[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system?
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Tue Jan 29 18:30:06 PST 2019
The theory I most favour is that the most recent, but also
former, ideologies of capitalist rule have objectively lost
their efficacy. The neo-liberal ideology (putting all social
functions in the market place) is no longer working. This
creates a crisis in all the parties which have relied on
this strategy. It will also affect the centre-left, but in
the Anglosphere, at this point, they are having an easier
time, promoting a little bit of Keynesianism.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 30/01/2019 1:16 pm, Martin Packer wrote:
> As far as I can tell — based I confess only on reading New
> York Times articles — something similar is happening in
> the US. And in the UK the Conservative party is fracturing.
>
> If one wanted to try to bring about these kinds of change
> one wouldn’t know where to start, would one? Or is it just
> me, unable to figure out where the levers of change are
> hidden?
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Fortunately, we have an election in May, and since the
>> government has already lost their majority, they can't do
>> too much damage, just paralysis. It's an "unreal" government.
>>
>> The interesting phenomenon is that in country electorates
>> and in wealthy "leafy" suburban seats, where respectively
>> the National Party and Liberal Party (both right-wing
>> parties) have held impregnable majorities since time
>> immemorial, Independent candidates are popping up to
>> challenge them and in several cases recently (in State
>> elections and in Federal by-elections) they have toppled
>> them. The extreme right is also fragmenting. It used to
>> be a joke about Trotskyists and Maoists, but nowadays it
>> seems you can't have two right-wingers in the same room
>> without a faction fight and a split. So the political
>> landscape is changing rapidly, and to the better here.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 30/01/2019 12:24 pm, Martin Packer wrote:
>>> That’s odd! In contrast, the British government is
>>> handling Brexit in such a rational and mature manner!
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden
>>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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/20190130/12908bd2/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list