At 10:40 AM 4/24/01 -0700, Paul Dillon wrote:
>Phil,
>
>It's going to take some time to go through your list of quotes
Yes it will. It took some some time for me to write them.
I know which will be quicker.
Like I said, since you've had your mind made up (i.e. you have *known*)
since 1965 on the matter, I hardly expect you to even contemplate changing
your mind. Your style is not to entertain any doubt whatsoever, especially
about your own assertions.
>My dictionary's definitions of ecology
Is that _Webster's_?
>1. a branch of the science concerned with the interelationship of a
>species and its environment;
See the quotes for a reference precisely to that in species-being.
Ecology is, like most of our contemporary disciplines, a branch "broken
off" from natural science during the mid-late nineteenth century and renamed.
>2. the totality or pattern of relationships between a species and its
>environment
That is what the MSs are about.
>The discussion of the pattern of relationships between the human species
>and its environment is absent from everything you quoted, in fact the
>concept of "environment" is absent,
No it isn't. You would have to read the MS's in full to comprehend the term
species-being and its ecological meaning. I don't expect you will do that.
BTW --- Define *environment*.
>Marx considered Nature only insofar as it was involved with human productive
>activity
He has a somewhat different meaning (use) for the term "productive
activity" than you imply. That's why activity theory is called what it is.
Or do you want to have a narrow meaning in this context and allow only CHAT
to have the broader definition?
>(just like all of the other economists), although he (of course)
>reecognized that the human species is part of nature. for example, from
>"The German Ideology":
Marx was a philosopher who critiqued political economy. The discipline of
economics does not exist in 1844 --- was unheard of, unthought of. Marx was
most certainly *not* an economist.
But I'm sure you think the world and all the academic disciplines are the
same now as they were in 1965, and in 1844, and that all the words in the
dictionary are the same, and that always have been, and that they have
always meant the same thing regardless of usage or context --- etc..
>"The field (the water, etc.) can be regarded as a natural instrument of
>production."
Try living without it.
>He simply never theorized that relationship to Nature as anything other than
>a labor process and nothing you quoted illustrates the contrary.
Wrong. Wrong interpretation of labor, too. Well done.
>What's the matter Phil? Bad hair day?
No. I'm tired of your patronising arrogance; your unwillingness to even
consider entertaining doubt about your own position; your pugnacious
attitude to practically everybody you think might be easily bullied; your
dismissiveness of ideas that you clearly don't understand (like the Deborah
Hicks article); and your extremely sloppy, self-serving mode of argument.
But you define "bad hair day", Paul. Perhaps I have misunderstood you and
that the above would constitute "a bad hair day".
As usual, you didn't my question, but changed the subject and became
patronising and insulting --
SO ANSWER ME --- *Where does Marx use the term "nature's storehouse"* ?
There are so many quotes according to you that it shouldn't be too
difficult to find a single one.
Just one example would do.
Could it be that you were wrong?
Heaven forbid.
Convince me, Paul, that you even understand that the way Marx uses words;
that his is a critique of political economy, not "economics" as you
understand it; that it is a critique of what would now be called economism;
that it was part of a much broader, less precise, science than we can even
begin to comprehend from within our present context.
Also, would you be so kind as to send a list of your published works in
your reply. I'd like to read something you've written.
Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:59 PDT