[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system?
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Tue Jan 29 19:12:48 PST 2019
It is succeeding in shifting vast amounts of wealth into the
pockets of an incredibly small minority world-wide (For whom
the bell tolls?), but it has lost the *consensus* which
enabled it to be a *hegemonic *ideology and social policy.
Obviously, Vietnam is not in the same place. Every country
is having different crises, but I was referencing the crisis
affecting capital on a world scale. It is manifested
differently from country-to-country.
andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 30/01/2019 2:01 pm, Helena Worthen wrote:
> So what does “no longer working” refer to?
>
> In Vietnam, it’s mass wildcat strikes that make investors
> wary on the one hand and on the other pushes the
> government to re-think their labor code to encourage
> collective bargaining.
>
> In the US, one of the issues for the LA teachers was
> privatization of public schools (charter schools).The
> outcome of the strike was an agreement that the District
> would support legislation at the state level to put a cap
> on charter schools.
>
> Step by step.
>
> H
>
> Helena Worthen
> helenaworthen@gmail.com <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>> On Jan 30, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 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/20190130/7dd90ed0/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list