From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:27:34 +0000


John Foster wrote:

> > First, as a former theoretical physics major who keeps up on current
> > advances, let me assure you that chaos theory is quite alive and
> > flourishing, in everything from subatomic phenomena to population trends
>to
> > weather models.
>
>John here:
>This 'theory' no longer exists. It has been replaced by 'complexity'....The
>implication of 'chaos' is complete indetermination, and if chaos dominated
>all systems, then
>
>"Nor could we consider living in a completely random world for there would
>be, as Cambel says, "no rational way of reaching a well-reasoned decision".
>[Gambel]
>
>what you are referring to are 'complex systems' which are niether chaotic
>nor deterministic, they 'birfurcate' or display 'phase' changes over time. 
>I
>too was a physics major. A 'theory of chaos' is an oxymoronic statement. 
>The
>Universe by definition is order; otherwise it would not be 'uni' or a 
>single
>whole.

Chaos theory from the start was never about "complete indetermination". That 
would be, as you say, oxymoronic. It has always been, as you say, about 
patterns in complex systems which are not determinstic. So I'm not sure what 
you mean when you say that chaos theory has been laid to rest, because it 
was never what you are claiming it was in the first place - a theory of 
"complete indetermination".

> >Secondly, you are confusing natural order with the kind of
> > ordering that Heidegger is talking about in his Rhine example. What
> > Heidegger is talking about is the kind of ordering exhibited when the
>Rhine
> > is dammed up into a power plant. That is hardly a natural order.
>
>Anthony,
>
>Human culture is within Nature. Otherwise we would have to call human
>culture 'supernatural' or 'unnatural' but as we all know, humans do not
>invent matter, nor physical law. Synonymous terms for order are 'rational',
>'reasonable', 'determined', 'complex', 'integral', 'successional', 
>'lawful'.
>
>Nature also 'damns' up rivers and streams: retreating ice ages leave 
>glacial
>lakes in the thousands, beavers dam up small streams leaving ponds.

When I said that the ordering that Heidegger speaks of with regard to 
damming of the Rhine was not a natural order, I did not mean the concrete 
ontic "order" that the dam imposes on the Rhine (i.e., the concrete forcing 
of the Rhine by the dam). I meant that in the context of the dam and the 
power plant, the Rhine now appears as ordered by us, as stored and on call 
for us, with no other alternative way of being. That is different from the 
natural "order" to which you are referring.

> > You are confusing capitalistic social relations and our relation with 
>the
> > government, such as payment of taxes and its involuntary enforcement.
>
>Anthony,
>Governments are in fact (substantive reality) forms of capital.

Marx would be aghast.

>In fact
>governments are the only organizations which have the capacity to 'manage'
>an economy. They are able to borrow very large sums of money and stimulate
>growth, consumption, infrastructure development, etc. Government capital
>includes not only 'monetary capital' but as well 'intellectual capital',
>armed forces, land, energy, labour, etc. Taxes are not the only means for
>which governments obtain revenues. Many governments own and manage to some
>degree 'crown corporations', form 'partnerships' with private corporations,
>invest in joing private public research and development projects, et 
>cetera.
>In fact all modern governments are forms of public private partnerships.

Perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of government revenues come from 
taxes.

>You misunderstood what I meant. You have no freedom to not eat. But you do
>have freedom to pay for food. You can grow your own, or you can beg, or you
>can apply for welfare, or you can exchange your own products for food
>without using money or entering directly into a market of any sort. You are
>free therefore to pay taxes.

By the same reasoning, I am also free from corporatism.

> > >The more scarce the cod
> > >become, the less incentive is provided to 'rescue the stocks' because
>there
> > >is always another alternative species to commercially fish.
> >
> > That's not limited to capitalism. Does nature herself provide any
> > "incentive" for a scarce species to survive? Usually not, since it
>probably
> > became scarce in the first place due precisely to the lack of a natural
> > advantage. So if capitalism is "inefficient" with regard to such things,
> > then so is nature herself.
>
>Anthony,
>Some species are referred to as 'redundant' in that they are considered
>unnecessary to a 'functional group' however the integrity of the ecosystem
>is compromised by removing 'redundant' species

And that has happened in nature far more times than it has happened under 
capitalism.

>Capitalism is an
>'anthropocentric' paradigm and thus lacks application in ecological
>sciences.

Your criticism of capitalism above, however, is equally applicable in the 
ecological sciences - specifically, the tendency for species that have 
become scarce to be totally extinguished.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list?  MSN Shopping has lined up some 
good bets!  http://shopping.msn.com



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---