Not at all. I think its perfectly natural; inevitable, in fact.
>Economics, ultimately, is
>consubstantial with the ecosocial system itself. Its complexity is far
>vaster than any economic theory can cope with.
My point exactly. As the current wisdom has it, a simplistic solution (ie
competitiveness, free trade, productivity, and efficiency) will fix
everything. This is exclusive costing and excludes _everything_ except
profit. Thus, it can not last.
>Perhaps the other point that most concerns me is the issue of the
>anthropocentrism of humanist economics. I was being a bit frivolous in some
>of my examples, but I do not believe that all capital is self-amplifying
>technology, or vice versa, for capital is self-amplifying only in respect
>of exchange value, whereas many of the new technologies are self-amplifying
>in respect of use-value.
Excuse my being pedantic: Capital is not equivalent to money, nor is it
equivalent to technology. Capital is the systemic form of money that is set
to work producing surplus value; profit. Therefore, any technology that
takes the form of Capital is necessarily self-amplifying. Any technology is
necessarily self-amplifying otherwise it's not technology.
>We are losing this privileged
>position, not because we are making robots that can dig ditches, but
>because we are making "robots" that can imagine new kinds of cities.
Don't misunderstand my view of labour. However a person spends their life
is their labour, be it making robots, planting cabbages, writing stuff into
a computer, or trying to understand why things are the way they are. It's
all labour.
>Finally, a traditional gripe ... production tells only half the story ...
>this was Baudrillard's starting point, and a good one I think, whether one
>likes where he personally went with it eventually or not. Yes, it is
>important to analyze the play in terms of the actors' labor and lives ...
>but also in terms of the audience's labor and lives.
Adorno is also enlightening here. As I pointed out, the play consumes the
lives of all concerned. In production, the actors and production crew are
consumed. The audience are consumed in watching it. The paradox here is
astounding when one considers a global culture industry in which artifacts
are produced so as to consume their object. The culture industry has, as
its object of production, its audience. It's the only industry that eats
its own customers in maintaining and reproducing itself. Thus, economics
has become entertainment by virtue of its integration with the culture
industry and its associated infrastructure.
>The distinguishing hallmark of
>european modernism (i.e. Renaissance and after) is the gradual replacement
>of the sacredness of the whole with the sanctity of the parts, and then
>only some of the parts ... individual human social actors.
That's the received wisdom. However, many silent histories run parallel. As
far as hegemonic philosophies are concerned, there are no other histories.
Holism has survived undisrupted alongside reductionism throughout western
(and eastern) history, although its prominence has been marginalised by the
ideology. I think that to reject any thought without first seeing what it
has to offer is to narrow one's options by prejudice. Most of the thought
in the main field of play today has been thought of, argued, and settled
many times before.
>Even the great
>political divide between community as highest value and individual as
>highest value mistakenly thinks a community is composed of just the people,
>rather than of EVERYTHING it takes to make a village. Perhaps robots and
>cyborgs will take a less narrow view, as did pre-capitalist cultures.
And Hindu, Taoist, Confucian, Sunni, and Buddhist thinkers.
Of course, these can also be dismissed as narrow theologies. However,
having been strongly affected by the gentle and holistic nature of these
philosophies at one time and another, I'm unwilling to do so. And if I did,
on what basis would I dismiss them? That they have god(s) in them? (ie on
the grounds of religious discrimination). That they are not of my culture?
(ethnocentricity/xenophobia). That they are old ?(ageism/timeism). That are
irrational? (in fact, they aren't). That they are anthropocentric? They
definitely are not.
I guess if thought appeals to me, I must embrace it for what it has to
offer. If it presents itself to me, I must respect it until it offends me.
Phil Graham
Student
Queensland University of Technology