Now for some drivel of my own. I've been wondering how long it will be before economystics come to an appreciation of some of the more worthy claims of eliminative materialism [actually eliminative conceptualism]. Surely Mirowski has done for economics what the Churchland's have done for folk psychology. The question is what kinds of new concepts of and for experience will we create together to make our embeddedness in various ecologies and cultures less toxic, stressful, violent etc. As the "boundary" between pharmacology and nutrition becomes blurrier and we learn more about how to create classes [species] of molecules to cross the blood/brain barrier, we will have already entered a realm of eugenics [post-epigenetically]. This, of course, terrifies the right for it makes a mockery of the idea of human nature in ways they could never control. The idea of designer dynamical regimes of cognition and emotion poses all kinds of legal and philosophical questions that make for many opportunities on the non-right to facilitate a far more effective case against narrowly economic notions of self-interest and self-representation; while at the same time allowing for greater latitude in creating new ways of talking and acting "about" mutualism, solidarity, self-determination and sympathy that exposes the libertarianism of the right for the adolescent pap it is.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 5:42 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Murray raves again: capitalist patriarchy hardwired!
>
>
> Thanks for the additional information. Your point about Murray not
> recognising the implications of some of these developments for traditional
> notions is certainly correct. If philosophers such as Paul Churchland are
> correct we will not even speak about desires, intentions, beliefs, etc. in
> attempting to explain behavior. This is all part of what is derogatorily
> called "folk psychology" For eliminative materialists all these terms will
> go the way of "phlogiston" and "elan vital" etc.
> So we will not be able to speak of our believing in a new paradigm, and
> even poor microecomists will have to rewrite all texts that refer to
> rational "man" trying to maximise desire-satisfaction or
> whatever. Habermas
> texts will be beyond curing and will be relegated to the dustbin. Habermas
> is just too infected with the intention bug. Churchland doesn't tell us
> what we will say instead. This awaits the brave new world desribed in A
> NEUROCOMPUTATIONAL PERSPECTIVE (Cambrige 1989) or NEUROPHILOSOPHY
> (Cambridge 1986). While this sounds quite bizzare what can you expect from
> someone who moved with his wife Patricia from the bracing climate of
> Manitoba at the U of Manitoba to the stupefying heat of southern
> Californian at the U of California San Diego.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> James Farmelant wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:07:12 -0600 Ken Hanly <khanly at mb.sympatico.ca>
> > writes:
> > > Just a few disconnected remarks:
> > >
> > > 1) Was Emma Goldman really a eugenecist? I would think that this is
> > > quite
> > > inconsistent with anarchism. Or was this some sort of voluntary
> > > selection
> > > process?
> >
> > I don't know if Goldman was a eugenicist but certainly a great
> > many people on the left early in the 20th century were including
> > not only the Fabians mentioned by Murray but also Marxists
> > including Leon Trotsky. Also, the American geneticist
> > H.J. Muller (the discoverer of the role of ionizing radiation
> > in causing mutation) was both a Communist and a leading
> > eugencist. He lived for some years in the Soviet Union
> > where attempted to get Stalin to back his eugenics proposals.
> > And in the UK the British geneticist JBS Haldane who was
> > a longtime Communist was also as I recall supportive of
> > eugenics.
> >
> > > 2) Murray's article seems to be singlularly lacking in any hard
> > > scientific
> > > data to support his musings.
> >
> > Indeed! I also like the part where Murray wrote:
> >
> > " "webwork of causal explanation" that brings human behavior within the
> > realm of rigorous investigation previously reserved for physical
> > phenomena. And not just individual behavior. "The explanatory network
> > now touches on the edge of culture itself," in Wilson's words-"
> >
> > One might of thought that Murray would have had more to say about
> > the implications of bringing human behavior into the framework
> > of causal explanation since that would seem to undermine many
> > traditional notions concerning human freedom and responsibility
> > that are dear to conservatives.
> >
> > > 3) Murray fails to note that one of the things that is evident re
> > > control
> > > of qualities of fetuses is the ability to detect whether the fetus
> > > is male
> > > or female. In many cases this leads to the deliberate abortion of
> > > female
> > > fetuses.
> >
> > One might think that an article appearing in National Review he
> > would have noted this and of the alleged moral dillemas.
> > Perhaps, Murray agrees with our Carrol and our Yoshie that
> > abortion is not a moral question as such.
> >
> > > 4) What are alleles?
> >
> > Alleles are the alternative forms of the same gene. Thus
> > the genes for red flowes and white flowers are said to
> > be alleles of each other. In many plant species the gene
> > for plant size occurs in two allelic forms so there is an
> > allele for tallness and one for dwarfness.
> >
> > > 5) Actually I found this an intersting piece in spite of myriad
> > > faults
> > > and misinterpretation of competing positions, such as assuming the
> > > left
> > > thinks that all
> > > inequalities in individuals are the result of social, economic, etc.
> > > factors rather than inherent. But surely this is nonsense. Indeed,
> > > Rawls
> > > system of justice is based upon the assumption that abilities are
> > > inherent
> > > but of course contingent and therefore no person deserves any
> > > special
> > > consideration in distribution just because they happen to have these
> > > abilities.
> >
> > Likewise, Marx's assertion in his *Critique of the Gotha Program*
> > concerning that as communism progresses the operating
> > distribution principle will come to be one of "from each according
> > to his ability to each according to his needs" presupposes that
> > individuals are ddiferent from one another both in terms of
> > abilities and in terms of needs.
> >
> > Jim Farmelant
> >
> > > Cheers, Ken Hanly
> > > Doug Henwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > National Review - January 24, 2000
> > >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
> > Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
> > Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
> > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>
>
>