Replying to Rafael -- Now that I have a better idea of your perspective
(Daoism), I see where your emphasizing 'blocking' (of 'the flow') comes
from. However, I don't see that there is anywhere a Daoist economy that
might or might not be blocked. There is now in the world (it seems) only
one economy (unless some Argentinians still have a barter system) -- Global
Capitalism, and this, I believe, needs to be 'blocked' before it completely
destroys our environment(s) and leads us into a brittle senescent situation
(as in the Noosphere) from which we would follow all the great
self-destructive cultures that have previously risen and disappeared in
many parts of the world. I have recently concluded that the mythology of
Global Capitalism is a combination of the Second Law of thermodynamics with
the competitive values implied in neoDarwinian evolutionary theory.
Striving mightily in work and play -- especially in the interest of
overcoming others -- is the apparent canonical activity of our culture (and
of at least some previous cultures as well). The only visible current
opposition to this cultural hegemony from segments of an earlier
ideological nexus, is carried out with a nihilistic abandon that itself
embodies the same two implicit gods -- the Second Law and Natural Selection
(the competitive principle). I am unsure how an "information ethics" fits
into this cauldron, but no doubt it may have a place.
STAN
>Dear Stan,
>
>my insistence on blocking comes indeed from another culture, namely from
>Daoism as I wrote at the end of my posting. I learned Daoism from the
French
>sinologist Francois Jullien who taught me to see Western
>culture/philosophy/economy... "from the outside." Daoism is
'nature
>oriented' (not 'society-oriented' as in Confucianism). Your example of US
>(Western) capitalism is crucial as it points to the apparent 'dissolution'
>of all fixed (also moral?) values into exchange value as seen clearly by
>Karl Marx. This seems to me not obvious if you consider the insistence of
>the US administration on 'core' Western values to be spread and defended
by
>all means. The paradox is that what allows this permanent (fixed) movement
>of capital are some blocking values like, say, copyright or private
property
>or... This causes strange blocking processes in other parts of the world.
It
>is a kind of economic cancer. Daoism makes a difference between ruling a
>process and regulating it (as we cannot 'rule' nature). Consequently we
get
>less a morality/law and an ethical thinking that stresses 'non action'
('wu
>wei') i.e. adapting ourselves (and our selves, our societies, our
>economies...) to the non-goal oriented processes of nature and less that
it
>looses its 'neurotic' (again a metaphor (?) from natural processes)
>fixations. Of course I am not claiming for any kind of 'natural law' (as
>basis of ethics) as we know it from Western thinking. My question
concerning
>capitalism concerns the difference between the view of things as capable
of
>being exchanged (their exchange value) and the presupposed (!) view of
>things that inverses this: things present themselves to us before we start
>the (subjective or anthropocentric) value process. Both processes are
>circulating ones (money being the medium that allows things to circulate
on
>the basis of what we think they are worth of). But this thinking as
>'e-valuating' presupposes that we 'value' them on a more basical way, that
>we appreciate their 'dignity' (a concept used by Kant only (!) for our
view
>on our selves; Daoism uses a broader concept of dignity, I believe). What
is
>economy? usually we conceive it, as you write, only as the (human) process
>of 'e-valuating' (i.e. of 'extracting' value from things according to our
>needs/desires). But there is another view of things that is no less
economic
>(in the original sense of the word 'oikos' = the place/house where we
live)
>that allows us to take the (ethical) perspective of sharing. This does not
>mean necessarily the abolition of the first perspective (as envisioned by
>Marx for instance) but the possibility of taking a distance (a
non-blocking
>or fixed relation) to the 'usual' concept of economy. More on this
>(Aristotle, A. Smith, K. Marx) at
>http://www.webcom.com/artefact/untpltcl/exchvljs.html
>Rafael
>
>Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
>Hochschule der Medien (HdM) University of Applied Sciences, Wolframstr.
32,
>70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
>E-Mail: rafael@capurro.de; capurro@hdm-stuttgart.de
>Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182
>Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
>Homepage: www.capurro.de
>Homepage ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de
>Homepage IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stanley N. Salthe" <ssalthe@binghamton.edu>
>To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 11:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [Fis] ON INFORMATION ETHICS
>
>
>>I note something salient in Rafael's posting -- his insistence upon
>> returning to the notion of informational constraint as it relates to
>> "blocking development". As someone who senses that
development around the
>> world has gotten altogether 'out of hand', I wonder why he feels that
this
>> is so crucial. Perhaps it is just that the view from different
societies
>> is different. My view is from a center of development -- the US,
where
>> all
>> values have become subsumed into exchange value by the persons who
'count'
>> -- that is, those who became wealthy through development, and the
>> government they support, mutually. In societies that are already
highy
>> 'developed' -- the 'West' -- there is only one trajectory to follow
upon
>> further development -- the road into senescence, a situation poised
for
>> destruction by any major perturbation. Obviouly we cannot reverse
>> development, but we could try to restrain it so that our cultural
maturity
>> might last longer than it likely would once the system has become
>> senescent.
>>
>> STAN
>>
>> STAN
>>
>>
>>>Dear Pedro and all,
>>>
>>>I very much agree with Pedro's views of what ethics is about. We
could
>>>also
>>>say that ethics is an informational science as far as it analizes
morality
>>>i.e. the rules of society(ies) considering them under the
conditions of
>>>their historical development and future possibilities. The key
point is
>>>then
>>>how far such rules block societal development which means at the
same time
>>>that the "ideas"
>>>or "goals" must/can be reconsidered and
"re-imaginized." This is the deep
>>>connection
>>>between ethics with drama, poetry, music...
>>>At the other end there is the connection of ethics with natural
sciences
>>>as
>>>far as they are also
>>>dynamic or informational sciences that take into consideration the
"basic
>>>(natural) laws" behind human action.
>>>In this case not only arts but also natural sciences are
"technologies of
>>>ethics" (Lauri's dictum). Michel Foucault distinguishes
between
>>>- technologies of producing (material) things (engineering/natural
>>>sciences)
>>>- technologies of signs (semiotics and IT=cybersemiotics)
>>>- technologies of power (law)
>>>and technologies of the self (which include for instance writing,
self
>>>analysis, meditation, etc.)
>>>We can analyze at the micro-level (that corresponds to the level
of the
>>>cell) the laws/forces blocking societal development. We can also
analize
>>>as
>>>how for instance IT is an ex/inclusive technology i.e. how far it
blocks
>>>development and which are the symptons (sings) of this blocking.
This is a
>>>view that relates also technology to nature as far as the blocking
>>>processes
>>>are related to the material/informational ground(s) of human
(technical)
>>>action. It is more of the kind of a daoist ethics (and less
Confucian!)
>>>(For
>>>this intercultural view of information ethics see my (in German)
>>>http://www.capurro.de/parrhesia.html
>>>cheers
>>>Rafael
>>>
>>>Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
>>>Hochschule der Medien (HdM) University of Applied Sciences,
Wolframstr.
>>>32,
>>>70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>>>Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
>>>E-Mail: rafael@capurro.de; capurro@hdm-stuttgart.de
>>>Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182
>>>Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
>>>Homepage: www.capurro.de
>>>Homepage ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de
>>>Homepage IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Pedro Marijuan" <marijuan@unizar.es>
>>>To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:01 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] ON INFORMATION ETHICS
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Should we keep discussing the Prolegomena on info &
ethics or should we
>>>> jump into the concrete questions about the contemporary
revolution of
>>>> info
>>>> technologies? Apologies for being focused again in the
former, hopefully
>>>> it will help to produce more interesting answers about the
latter...
>>>>
>>>> If ethics is related to a collective dimension of an
individual's
>>>> "fitness" (within a complex society), and if we
suppose that fitness
>>>> itself is amenable to formal/informational treatments (or
will be in a
>>>> foreseeable future), it seems difficult not to conclude on
some form of
>>>> informational reductionism on ethics. However, I feel in a
strong
>>>> disagreement with that apparent reductionist conclusion
derived from my
>>>> own responses to the opening text. So, let me backtrack.
>>>>
>>>> In a complex society, any individual's action may be subject
to scrutiny
>>>> on very different grounds: say as immoral, unprofitable
(non-economic),
>>>> unjust, unethical... The "moral" ground is usually
understood as very
>>>> close to the core of human condition, related to human nature
itself
>>>> (that
>>>> "zoe" pointed out by Rafael), and then understood
slightly different
>>>> from
>>>> the classical view in philosophy. Religions have been the
traditional
>>>> providers of the moral sense in almost every society: eg, the
very clear
>>>> ruling in the Ten Commandments of Christianity. Going to the
"economic"
>>>> ground, it is highly regimented and abstract, wrapped in
strict
>>>> accounting
>>>> procedures (curiously related to the historical origins of
numbers,
>>>> algebra, symmetry...) and purports a high level of formal
abstraction,
>>>> notwithstanding its apparent immediateness. Then the
"legal system"
>>>> appears as another grid, formally structured too, which
attempts to make
>>>> a
>>>> procedural "map" of almost any human action,
particularly in the
>>>> situations amenable to conflict.
>>>>
>>>> Ethics would be different. Ethics implies the realization
that none of
>>>> the
>>>> previous grids to map human action has fulfilled its mission
globally,
>>>> in
>>>> achieving a "total" vision of the social behavior
of the person. Some
>>>> concrete actions of a person may be moral, profitable, and
legal---but
>>>> they may not be ethical after all. In bioethics (or in info
ethics) we
>>>> might point out very concrete, contemporary cases.
>>>>
>>>> Ethics means that the formal schemes of other disciplinary
realms have
>>>> failed (either economic, legal, or moral---well,
"moral", as least in
>>>> the
>>>> common sense I have taken it, representing the proto-group
acceptable
>>>> behavior for collective survival, is not necessarily formal
after all,
>>>> but
>>>> quite often it has little to say relating a complex social
setting).
>>>> Overall those regimentations of behavior would have failed to
provide
>>>> sufficient convergence or "closure" on the social
interests. Actually
>>>> any
>>>> human community becomes too complicated and variable to yield
its
>>>> "secrets" to any bureaucratic, economic, legal,
scientific, etc.
>>>> formulae --am following J.C. Scott, 1998.
>>>>
>>>> Ethics, then, would explore the "irreducible"
residues of the common
>>>> good
>>>> which have not been detected by those other formal grids.
Ethics
>>>> explores
>>>> particularly the new phenomena, the new techs, the new
problems, the new
>>>> achievements, as they impinge on the social fabric... those
very events
>>>> that will be a matter of legislation and economic ruling in a
pretty
>>>> near
>>>> future. But, how could ethics achieve its focus on the
unfocussed
>>>> matters?
>>>> How would social collectives dramatize those new strange,
unruled,
>>>> conflicting events? Drama, poetry, music... would they be a
good social
>>>> tool in order to feel the unknown, to visualize it, to
anticipate it? I
>>>> think so.
>>>>
>>>> We are lead again to that discussion on "meaning and
art" ... where I
>>>> subscribe a good portion of Lauri's dictum weeks ago:
"arts are
>>>> technologies of ethics". Maybe it could be said
differently, but the
>>>> exploration direction looks intriguing.
>>>>
>>>> best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Pedro
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> fis mailing list
>>>> fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>fis mailing list
>>>fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fis mailing list
>> fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sun Mar 19 21:37:53 2006
