>>> seem to be attributing to me the view that I am
>>> attributing to James, and questioning: namely that
>>> ‘intersubjectivity’ is two (or more) subjectivities
>>> somehow meeting in interaction.
>>>
>>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and
>>> objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will
>>> never be sufficient, because it neglects a third
>>> phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public
>>> practices (involving artifacts) in which people are
>>> always involved, and into which they are born. I think
>>> you hold the same opinion!
>>>
>>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological one.
>>> Some of us here are using ‘intersubjectivity’ to refer
>>> to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real
>>> phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago
>>> finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was
>>> though we played as one! And also those rare occasions
>>> dancing salsa with the right partner.
>>>
>>> But I want to use the term ‘intersubjectivity’ the way
>>> Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation
>>> and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last
>>> word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was
>>> one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our
>>> attention “the social matrix in which individuals find
>>> themselves and act,” “the background to social action,”
>>> including “a common language” which “is constitutive of…
>>> institutions and practices.” He insisted that it is not
>>> simply consensus among individuals.
>>>
>>> But I don’t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We
>>> could call them intersujectivity-1 and
>>> intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what Taylor
>>> was talking about. What’s important is the observation
>>> that there are phenomena that cannot be reduced to
>>> subjects and objects.
>>>
>>> Obviously these practices and institutions will involve
>>> material artifacts; they couldn’t function otherwise.
>>> But these artifacts will be defined within the
>>> practices. The fact that the US government cannot get
>>> rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due to the
>>> fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one
>>> interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of
>>> government as one that cannot be legally infringed. The
>>> government is perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a
>>> gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid
>>> trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its
>>> meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal
>>> matter, not something that individuals negotiate.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden
>>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the
>>>> CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen
>>>> which tries to build a social theory on the basis of
>>>> subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts
>>>> being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of
>>>> these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their
>>>> materiality. (I admit that I have come to this
>>>> conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations,
>>>> which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in
>>>> strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by
>>>> either subsuming the mediating artefact into the
>>>> subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the
>>>> subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the
>>>> object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail
>>>> to explain why today can be any different from
>>>> yesterday, etc.
>>>>
>>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still
>>>> intersubjective, we just use things for our
>>>> interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a
>>>> further really existing step beyond the step which the
>>>> intersubjective turn made relative to methodological
>>>> individualism and abstract social theory.
>>>>
>>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the /meaning
>>>> /of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to
>>>> speak, but /the artefact itself/ is still material and
>>>> objective, and this constrains the meanings which can
>>>> be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of
>>>> 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over
>>>> and above the place of guns in the thinking and
>>>> behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply
>>>> cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of
>>>> people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters
>>>> is not just due to the poor preparedness of their
>>>> people and governments, but the objective vulnerability
>>>> of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is
>>>> a limit on how good your education system will be if
>>>> you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of
>>>> course the simple objective existence of the relevant
>>>> things is not the whole business, but it is something
>>>> else. And the /nature/ of the constellation of existing
>>>> artefacts is something else, over and above their
>>>> existence. EG all the school books are written in a
>>>> foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a
>>>> product of past history, you could say, which was
>>>> intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as
>>>> the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on.
>>>>
>>>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be
>>>>> generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon,
>>>>> rather than subjective or objective. So it could be
>>>>> said that what this discussion group is about — the C
>>>>> in XMCA — is intersubjectivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think,
>>>>> Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of
>>>>> merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed
>>>>> how the word has been used here not long ago. But
>>>>> Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity
>>>>> as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in
>>>>> individuals' minds. The materiality of culture —
>>>>> material artefacts — seems to me to be a very good
>>>>> example of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden
>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions,
>>>>>> including intersubjective
>>>>>> actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, Vygotsky
>>>>>> transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx
>>>>>> citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident.
>>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the
>>>>>> "syllogism of action." This is the culminating
>>>>>> concept of the Logic making the transition to the
>>>>>> Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx
>>>>>> picks up on this, that this means that every action
>>>>>> is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the
>>>>>> plough is more honourable than anything produced by
>>>>>> its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of
>>>>>> ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky,
>>>>>> it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is.
>>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way
>>>>>> minimises the constructive role of language use, but
>>>>>> it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the
>>>>>> more "honourable" role. :)
>>>>>> andy
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social
>>>>>>> sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that
>>>>>>> it is crucial to recognize the existence and
>>>>>>> importance of “intersubjective” phenomena.
>>>>>>> Language, for example, is not subjective, it is
>>>>>>> intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and
>>>>>>> even objectivity (think Latour’s analysis of science
>>>>>>> in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent
>>>>>>> upon intersubjective phenomena.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering
>>>>>>>> someone that is not a linguistic construct.
>>>>>>>> andy
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term
>>>>>>>>> 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through
>>>>>>>>> which concepts like inequality and injustice are
>>>>>>>>> made objective, language, is itself inherently
>>>>>>>>> subjective. For example, justice can be given
>>>>>>>>> objective form in law, but the law itself is
>>>>>>>>> comprised of language, customs, traditions,
>>>>>>>>> beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective
>>>>>>>>> form is not universal, but will differ depending
>>>>>>>>> on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective.
>>>>>>>>> Concepts like inequality are given objective form,
>>>>>>>>> but it doesn't mean that they are objective in
>>>>>>>>> nature, due to the mediating role of language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>on
>>>>>>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden<andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35
>>>>>>>>> *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in
>>>>>>>>> wild life system?
>>>>>>>>> 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 <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy
>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hhdave15@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended
>>>>>>>>> solely for the addressee and may contain
>>>>>>>>> confidential information. If you have received
>>>>>>>>> this message in error, please send it back to me,
>>>>>>>>> and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy
>>>>>>>>> or disclose the information contained in this
>>>>>>>>> message or in any attachment. Any views or
>>>>>>>>> opinions expressed by the author of this email do
>>>>>>>>> not necessarily reflect the views of The
>>>>>>>>> University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This
>>>>>>>>> message has been checked for viruses but the
>>>>>>>>> contents of an attachment may still contain
>>>>>>>>> software viruses which could damage your computer
>>>>>>>>> system: you are advised to perform your own
>>>>>>>>> checks. Email communications with The University
>>>>>>>>> of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as
>>>>>>>>> permitted by UK and Chinese legislation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr.
>>>>> Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or
>>>>> Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does
>>>>> not understand anything in the matter, and I end
>>>>> usually with the feeling that this also applies to
>>>>> myself” (Malinowski, 1930)/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/d87f1904/attachment-0001.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list