Diane,
Firstly, I am with you on caution about "general laws". But it is something
to notice that such "general laws" *do* exist, such as Euclid's Geometry,
formal logic, etc., so we can't really just say "Sorry, I don't smoke". The
point is to understand the material basis of the generality, and thereby to
have a grip on its limitations.
Secondly, it seems to be that to raise a general idea of "eco-bio-social
relations" takes us no further forward - more "general Laws" but merely
putative. When people like Aristotle or Shakespeare or Hegel create
something of such enduring quality, we don't have to take it as "gospel",
so to speak, but neither should we move on to next business very lightly.
To move on, requires "critique".
Thirdly, there is a lot to be said from beginning our effort to understand
the human condition from what is "correct" or "normal" or "true", - from
what is "objectively founded" - rather than from "pathology" or
"defectology" as LSV calls it. It's difficult to find the words for this,
but sure, human beings are biological, sex-driven, imperfect animals, but
we can't really take a step forward in understanding the human condition
unless we start form the fact that human beings *do* manage to create
science and art, build great structures, fly to the moon and so on, ... and
from there understand how the material vehicle of these wonders is such
that we also destroy places, make mistakes, murder each other and so on.
Andy
At 15:17 21/06/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>Andy writes:
>>Diane,
>>For example, one of a number of definitions of dialectics given by Engels
>>in "Anti-Duhring" is: "Dialectics, however, is nothing more than the
>>science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human
>>society and thought."
>
>thanks Andy - i've noticed in your website that you are, well, rather the
>Hegelian scholar, so i admit i feel quite out of my element in this area -
>as for the Engels' definition, i admit i am always leery of defs. that
>suppose
>that are "general laws" for nature, human society, and thought,
>
>and while i understand how dialectics are often reduced to something
>simplistic
>about inner contraditions,
>i think the idea of eco-bio-social relations are more productive, in terms
>of understanding
>the untapped mess of human bodies and emotions, which, in the long run,
>are what push the world to its extremes, n'est pas? lust, greed, hatred,
>conceit, etc. -gotta get a fix on what that's doing to us all...
>
>thanks again
>diane
> **********************************************************************
> :point where everything listens.
>and i slow down, learning how to
>enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
>
>(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
>***********************************************************************
>
>diane celia hodges
>
> university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
>instruction
>==================== ==================== =======================
> university of colorado, denver, school of education
>
>Diane_Hodges@ceo.cudenver.edu
>
>
>
>
**************************************************
* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Consultant,
* and Manager of Videoconferencing Operations
* http://home.mira.net/~andy/
* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)
**************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:39 PDT