In a message dated 11/10/02 6:51:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim Devine:
It's quite possible that Pinker is attacking the kind of communism
that's popularly imagined - - the kind of gray homogeneity that
Stalinism tried to impose - - rather than the kind of communism
In a message dated 11/10/02 9:44:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Louis Proyect wrote:
Again, Johnson specifically argues against the view that biology
determines some sort of "eternal nature of things." And Chomsky, as I
read him, isn't hostile to revolution _per se _ as
In a message dated 11/10/02 9:51:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Perelman:Doyle's post was outstanding. ... I was not sure that we could learn much from Pinker.
I agree. Doyles' contribution was great!
It should be remembered that I was not defending Pinker or
In a message dated 11/10/02 11:09:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Louis P. writes: I am not going to take up Jim Devine's misunderstanding of the sociobiology issues posed by Johnson/Pinker since Doyle Saylor has done so with such alacrity. Instead I will focus on the
Doyle's post was outstanding. My first reaction to Jim's question was
agreement. I was not sure that we could learn much from Pinker. I
thought the point of the original post might have been to show how low the
Nation has sunk. Some of what Jim put in his post was unduly contentious.
Lou's
Louis Proyect wrote:
Again, Johnson specifically argues against the view that biology
determines some sort of eternal nature of things. And Chomsky, as I
read him, isn't hostile to revolution _per se _ as much as a certain
kind of revolution, imposed by a political party with monopoly control
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32068] Re: Re: Sociobiology in the Nation Magazine
Michael Perelman:Doyle's post was outstanding. ... I was not sure that we could learn much from Pinker.
I agree. Doyles' contribution was great!
It should be remembered that I was not defending Pinker or biological
I do wish Lou Doug would stop snapping at each other so pointlessly.
Doug is more sophisticated in his backbiting than Louis. amd hence
avoids what amount to claiming it's very dry while standing in a
downpour (as Mark Lou did recently with respect to Doug) but hardly
less childish. Both would
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32063] Re: Sociobiology in the Nation Magazine
Louis P. writes: I am not going to take up Jim Devine's misunderstanding of the sociobiology issues posed by Johnson/Pinker since Doyle Saylor has done so with such alacrity. Instead I will focus on the litany of Stalin-baiting
Devine, James wrote:
The NATION is still one source of information that's outside the mainstream.
And it's opposed every U.S. intervention in memory. It's not Dissent.
Doug
I don't have anything worthy of being called a discursive standard. I only
want to keep things from getting into a flame war. I think it's mostly a
matter of style. Terms like Stalinism casually thrown about can cause
people to overreact.
Doug Henwood wrote:
Since when is a statement of fact
And it's opposed every U.S. intervention in memory. It's not Dissent.
Doug
Quite right. Dissent is prowar while the Nation is anti-antiwar.
Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Please, let's drop this.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:05:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
And it's opposed every U.S. intervention in memory. It's not Dissent.
Doug
Quite right. Dissent is prowar while the Nation is anti-antiwar.
Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list:
Lou, you know that this statement is bound to be interepreted personally.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:05:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
And it's opposed every U.S. intervention in memory. It's not Dissent.
Doug
Quite right. Dissent is prowar while the Nation is anti-antiwar.
Louis
Jim Devine:
I was instead thinking in terms of Marx's principle that workers can only
be truly liberated by the working people themselves, not by some
condescending savior.
But didn't you read his May 1868 letter to Kugelmaier? He was very clear:
Under certain circumstances it is permissible
grr
To me, it comes down to the fundamental question of whether you think
evolution shaped our brains in ways that still affect our behavior. If the
answer is yes, then anyone interested in shaping human society should be
interested in finding out what those ways are.
Psychology is the study
16 matches
Mail list logo
