Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:15:56 -0100
Subject: Re: globalisation:


Steve wrote:

> the point of constructing new philosophical, and perhaps also scientific
> categories is that it enables new approaches and new understandings of
> the way
> in which the social functions. Philosophy is, I would suggest,  about
> the
> invention of new concepts which enable us to understand our relationship
> to the
> world.  To produce exploitiation, as you do below,  as a constant which
> by
> implication does not require new concepts raises the questions -  how do
> you
> define and work towards change? Do the old modernist and pre-modern
> concepts
> adequately describe and define the contemporary period? Is the empirical
> understanding of the state of things adequate in the contemporary world?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do we need new concepts of the damage of addictive drugs, tobacco and
alcohol to get rid of them?

Do we need new concepts of schools and teachers to provide proper buildings
and competent instruction?

Do we need a new theory of homeless people to give them jobs and shelter?

Do we need a new theories of theft in order to apprehend thieves?

Your comments I like best are:: "how do you define and work toward change?"
And, "Philosophy is, I would suggest,  about the invention of new concepts
which enable us to understand our relationship to the world?".

The biorevolution, and bio-ethics offer opportunities to understand human
beings in relation to the world, to their selves, and to other selves.

Physicists have demonstrated the ability to convert matter to energy and
energy to matter. Perhaps, in a few years, biologists will convert inanimate
matter to living matter without recourse to ancestors, and become
"creators"..

The future effects of a decade of genetic tampering with other species may
cause serious injury to humans..

Marx was a philosopher, Lenin was a philosopher-activist, Stalin a pragmatic
executioner of  tens of millions of his own.

Lyotard was concerned about justice.  The words of the all the 20th Century
philosophers have not stopped injustice, righted wrongs, restored stolen
properties.

We need acts of justice, not theories of possible societies as instruments
of change. Stop killings, restore properties, practice the uncomplicated
ethics of
relationship that pervade the simplest of societies, the most ordinary
religious congregations.

And when new social arrangements are envisioned and published by
philosophers, they must be sold to populations saturated in capitalist
ideology to bring about peaceful resolution of global problems; otherwise, a
return to the stealth, violence, and murder which were made famous by
Communists and Nazis.

regards,
Hugh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> No they are not. They are short descriptions of dominant economic
> trends.
>
> If you insist that the postmodern is solely discussed and understood
> solely
> through Lyotard you are missing the point. The postmodern is a model, a
> proposal
> that the world can no longer be understood through the modernist
> project.
> Lyotard did not invent or fully describe this - the economic shift that
> the
> phrase 'the postmodernist economy' can be identified as taking place
> from the
> mid-1950s when the numbers of people employed in the western societies
> in
> manufacturing began to decline whilst the productivity rose. The
> definition of
> the economic and social change is however recent...
>
> Of course the individual historical elements that you mention may be
> correct but
> the point of constructing new philosophical, and perhaps also scientific
> categories is that it enables new approaches and new understandings of
> the way
> in which the social functions. Philosophy is, I would suggest,  about
> the
> invention of new concepts which enable us to understand our relationship
> to the
> world.  To produce exploitiation, as you do below,  as a constant which
> by
> implication does not require new concepts raises the questions -  how do
> you
> define and work towards change? Do the old modernist and pre-modern
> concepts
> adequately describe and define the contemporary period? Is the empirical
> understanding of the state of things adequate in the contemporary world?
>
> I like the idea that the media are in some sense 'bearers of truth'...
> an
> entertaining thought.
>
> regards
>
> sdv
>
> hbone wrote:
>
> > Steve and All,
> >
> > Points 1) and 2) are impersonal academic truisims. As to Point 3 -
> > everything after modern is, and will be chronologically, postmodern.
But
> > the "Postmodern Condition" of Lyotard was based on the years preceding
the
> > Soviet collapse.  And that collapese commenced the stampede to corporate
> > domination we call globalization.
> >
> > Globalization is old wine in new bottles, old wolves in new sheepskins.
> > Describing the theft of  lands of indigenous peoples, the killing of
their
> > fighters, the raping, burning, and pillaging, are not speech acts of
> > academics and historians, but daily reports and pictures that enrich the
> > media.
> >
> > The information revolution facilitates globalization in much the same
way
> > naval technology facilitated and maintained colonization in the late
19th
> > and early 20th
> > centuries.
> >
> > regards,
> > Hugh
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > The below 'simply', (simply ye-gods! Hugh i'm doomed...) simply
describes
> > the
> > > normal state of all post-the-invention-of-the-state societies... I'd
> > suggest
> > > that it's neve been different.
> > >
> > > The economic structures of the past thousand years are understandable
in
> > the
> > > following three groups - 1) agriculture and the use of primary raw
> > materials,
> > > worldwide 2) industrial production and the gradual invention of
consumer
> > goods,
> > > based essentially around the western economies and the disgusting
colonial
> > > ideal 3) the post-modern economic system focusing on services, and the
> > > manipulation of information on a global scale. The movement from the
> > second
> > > economic structure to the third is the process we know as the
> > postmodern...
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > > sdv
> > >
> > >
> > > hbone wrote:
> > >
> > > > Globalization exempts Arms, Illegal Drugs and Oil from international
> > > > control, favors secrecy, profits from child labor (read Eliz.
Barrett
> > > > Browning on children in 19th century mines) takes the legacy of
> > colonialism
> > > > to new heights - destroys able-bodied males, sends elders, mothers
and
> > > > children on a Trail of Tears, and,
> > > >
> > > > describes those who protest as as CRAZIES
> > > >
> > > > HB
> > >
> > >