isn't saying "can't be put to use" a statement of exclusion? isn't this the sign of yr thought's incommensurability with (what i'm saying is) marxism's?
it is a "pathological extreme" but no more so than darwinism's argument that ALL evolution is by natural selection: it's the shaping claim of a discipline -- nor is it true i don't think that it's an intrinsically unusable claim, cz it leads to two kinds of activity... i. show how apparently tricky cases (bloods vs crips; the evolution of the eye) fit the theory ii. hunting for examples which overthrow the theory
the first world war took marxists by huge surprise: they had to explain why do the working classes of different nations accepted the call to kill one another when their interests wd clearly be to band together internationally and take arms against their economic overlords -- explanations that arose included lenin's theory of imperialism; gramsci's theory of hegemony
neither of these are useless (or even pathologically extreme) theories: they are both useful and useable tools for exploring how influence might work, and that's what they do (they also form the core structuring faiths of political movements and parties: and maybe give those movements and parties momentum against the consensus or unconscious drift of the rest of politics; this difference of direction may be of social value not bcz the faith is correct or well justified, but bcz the consensus is causing or obscuring unexplored harms -- the political friction being where those harms manifest visibly, or palpably, or whatever)
i like pragmatism's resistance to generalisation -- i think it's good for it to be resisted -- but without a pathology (the pathology of generaiising over-strongly) to resist it in turn, isn't the danger that you explain any particular situation's dynamics purely in terms of local conditions and drives, and don't see (bcz you decline to look for) wider pressures? if you accept that maybe not all evolution is by natural selection -- that there's maybe some other mechanism you don't know about yet -- doesn't it put you in a situation where you can just out problem cases on one side cz you don;t have the whatever to work on them yet (ok admittedly this doesn't happen in science cz it's not the culture, but it DOES happen in politics...) (you don't have the VOTES to work on them yet)
(viz assume bloods vs crips is a prblem that needs dealing with: it can be defused how? is it a problem of local negotiation, local punitive action, of stuff that can be enacted within the community it directly affects? or is the entire community under an outside stress which means whatever is done within it, a version of bloods vs crips will once more arise) (if it's a bit abstract thinking like this abt bloods vs crips, then think of of criminal warlordism eg in haiti? are there outside forces which cause it? (where yes, the chain of causality has to be explored...)
no subject
it is a "pathological extreme" but no more so than darwinism's argument that ALL evolution is by natural selection: it's the shaping claim of a discipline -- nor is it true i don't think that it's an intrinsically unusable claim, cz it leads to two kinds of activity...
i. show how apparently tricky cases (bloods vs crips; the evolution of the eye) fit the theory
ii. hunting for examples which overthrow the theory
the first world war took marxists by huge surprise: they had to explain why do the working classes of different nations accepted the call to kill one another when their interests wd clearly be to band together internationally and take arms against their economic overlords -- explanations that arose included lenin's theory of imperialism; gramsci's theory of hegemony
neither of these are useless (or even pathologically extreme) theories: they are both useful and useable tools for exploring how influence might work, and that's what they do (they also form the core structuring faiths of political movements and parties: and maybe give those movements and parties momentum against the consensus or unconscious drift of the rest of politics; this difference of direction may be of social value not bcz the faith is correct or well justified, but bcz the consensus is causing or obscuring unexplored harms -- the political friction being where those harms manifest visibly, or palpably, or whatever)
i like pragmatism's resistance to generalisation -- i think it's good for it to be resisted -- but without a pathology (the pathology of generaiising over-strongly) to resist it in turn, isn't the danger that you explain any particular situation's dynamics purely in terms of local conditions and drives, and don't see (bcz you decline to look for) wider pressures? if you accept that maybe not all evolution is by natural selection -- that there's maybe some other mechanism you don't know about yet -- doesn't it put you in a situation where you can just out problem cases on one side cz you don;t have the whatever to work on them yet (ok admittedly this doesn't happen in science cz it's not the culture, but it DOES happen in politics...) (you don't have the VOTES to work on them yet)
(viz assume bloods vs crips is a prblem that needs dealing with: it can be defused how? is it a problem of local negotiation, local punitive action, of stuff that can be enacted within the community it directly affects? or is the entire community under an outside stress which means whatever is done within it, a version of bloods vs crips will once more arise) (if it's a bit abstract thinking like this abt bloods vs crips, then think of of criminal warlordism eg in haiti? are there outside forces which cause it? (where yes, the chain of causality has to be explored...)