Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:19:40 -0500 From: derekh-AT-yorku.ca (Derek Hrynyshyn) Subject: money/capital - agency - experiential significance - free will I generally agree with Michael's reponse to Hans E. on money and capital. The precise problem I would point to is Hans's use of terms like "instinct" and "impulse" when used to describe the fetishism of money. These words imply that there is something natural about this desire for quantitative increase, as a natural product of 'money' and I think this really represents an abstraction of 'money' from the context of capitalism. These desires are part of the ideological functioning of the capitalist social order and should be understood as such. ****** Ian asked: Does anyone know Bhaskar's position on human agency? Does he make a sharp and qualitative distinction between human agency and other types of mechanisms? And the answer is in Recaliming Reality, ch.6 where he expounds a "transformational model of social action", complete with diagrams. ********* On the Insignificant Experiences topic, I reject Doug's claim that I think the distinction between significant and insignificant experience is a matter of theory-relevance. Thus, relative to astrology, even astral signs would be significant -- to astrologers. because I want some theory-independent criteria of significance. Some things are important, and others not, period. Astrology is wrong precisely because it attributes importance to an insignficant thing like astrological sign. These signs are inconsequential - they have no consequences (except that astrologers decide to act on them, which can be (roughly) explained through other mechanisms, I would argue) and the inconsequential is insignificant, no matter what kind of science or epistemology you are using. ****** David responded onthe subject of free will and asks what a determined will would be. I believe that the ideas of autonomous free will are so integral to capitalist ideology that we have pretty much lost any ability to comprehend an alternative to it. I was recently at a traditional Ukranian Orthodox funeral service in which the minister asked for the forgiveness of the transgressions of the deceased, both "voluntary and involuntary". This made me think - what the heck is the point of forgiving someone for what they did involuntary? There must be some idea in these pre-capitalist ideological structures like the Orthodox religion, of will as belonging to the person but not really being free. Under such a conception, we have a will and it causes us to do things, but it is really part of a larger divine plan that is not under our control - but it is our will nonetheless. It sounds contradictory to us creatures of the liberal age in which we take the freedom of the will for granted, and it surely has something to do with the way in which the obligations of the feudal serf was mixed with the omnipotence of God, but it must have made sense to people back then. Derek Hrynyshyn, Graduate Program Phone: 650-2276 in Political Science, derekh-AT-yorku.ca York University Ross S609 Communications Officer, CUPE local 3903 cupe3903-AT-yorku.ca * Fax: 736-5480 * Office: 736 - 5154 http://www.yorku.ca/org/cupe/cupe3903.htm
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005