I said: "Division of labour: this proposition was more controversial I
admit, but are you rejecting as "sansara" the idea that the class of manual
labourers may one day be a thing of the past?" and Judy said: "Yes,
something like that. I don't think the information society will be more
equitable than industrial society. I certainly agree that history is the
story of certain contradictions being overtaken by others; I don't agree
that this progression connotes more justice -- that it leads inevitably to
a more just society."
Who said anything about today's capitalism being more just? When I say
something, Judy, do you recognise it as having been said by somebody else
(say Habermas?), who went on later in their life to say something else, and
this something else you assume I am leading up to as well. In other words
do you assume a kind of mechanical, deterministic uniform rationality which
I would never subscribe to.
_________________________________
I said: "I find it difficult to express this simple thought without seeming
to say something about "the inevitability of progress", but the whole of
human history is based on contradictions being *overtaken* by others. If we
simply say that the idea of hunger being overcome is "sansara"; are we to
explain all the phenomena of history as simply people trying to fulfill
their basic animal needs, because it's "sansara" to imagine the resolution
of such a contradiction?" and Judy said: "yes. I think this is where we
disagree. If hunger is overcome, the struggle for available goods is not.
But I am speaking from within a capitalist system. Nevertheless, I'm
skeptical that capitalism can be overcome by way of so called rational
decisions...."
That's not disagreeing with me at all Judy. It's disagreeing with someone
you had a discussion with some other time some other place. Where ever have
I esaid anything vaguely like "that capitalism can be overcome by way of so
called rational decisions...."??
_________________________________
Judy, I still think this is just misunderstandings. I mean how can you
counterpose power to rationality? The two are inseparable. "Right is might"
is of course a statement which only remains true within certain cultural
and historical limits, but within those limits it is quite literally a
*law*, "the" law in fact.
Andy
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - |
| All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational |
| solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:01:00 PST