Who Does No Work, Shall Not Eat
CB: I've got to back you up , Ted. Capitalism's mode of destruction has out stripped its mode of production. Its analytical powers or ability to break things down has outgrown its ability to synthesize. This is awesome but not optimum for the human race. "Progressive" means optimum for the human race.
Ian wrote contemptuously:
> Oh, that's it; use internal relations as a stand in for ineffability and
> don't define 'see' or 'fragmentation' or explain how, within capitalist
> relations of production, we can't define the *full-ness* of rationality yet
> are still capable of understanding atomic processes well enough to create
> technologies that can wipe just about every terrestrial species off the
> surface of various geological structures [I'll leave aside the difficulties
> associated with taking care of deep sea critters].. Of course we don't need
> to define progressive in any way whatsoever, it's epistemologico-ontological
> status safe from the dynamics of contending definitions.
Ted: This is a very meaningful way of putting it. There are rational grounds for worry in the fact that Dr. Strangelove (insightful name that) type minds that are to some significant degree destructive, hostile, sadistic and paranoid are "capable of understanding atomic processes well enough to create technologies that can wipe just about every terrestrial species off the surface of various geological structures" I've explained before what I mean by "progressive". An implication is that wiping "just about every terrestial species off the surface of various geological structures" wouldn't be "progressive."