Eubulides wrote: > We do know how and why society produces and allocates resources.
Well, I am afraid *we* do not know how and why societies does all that. To me, knowledge is necessarily embodied in what we produce, our wealth (productive and consumptive), including in this product (broadly viewed) our social structures (yes, we produce them, though not very deliberately). So knowledge (like "technology") seems to be just another name for the productive force of our labor. It is all fragmented. We do not know but in varying degrees. Now, we will truly *know* how and why we produce and allocate resources in X way when we appropriate these processes, when the forces that unleash them become truly ours. And this appropriation is to some large extent a political process: the unity of the producers. Once we get there, the inadequacy of the "ecological" and "political" terms you allude (as opposed to inadequacy in "moral" terms, which you view as a counterproductive way of framing the very same inadequacy) will disappear. To paraphrase Richard Feyman, what we do not own (what we cannot reproduce consciously), we cannot know, we cannot truly understand. If we can produce and allocate knowingly, this knowledge will be embedded in the very structures through which we produce and allocate our productive powers. But, based on what you wrote in your reply, it seems to me that a lot of our (non-confrontational) argument is about where we come from rather than where we are going. So let's keep converging. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
