yo! whaddup rob?
>While I have you in pedagogical mode -
sounds kinky!
>would you say that the big
>difference between physicalist and Marxian materialism is that the former's
>defining premise holds that there is only matter and its motions. In the
>latter, matter is conceived as always already in relationship with all
>other relations, and it is therefore the (logically prior) realm of
>relationships that constitutes the basis of the 'materialist conception of
>history'.
sounds good to me. i think that's what Ted is getting at when i points out that neuroscience has affinities with the phsyicalist conception of neuroscience than with historical materialism.
<...>
>6) Realism does not explain and can not resolve the problem of terrorism,
>for the relationship between terrorism and the nation state is assumed, and
>assumed to be one of identity - hence the discursive contortions we see,
i am not sure what you're talking about here. i don't see why realism in IR yields such an archaic view of current crises?
i confess a bias, but not a hard and fast one, as i work for one of the people considered an 'expert' (for lack of a better word) in the field of terrorism and anti-terrorism studies. he is certainly not a leftist by any means--although he doesn't mind when i tell him i'm a commie!--but in no way does he or any of the other wankers i read on this topic make such an identification. quite simply, from the perspective of anti/terrorism studies, terrorism is NOT identified with the nation-state at all. if realists in IR studies do, they are waaaaaaaay out there!
kelley