[WS:] I would if you actually said something that makes sense instead of producing long passages without any clear meaning. Frankly, I really do not know what are you trying to argue other than indicating that you do not like what I post. If you do not like it, then do not read it, sheesh.
Wojtek
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [WS:] This conversation, not the first one of this kind I may add,
>> goes more or less like this:
>>
>> Wojtek: Drive carefully, the road is slippery.
>>
>> Alan: Hey what are you talking about, mister chicken little fed on the
>> functionalist fodder? You seem to forget that there are powerful
>> atmospheric forces out there, as environmentalists, climatologists and
>> global warming scientists told us...blah blah blah
>> And all that _you_ can talk about is a slippery road?
>>
>> Wojtek: Whatever. Just stop and let me out.
>>
>> Look man, I'll stop pointing out inconsistencies when they stop showing up
> on my doorstep so often.
> You are right, variations on a theme by this conversation have happened
> before and yet you keep
> sending us material the self-destructs on investigation. Which makes it all
> the less surprising that
> - again - you've tsk tsked me rather than address anything I wrote. I made
> clear why Ravi's position
> is more attractive to me and where yours struck me as problematic and you
> have no come back.
>
> If you wanted to beat back the argument I made, the way to do so was to say
> that Bernal and
> a lot of those others are too deterministic w/r/t technology and that no
> single tool need be used
> either as intended by its makers or have traditional consequences under
> different conditions.
>
> This, then, would show some nuance, would actually deal with what was said,
> and would lead you
> to a different position - one where 1) any particular technology is
> simultaneously problematic given its
> production and of potential alternative utility, 2) some technologies are
> more flush with alternative uses
> and consequences than others and 3) the key is to be able to discern how
> political people might
> come to understand these complexities, operationalize technological
> potential and simultaneously
> reconstruct social relations, the production of landscapes, the technologies
> of production and
> reproduction and the dynamics of technonatural existence... of course, you'd
> then have to have some
> faith in the people, which you have repeatedly stated you don't have.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>