From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 11:44:25 EST
Re Michael E's [8243]: > The prefix "Ge-" in "Gewinnst" signifies a gathering (e.g. as in Gesetz, > which signifies the gathering of all that which is posited, i.e. gesetzt, > as lawful regulation, i.e. law). Human being is essentially desirous, > i.e. it directs itself toward and sets its heart on (Greek: _epithymia_) > what it lacks. The essential lack in human being shapes and leaves its > mark on human being's relation to the world. The Gewinnst is the > historical consummation of desirous human being in which the world > presents itself as the gathering of all that is desirous and as offering > opportunities for acquisition (_ktaesis_). According to Plato (Book > IV of the Politeia), human being itself (the _psychae_), i.e. the > relation of human being to being, in its major part is desirous and > acquisitive. > Such desire is not merely gluttony and profligacy, but above all > _philochraematon_, i.e. the striving to acquire useful things, assets, > wealth, money. Today we call this self-interest. Human being is > self-interested, i.e. motivated, moved by self-interest and at the same > time, on the other hand, it is subject to inertia, i.e. it is > habit-loving, complacent as long its self-interest is satisfied. I call > this the law of social inertia, i.e. the tendency of social life to > persist without change in its customs, habits, routines and ruts unless > disturbed by intervening forces. In capitalist society, groundlessly > shifting value is above all _the_ intervening force that removes the > ground beneath social habit, custom, tradition and routine, thus > forcing social change for both better and worse. The 'starting point' which is selected must be *specific* to the nature of the subject that one is attempting to comprehend in thought. So if we wish to comprehend capitalism, we must select a starting point such as the commodity that allows us to reconstruct in thought the essential character and dynamic tendencies of capitalism as a *specific* mode of production. Yet, your subject matter above is not limited to the subject of capitalism but rather is broadened to what you consider to be the "essential" character of human beings. I think this runs the risk of transplanting concepts appropriate to comprehending capitalism to a 'universal' subject (i.e. the trans-historical comprehension of human beings) and thereby making those concepts appear to be natural and eternal. In any event, I think we know *very* little about the 'essential' character of human beings as it relates to such subjects as culture, habits, customs, routines, etc. And the major reason we can say so little about our 'essential' social character of human beings is precisely because our conceptions of 'who we are' are seen through the kaleidoscope of value that alters our perceptions of all subjects and tends by way of self-justification and rationalization to eternalize and naturalize the specific forms of social relations that are characteristic of capitalism. Consider the concept of 'self-interest'. While this is certainly a concept that has importance for comprehending social behavior under capitalism, there have been many pre-capitalist societies for which _self_ interest was an alien and unrecognized and undeveloped form of behavior. To posit 'self interest' as being essential to the character of human beings is tantamount to eternalizing the concept of value itself by asserting that it is a social relation that human beings are somehow essentially and mystically driving willy-nilly towards. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 00:00:01 EST