> Peter,
>
> If you have a fairly decent grasp of Edelmann's theorys, sketching them out
> further for the list would be a valuable contribution. We (the marxist
> tradition) have bungled too often by putting all our eggs into this or that
> scientific theory which then dissolved, but still I feel "neural darwinism"
> comes closer than any other psychological/neurological theory I know of to
> lending support to Marx's critique not only of the 'old' materialism but also
> of the bourgeois "abstract -- isolated -- individual." Someone quoted
> Skinner's "Consciousness is a social product," but that is too mechanical --
> i.e., it puts the machine (society) on one hand, the isolated invidual on the
> other as the "product." As far as I can grasp them, Edelmann's conceptions
> allow for consciousness existing only within social relations, but not
> separating it as an isolated billiard ball.
>
> Carrol
>
Since Carrol has said that he will not defend the above, I'll just step up
and take a few free potshots...
I find this little slip both revealing and disturbing.
The idea that we should espouse scientific theories based on whether they lend support to an ideology, rather than their conformity to facts, expanatory usefulness, and conceptual simplicity is one that I find repellant.
That the suggestion to push this theory on the list was to have been secret, so as to have it appear that "We (the marxist tradition)" was not behind the effort, illustrates the sort of political methods that I find reprehensible.
Finally, the above leads me to wonder just how much of this surreptitious manipulation the list is actually subject to, and toward what end.
My recently declining respect for the left has slid down another big notch. It's getting harder and harder for me to "left identify".
--
bill
"... a movement to realize the conceivable better state of the world must deny itself the advantages of secret methods and tactical insincerities. It must leave that to its adversaries. We must declare our end plainly from the outset and risk no misunderstandings of our procedure." H.G. Wells