>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ted Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com>
>
> That aspect is the social ontological form of the premise of "organic
> unity" ("man is largely a creature of circumstances and changes with them").
> In his essay, Keynes points to this as the basis of the distinction
> Marshall drew "between the objects and methods of the mathematical sciences
> and those of the social sciences" (p. 197) and as constituting "the
> profundity of his [Marshall's] insight into the true character of his
> subject in its highest and most useful developments." (p. 188) In support
> of the interpretive claim, he quotes Marshall making a criticism, on this
> basis, of "classical" political economy very similar to Marx's in the
> Grundrisse (<
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm>).
>
> [WS:] Also to the good old methodenstreit (historicism vs. determininsm,)
> no?. It is interesting to see how these old philosophical debates about the
> nature of the world and human knowledge of it never really die - they just
> repeat themselves endlessly. It seems that cognitive psychology can offer
> some insights here - determinism is a cognitive frame adopted by people who
> have low tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity and contingency - they crave
> order and not surprisingly they find it. Historicims is a cognitive frame
> prefered by those who who are at ease with uncertainty and abhor rigidity of
> order (see for example the piece on "motivated cognition" summarizing
> literature in this area http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf<http://terpconnect.umd.edu/%7Ehannahk/bulletin.pdf>.)
> and inf refuge in ambiguity and contingency.
>
> Hence, the adherents of these two approaches are bound to talk past each
> other, because their differfences are not rational but pre-rational: they
> are grounded in their emotional makeup and cannot be solved through
> reasoning or facts.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Sorry, I feel compelled to point something out here, you know, just to send this into a real tailspin. In saying that the differences are not rational but pre-rational and are grounded in the "emotional makeup" of the individual (an extremely ill-defined phrase - and I'll say now why) you implicitly pre-suppose, at least to some extent a sort of "emotional", "individual psychological" or perhaps even "biological" determinism.
If, on the other hand, you argue that "emotional make-ups" are historically determined then they cannot be pre-rational as they must be founded on some sort of linguistic/cultural input. Linguistic/cultural inputs cannot be considered pre-rational as with them the genesis for human rationality (speech, culture, intersubjectivity etc.) begins and gradually develops. So even if from our standpoint some of these cultural traits seem irrational they really cannot be considered so - except from some sort of moralistic enlightenment-value style judgement of rationality which is in itself modeled on a sort of deterministic "low tolerance for uncertainty" style conception of rationality and reason.
First off, a better way to classify these "cognitive types" would be those who fall within the category of people intent on a sort of domination through reason/rationality (the "low tolerance" type) and those who wish to use reason/rationality for creativity (the "at ease with ambiguity" type). Lets say, very provisionally, "controllers" and "constructionists".
Secondly, I think that, although these two "types" certainly exist, one is wrong. Namely, the "controllers". As long as these people are willing to take empirical data into account they can, quite categorically, be proved wrong. How? By pointing to the obvious fact that different cultures have different levels of each type - the US, for example, has a very high ratio of "controllers", while France has a higher ratio of "constructionists". This must mean that the very CONSTRUCTION of these types is cultural and....... that's right: historical.