Greetings Economists, I would agree with this statement myself. On Aug 20, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
I was making a _materialist_ point about the importance of the world-view's social context: what's important is the connection to movements. And, as suggested by what followed in my missive, what kind of movement they're attached to is important, very important.
Doyle, I would state this problem in a different way. It is the knowledge production of the connection process that is being examined here. Councils, and grassroots congregations of all sorts depend upon generating knowledge face-to-face. The large scale techniques of information generation that states depend upon to unify the polity are not based upon the face-to-face method of knowledge 'production'. Mass media is one-to-many and the knowledge produced in the masses neglects social connection processes. Within that, face-to-face- is not automated as is the media. So the one-to-many media drowns out the knowledge connection process. Were the media to produce an automated face-to-face knowledge then the community connection process would prevail. To do that, the information must 'show' how to attach to the whole emotionally. Emotional connection is not created one way. It must reflect knowing a sense of belonging and caring to either the local small group as face-to-face can persently only generate, or on a much larger scale some new sort of political movement with a Marxist 'face'. Religious movement try to bypass the problem by describing verbally 'moral' theories of mind that can generate a safe climate for emotional connection. They have no sense of large scale emotional connection. So the road is open to a Marxist face to connect the whole working class. The technical tools are an interface that can reproduce emotional content interactively. An economic base of the working class where distribution of social connection is based upon equality. We must at once question the word democracy as it is based upon the concept of 'words' in lieu of emotional connection. We can see in mass gatherings that 'moments' of great emotional connection can happen amongst very large groups of people. Based upon say team sports. All that says is the emotion structure is based upon human motion in the real world. Hence a theory of emotional connection in a socialist or Marxist sense, must reflect an integrated word and emotion system of computed connection in continuous daily life. In practice, that would look movie like. Movies are one-to-many as presently constituted, so the content must be manufactured as face-to-face not in the sense of seeing someone on the street, but that each persons history gradually builds up their whole attachment to the whole of society. It is the degree and depth of exchange of information that constitutes face-to-face socialist connection. This looks like intimacy Socialism in that one must include sexuality into Socialism. Because the Socialism of face-to-face is emotional. This point of view immediately transforms the theory of privacy into a Marxist face theory of how best to connect to society. One can readily distinguish this from fascist calls for passion in the difference between one-to-many love of the great leader, and face-to-face content equally distributed throughout society by the Marxist face knowledge of social equality. thanks, Doyle Saylor
