Message 02115 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01324 Message: 67/104 L10 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: New invisible hand? (was: Re: [ox-en] Re: herrschaft)



* Ref.: »New invisible hand? (was: Re: [ox-en] Re: herrschaft)«
*        Stefan Merten 	(2004-02-04  17:41)

Hi Stefan & Co!

My alternative hidden hand side-steps this argument; it is a
self-adjusting system, or maybe an emergent system, with
actions dictated neither by the needs of the market, nor by a
Stalin-like planner. But, as you point out, it also means
that the way the overall system behaves is not under
conscious control.

And it needs not be. That is what the trick is with
self-organizational entities: The individual entity does not
need to know anything about the super-structure to be useful in
it.

If this is true, I'll eat a broom! ;-)

It seems to me that you are going a bit too far here.

Sorry for becoming philosophical again, but I think this is quite
important. My point is, an "individual entity" is only part of
a system if it does "know" something about that so-called
super-structure!  E.g., All parts of the solar system need to
"know" about gravitation. Otherwise they could not rotate around
the sun etc. If the behaviour of the "individual entities" did
not reflect the essential basis of the system (in this case:
gravitation), you could hardly speak about a system, or about a
"self-organizing entity", could you?

Knowledge is nothing but a specific form of reflection. And what
is the 'essential basis' of (human) society?  I'm quite convinced
that you cannot understand society as a specific instance of
"self-organizing entity" on the basis of gravitation,
electro-magnetic, strong or weak interaction or whatever. The
'essential basis' of society -- IMHO and as the name suggests --
is social interaction.  And I also think that consciousness is an
essential characteristic of human sociality, of human interaction
or social interaction.

Similarly I think a society can be thought of: As long as
everything works ok why should someone bother about it at all?

Where is emancipation in this idea?!

If you don't deal with your life in a conscious manner --"bother
about it", as you call it--, you can hardly call yourself a
human, can you?  ('Conscious manner' is meant in the broadest
possible way here: including mythical, religious, superstitious,
scientific and all other specifically human forms of reflection.)

And a "bother"-free, or a consciousness-free society would hardly
be a human society, would it? That would remind me more of
Big-Brother-Country, where Big Brother is not part of the game
but is something like the Spirit that used to be "moving over the
surface of the water" before it said "let there be light" and so
on ;-) (Funnily, paradise was indeed based on the prohibition of
"bothering" -- but the humans refused to obey, thusly getting
themselves expelled from your ideal "bother"-free "society"...)

Stefan, excuse me for the polemical touch in this -- I'm just
trying to be funny -- and to make a point at the same time ;-)

To summarize, I favour a "self-adjusting" system that includes
(Aufheben!) the essential characteristics of humanity, including
"knowledge", consciousness etc. I am not trying to argue against
the contempt for central control and the like.

Greetings,
Casi.

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01324 Message: 67/104 L10 [In index]
Message 02115 [Homepage] [Navigation]