[PEN-L:7438] Re: Nominalism and the Biosphere: RE: Re: RE: Harvey, Leibniz & Marx

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:15 PM 5/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Contradiction is polysemous and I am more than comfortable with it's usage
>in all things human.

I am too. In a recent message, I quoted Levins & Lewontin, who see
"contradictions" in nature. I see those contradictions as qualitatively
different from those in society, and so would prefer a different word.
However, I see arguments about the meanings of words to be useless most of
the time. So L&L can use their word as long as they define it clearly and
apply it consistently, etc.

>However, I think that while capitalism and socialism have contradictions, we
>perpetuate a self  misunderstanding of ourselves as organic beings when we
>state we are in conflict with nature.  It is the thought that makes it so. A
>genuine Pygmalion effect if you will.  The "fall" never happened......

I can't agree with the view that "the thought" "makes it so." Capitalism
and bureaucratic socialism both have dealt with their _internal_
contradictions by dumping costs on nonhuman nature, coming into conflict
with the latter. Because humanity/nature is a unified system, this
represents a contradiction within a totality.

Now, this contradiction doesn't _have to_ exist; it can be transcended. But
that requires more than a change of thought. It requires a political movement.

>We take our fear of death out on the planet.  That being said, we have been
>theorizing the world around us for 10,000 years or so with symbols,
>metaphors, metonyms, similes etc, all the while trying to get at a "causal"
>model that will give us everything we created god for; omniscience,
>omnipotence....control.

I don't see why metaphors (etc.) need to be used to control nonhuman
nature. Can't they be used to guide us on how to live with nonhuman nature?

>When we accept incompleteness(and the open-ended dynamics of thought) and
>let go of the desire to control the planet we can start to seriously inquire
>into how to think in terms of complementarity, mutuality, adaptability and
>evolvability.  ...

I don't see why the acceptance of incompleteness is needed. Are you saying
that modesty of goals, the avoidance of hubris, is needed?

> Clearly we have a long way to go in learning how to name that
>which does not name itself; what previous generations have called
>Reality/Being.

I don't understand this.

>Exploring the complementarities and tensions between ecology (as theory and
>practice) and economics (as theory and policy) will be as great a challenge
>for us as the physicists' attempts to reconcile Relativity and Quantum
>theory.  It will cost gobs of money and generate millions of woman/man hours
>of discussion and debate.

true.

>We know all too well what institutions and the theories/ideologies which
>they are "embodiments" of, that are the rightful objects of our frustration.
>A young institution (the WTO), which is only five years old is already
>struggling to expand it's niche; we have the genuine opportunity to continue
>the efforts of activists and scholars from around the world to decreate
[?] it's
>expansionary tendency (the Geneva meeting was a great example of what we're
>going to need to continue).  If we let it grow to become the size of the
>Pentagon or the IRS our children will never forgive us.

Since the WTO in some ways reflects capitalism's expansionist drive, we've
got bigger "game" than the WTO to "bag."

(Sorry about the hunting metaphor. In real hunting, I believe that the
hunter must eat his or her prey and use as many of its parts as possible as
clothing, etc. to avoid waste. Obviously, the situation of the prey in
terms of being a member of an endangered species or one that is
overbreeding is important.)

>We waste precious
>time lambasting one another when we should be motivating one another to
>create political/economic ideas that would help bring about the ecological
>democracy (with social justice in the drivers' seat) more than a few on this
>list desire....

I don't know what "ecological democracy" is. I agree that less lambasting
is needed. However, serious discussion often involves conflict.

Further, I agree we need new ideas, but unfortunately new and better ideas
are only necessary and not sufficient. The powers of the powers that be
need to be combatted.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground Troops make things worse! US/NATO out
of Serbia now!