At 10:54 PM 4/20/01 -0400, Eric:
>In a message dated 4/20/2001 4:55:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
>eva.ekeblad@goteborg.utfors.se writes:
>
>
>>What is subjective about the private ownership of land or about inheritance
>>laws?
>
>
>Subjective is defined as: characteristic of or belonging to reality as
>perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL -- compare
>OBJECTIVE 1b
It depends on who is doing the defining. In my understanding, the terms
(subjective-objective) stand in _simul natura_ relation to one another, as
in the perceived difference between active<=>passive//agentive<=>Goal-like
parts of a process. Every subject is an object; every subjective activity
also has its objective character when perceived of in relation to something
else.
'the contemporary view of theory stems from an artificial separation of
methodology from philosophy'. Contemporary pressures to separate and
clarify the relationship between their theoretical and methodological
approaches is, in the first place, 'a matter of convenience, but it is
amazing how far convenience can lure ... From this separation flows a
tendency to regard facts as separate from values, objects as independent of
subjects, "things" as possessing an identity independent of human
perception and action, and the "private" process of discovery as separate
from the "public" process of communicating the result. (David Harvey,
_Social Justice and the City_, pp. 11-12).
>If one perceives an abstract concept such as land ownership or whether
>entitlement is due as proof for unavailable resources,
I'm not sure what this means. But --- Land ownership and inheritance laws
have abstract (ideal) and subjective (agentive, active) aspects (ie.
somebody *does* it, i.e. someone *owns* land; someone else [legally]
acknowledges that), as well as real (concrete, material) and objective
aspects, as well as objective, subjective, ideal and real effects. Which is
to say: land ownership and inheritance laws exists as material,
historically inculcated practices and, whether as ideas or practices, have
specific, objective social effects, ramifications etc.
The right to own land privately has been rescinded many times and in many
cultures throughout history, and most legislatively organised spaces today
are a mixture of publicly- and privately-owned "parts". Privately-owned
land is objective, its end is objective, its beginnings are objective. Seen
from the other side of the relation (from the perspective that someone
*does* it and must do it for it to exist) the existence of private land is
subjective, its end is subjective, its beginnings are subjective.
>then do tell me Eva;
>what resources are part of your everyday life?
This would be a long list for anybody I would imagine, especially if you
consider that all our everyday resources are historical, cultural,
ecological, and (more generally) social. It is literally an unanswerable
question in terms of the answer being anywhere near exhaustive.
Regards,
Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:54 PDT