[Below is a re-working of a section from a paper Speculative capital and the ecosystem of globalization. I've been thinking that forms of capital are key to understanding changes in the human-nature relationship in the capitalist era.]
Forms of capital and the human-nature relationship
Marx explained that Capital is not just forms that wealth takes, but that ultimately it is a social relationship. Money, or wealth, becomes capital when it is applied to its own self-expansion -- money used to make more money if you will. But in that process of self-expansion, capital describes a way that people are organized in the process of production. The social means of production are owned privately, through control of the production process one class accumulates the surplus labor of another class, this accumulated "dead labor" in turn is invested in expanded circuits of production. In the process, capital expands and the power and wealth of the owning class grows along with it, allowing capital, or the class that expresses it, to exert even more control over the production process, and to appropriate more surplus labor.
While capital is ultimately a social relationship, this relationship is expressed in the forms the dead labor takes: money capital, productive capital, industrial capital, merchant capital, and so on, depending on the role that it plays at different moments or stations of the circuit of capital. Likewise, capital takes different and new forms over time, as the means of production develop, the circuits of capital expand, the capitalist system matures, as the credit system deepens and becomes more complex, etc. For example, the forms that capital could take in the early days of mercantilism or agricultural capitalism are different than the forms that capital can take in the age of steam power or in the age of electronics.
The economy describes the overall interaction of humans and the environment in production and reproduction processes. The environment is the beginning-and-end of production, the original source of material and wealth, the economy is just a process of rearranging the environment. [One could cite Marx here I think, but is it necessary?] If we think of forms of capital as structures through which economic activity takes place, it follows that they are the means through which we interact with the environment -- the forms of capital also signify aspects of the human-nature relationship. Capital structures imply a particular relationship to the world.
Forms of capital -- as structures through which people interact with the environment -- I suppose these are really a subset of forms of property. Property relations also describe a particular relationship to the world. Once things become titled (in the legal sense, or deeded), i.e. owned, they also become "things", so to does the world, the environment. [Here Marx's lead-in to the discussion of the fetishization of commodities in Capital Vol I, Chapter I is relevant.] I think there are a number of writings that celebrate e.g. native American relationships and other original communist forms of social organization and (non)property to the environment.
Whether these things are held in common, shared, or bought and sold, or bought and sold on credit, or bought and sold -- not the things themselves, but as abstract pieces or shares, or not the shares, but the movement in price of the shares, and so on -- these qualities or degrees of relationship are mediated by social relations, and in the case of private ownership, at least in the "modern era", say from 1750 or so on, by capital structures. A worker, a family, even an enterprise interacts with and is integrated into the economy through capital forms which in turn will affect production or laboring, and through that the environment. Alienation to the economy (and the environment) is shaped by these capital forms.
For example, to take a current example with the so-called "housing bubble", a mortgage, which presumes a relatively developed financial system, allows a worker to acquire a home with "just" the down payment, but also requires the ongoing acquisition of cash to pay principle and interest; binding the worker into cash economy, i.e. commodity exchange. That mortgage can then be pooled with mortgages of other homeowner, and sold in the financial markets, attracting more capital for lending, reducing the cost of money (interest). This securitization allows mortgages to be extended to more borrowers, which feeds a housing boom (and allows more risk in economy). The expanded credit expands the market for new home construction, leading to urban sprawl, and with limited or non-existent mass transit, to the need for more cars and highways and fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gases; also habitat loss, which contributes to species loss; also consumption of forest products and minerals; and so on. There is no getting away from the environment.
Grain futures provide another example. They function in a similar way to credit, allowing an expansion of economy. But as Cronon (1991) points out, the grain futures requires at the same time an anonymization of nature, where the individual wheat plant tended by the individual farmer disappears as individual and is merged with the grain from other farms into carloads of a class of wheat. The capital structures facilitate a different degree of alienation from agriculture and nature. Cronon's analysis shows how this change is reflection of necessary changes in the production/transportation process if the economy is to take advantage of what rail technology makes possible.
So capital structures can be an entry point for understanding the changing relationship to the environment. And inasmuch as the development of capital structures moves in a stage-wise fashion, in dialectical tandem with the development of the means of production and especially the means of communication and finance, they become another entry point for understanding how particular environmental forms or structures or relationships emerge at different stages of capitalism.
Next: speculative capital and the ecosystem of globalization
jd
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Slippage
Two items in the April 23, 2007 Wall Street Journal that, taken together, suggest the United States' slippage as unipolar world power:
First, the price of West Texas crude oil -- long a standard for gauging the price of oil, has drifted further and further from the price of other, similar, grades of crude oil, leading some "market participants", quoted by reporter Ann Davis, to call West Texas crude "a broken benchmark". As a standard, traders used contracts for the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) to hedge against overall fluctuations in oil prices. If that price no longer reflects world prices (e.g., oil of comparable grade from the North Sea, or Middle East oil), then its value as a hedging device wanes. Part of the price disparity is due to temporary factors that have created a glut of oil at the delivery point used to measure the oil price -- a terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma -- which, over time, should be corrected, and the price come closer to the overall world price. But Middle East production is some 20 times West Texas production (per the article, "West Texas Oil Falters in Its Role As a Benchmark"), and so the West Texas oil trading contracts do have the same meaning as a proposed new benchmark for Middle East oil, to be traded on the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (as opposed to the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, where the WTI contracts are traded). It should be noted that NYMEX is part of the joint venture that has formed the Dubai exchange.
Second, the article "An Unrelated Story: U.S., Global Stock Markets Increasingly Take Separate Paths" describes how the U.S. stock indexes have been trailing important stock indexes in other markets. The Dow Jones World Index is up 8.5% this year, while the S&P 500 is up "only" 3.9%. This de-coupling would suggest that the U.S. economy is no longer the big dog, with the other national economies following in tandem. Instead, these other national economies are beginning to show their independence. Half of the world's stock market capitalization -- the value of the shares traded on those markets -- is overseas now, according to one fund manager quoted in the article.
Perhaps a better indicator is the value of the U.S. dollar, which according to the April 28 WSJ, is at its lowest point ever against the Euro. Compared with the Federal Reserves Trade-Weighted Index, the dollar is at its lowest point since it created the index in 1973 (although not as low as it was in 2004 if inflation is taken into account).
jd
First, the price of West Texas crude oil -- long a standard for gauging the price of oil, has drifted further and further from the price of other, similar, grades of crude oil, leading some "market participants", quoted by reporter Ann Davis, to call West Texas crude "a broken benchmark". As a standard, traders used contracts for the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) to hedge against overall fluctuations in oil prices. If that price no longer reflects world prices (e.g., oil of comparable grade from the North Sea, or Middle East oil), then its value as a hedging device wanes. Part of the price disparity is due to temporary factors that have created a glut of oil at the delivery point used to measure the oil price -- a terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma -- which, over time, should be corrected, and the price come closer to the overall world price. But Middle East production is some 20 times West Texas production (per the article, "West Texas Oil Falters in Its Role As a Benchmark"), and so the West Texas oil trading contracts do have the same meaning as a proposed new benchmark for Middle East oil, to be traded on the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (as opposed to the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, where the WTI contracts are traded). It should be noted that NYMEX is part of the joint venture that has formed the Dubai exchange.
Second, the article "An Unrelated Story: U.S., Global Stock Markets Increasingly Take Separate Paths" describes how the U.S. stock indexes have been trailing important stock indexes in other markets. The Dow Jones World Index is up 8.5% this year, while the S&P 500 is up "only" 3.9%. This de-coupling would suggest that the U.S. economy is no longer the big dog, with the other national economies following in tandem. Instead, these other national economies are beginning to show their independence. Half of the world's stock market capitalization -- the value of the shares traded on those markets -- is overseas now, according to one fund manager quoted in the article.
Perhaps a better indicator is the value of the U.S. dollar, which according to the April 28 WSJ, is at its lowest point ever against the Euro. Compared with the Federal Reserves Trade-Weighted Index, the dollar is at its lowest point since it created the index in 1973 (although not as low as it was in 2004 if inflation is taken into account).
jd
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Biofuels
George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist, has written a powerful indictment of the disasters that occur when environmental "solutions" are forced through the sieve of our capitalist economy. His March 27 column, "If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuel" catalogs the destruction that is taking place as venture capitalists, hedge funds, agribusiness, and their paid lap-dogs in government push fuels derived from plants as the solution to what? Not global warming, although ethanol and bio-diesel may have a net lighter impact (although Monbiot cites some figures that suggest that some biofuels will contribute more to climate change than our friend oil). No, the driving force is our heavy consumption of (or as George Bush says, "addiction to") oil.
The economic and environmental dislocation following the investment in plant-based fuels has occurred rapidly, and highlights the interconnections within the economy. Nothing can happen without disturbing other things. The overall price of energy -- in particular oil -- rises, making other fuel sources more economical. As ethanol plants sprout across the Midwest, the demand for corn rises, causing corn prices to nearly double. But now, the ethanol distilleries are competing with food producers, so the price of corn-based foods -- everything from tortillas to pork to soda pop -- is affected. In the U.S., the grocery price increases may be diffused for a while, but in countries like Mexico, where tortillas are a food staple, people have rioted in protest of the increases.
Palm trees are another source of biofuel, where the oil is used to make bio-diesel. The demand for palm oil has resulted in the clearing of forests and replacement with palm tree plantations, to such an extent that it is now considered the biggest source of deforestation in southeast Asia. Monbiot cites figures that say that palm oil plantations are destroying 0.7 percent of the Malaysian rainforest each year; he cites a UN report that says that 98 percent of the Indonesian rainforest will be gone or degraded by 2022 -- fifteen years from now. The rainforest in Brazil is also under pressure from fuel plantations. In the U.S., farmers now have an incentive to bring fallow or marginal land (marginal in agricultural terms) into production -- i.e., habitat destruction.
(This is another example of the "ecosystem of globalization" -- the transformation of wild or natural or diversely complex habitats into managed plantations. We still have an environment, but instead of the rich mix of plants and animals in, say, the Malaysian rainforest, we will have rows and rows of monoculture.)
The solution, voiced from many quarters, is not finding new sources of fuel, but finding ways to reduce demand, through more efficient vehicles, conservation, a shift in consciousness. Biofuels represent a great capitalism solution to the peak oil problem -- at first glance everyone has their cake and can eat it too -- but it is quickly becoming apparent that biofuels are no magic fix. If anything, they are clarifying the limits of being able to solve the environmental crises within the context of capitalism.
jd
The economic and environmental dislocation following the investment in plant-based fuels has occurred rapidly, and highlights the interconnections within the economy. Nothing can happen without disturbing other things. The overall price of energy -- in particular oil -- rises, making other fuel sources more economical. As ethanol plants sprout across the Midwest, the demand for corn rises, causing corn prices to nearly double. But now, the ethanol distilleries are competing with food producers, so the price of corn-based foods -- everything from tortillas to pork to soda pop -- is affected. In the U.S., the grocery price increases may be diffused for a while, but in countries like Mexico, where tortillas are a food staple, people have rioted in protest of the increases.
Palm trees are another source of biofuel, where the oil is used to make bio-diesel. The demand for palm oil has resulted in the clearing of forests and replacement with palm tree plantations, to such an extent that it is now considered the biggest source of deforestation in southeast Asia. Monbiot cites figures that say that palm oil plantations are destroying 0.7 percent of the Malaysian rainforest each year; he cites a UN report that says that 98 percent of the Indonesian rainforest will be gone or degraded by 2022 -- fifteen years from now. The rainforest in Brazil is also under pressure from fuel plantations. In the U.S., farmers now have an incentive to bring fallow or marginal land (marginal in agricultural terms) into production -- i.e., habitat destruction.
(This is another example of the "ecosystem of globalization" -- the transformation of wild or natural or diversely complex habitats into managed plantations. We still have an environment, but instead of the rich mix of plants and animals in, say, the Malaysian rainforest, we will have rows and rows of monoculture.)
The solution, voiced from many quarters, is not finding new sources of fuel, but finding ways to reduce demand, through more efficient vehicles, conservation, a shift in consciousness. Biofuels represent a great capitalism solution to the peak oil problem -- at first glance everyone has their cake and can eat it too -- but it is quickly becoming apparent that biofuels are no magic fix. If anything, they are clarifying the limits of being able to solve the environmental crises within the context of capitalism.
jd
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Environmental discourse
I have this sense about environmental discourse that treats capitalism as antagonistic to the environment, as "the enemy of nature". Well the "environment" and "nature" are two very different things, so it would be a mistake for me to conflate the two of them. "Nature" is a particular way of relating to the physical and living world around us, the environment. But the two are often conflated along with other conceptions of the world around us, like "wilderness".
One can certainly make a case of capitalism as "the enemy of nature". If, say, "nature" means something we participate in, respect, see as living, as part of us, etc. -- really, a spiritual conception of the world around us -- then capitalism is antithetical. Capitalism is an economic system based on the transformation of the world into quantities, economic units, in Marxist terms, Values. A world reduced to raw material and commodities, inputs and outputs, is the opposite of a world with which we can converse, embrace, experience in a qualitative way.
But this spiritual opposition I suspect is not what is generally meant by capitalism as the enemy of nature. The implication is that capitalism will destroy not just nature, but the environment. And so the philosophical or spiritual leap to seeing the world as "nature" isn't made. The "enemy of nature" will destroy world we live in, and end life. "Nature", or the environment is left as part of a narrative that we get trapped in -- I'm thinking of Carolyn Merchant's Reinventing Eden here. In the ascensionist narrative, we are coming out of a wilderness and creating a new Eden -- this I suppose might be the capitalist narrative, where Eden is associated with the maximization of commodity production and profit. The declensionist narrative sees us falling still, from a primeval Paradise into an industrial wasteland, and we must act to stop the fall and restore Eden. Or something like that. Merchant saw these narratives as trapping us into narrow binaries and linear plots, false and/or constrained choices as it were. She proposes the alternative of complexity and dynamism, of multiple voices and partnership with the environment -- a way of reaching nature?
Well I have digressed. I think the environmental movement runs a risk in posing capitalism as the enemy of the environment. because as capitalism adjusts itself, as it surely will, to ensure the continued conditions of its reproduction, it will create a split within the environmental movement, or exacerbate the one perhaps already there. As a class, capitalists will take the necessary steps to ensure that accommodations are made to preserve capitalism. This may mean the preservation of some habitats, not because they have intrinsic value, but because they are repositories of unique genetic sequences that can be harvested or perhaps because they can be commodified as sites of eco-tourism or perhaps they are recognized as necessary carbon sinks to allow carbon-based production elsewhere. Or polar bears as a species deserve to be protected, not because they are majestic creatures, but because they have some economic value as a public relations symbol or cartoon characters or stuff-toy. And then the movement is faced with a real Sophie's Choice of which part of the planet to abandon to extinction.
Capitalism is not the enemy of the environment, but it is the enemy of nature. Where nature is something to struggle for, to achieve and embrace.
-- jd
One can certainly make a case of capitalism as "the enemy of nature". If, say, "nature" means something we participate in, respect, see as living, as part of us, etc. -- really, a spiritual conception of the world around us -- then capitalism is antithetical. Capitalism is an economic system based on the transformation of the world into quantities, economic units, in Marxist terms, Values. A world reduced to raw material and commodities, inputs and outputs, is the opposite of a world with which we can converse, embrace, experience in a qualitative way.
But this spiritual opposition I suspect is not what is generally meant by capitalism as the enemy of nature. The implication is that capitalism will destroy not just nature, but the environment. And so the philosophical or spiritual leap to seeing the world as "nature" isn't made. The "enemy of nature" will destroy world we live in, and end life. "Nature", or the environment is left as part of a narrative that we get trapped in -- I'm thinking of Carolyn Merchant's Reinventing Eden here. In the ascensionist narrative, we are coming out of a wilderness and creating a new Eden -- this I suppose might be the capitalist narrative, where Eden is associated with the maximization of commodity production and profit. The declensionist narrative sees us falling still, from a primeval Paradise into an industrial wasteland, and we must act to stop the fall and restore Eden. Or something like that. Merchant saw these narratives as trapping us into narrow binaries and linear plots, false and/or constrained choices as it were. She proposes the alternative of complexity and dynamism, of multiple voices and partnership with the environment -- a way of reaching nature?
Well I have digressed. I think the environmental movement runs a risk in posing capitalism as the enemy of the environment. because as capitalism adjusts itself, as it surely will, to ensure the continued conditions of its reproduction, it will create a split within the environmental movement, or exacerbate the one perhaps already there. As a class, capitalists will take the necessary steps to ensure that accommodations are made to preserve capitalism. This may mean the preservation of some habitats, not because they have intrinsic value, but because they are repositories of unique genetic sequences that can be harvested or perhaps because they can be commodified as sites of eco-tourism or perhaps they are recognized as necessary carbon sinks to allow carbon-based production elsewhere. Or polar bears as a species deserve to be protected, not because they are majestic creatures, but because they have some economic value as a public relations symbol or cartoon characters or stuff-toy. And then the movement is faced with a real Sophie's Choice of which part of the planet to abandon to extinction.
Capitalism is not the enemy of the environment, but it is the enemy of nature. Where nature is something to struggle for, to achieve and embrace.
-- jd
Monday, March 12, 2007
Monday, March 05, 2007
Green capitalism
"Green capitalism" describes a kind of shift in capitalist thinking, a somewhat forward-thinking by a sector of capitalists about the limits of environmental destruction. The environment is a part of the conditions of production. Production, and hence the expropriation of surplus value cannot take place without an environment that can provide the wherewithal for production to take place, whether that is clean air, clean water, dry land, or relatively stable weather.
The recent push by some major corporations to manage the solutions to climate change indicates this broader awareness. The rhetoric is couched in terms of "saving the planet", but I think deep-down the apparent change of heart has more to do with the problem of continuing to make money under changing objective conditions.
Well it's more complicated than that certainly -- the real possibility of some sort of social rebellion around environmental destruction, could force political changes before the full force of, say, climate change, hits business. So business is attempting to get ahead of the wave, and manage it somehow. Hence a renewed interest in Kyoto-like non-solutions like cap-and-trade markets and interest in renewable fuels like ethanol that is creating havoc within agricultural markets. Anything but, heaven forbid, consider cutting consumption.
Anyway, there is a section of the environmental movement more than happy to sidle up next to this green wing of capitalism -- they never saw anything inherent in capitalism that eats away and destroys a healthy relationship with nature (and by this I mean one that sees nature as more than a machine to be tinkered with).
This accommodation came to light last week in the deal struck by the Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund) and National Resources Defense Council that blessed the buyout of the controversial utility TXU by the firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. The two environmental groups are highlighting how they extracted support from the utility for climate change legislation and to cancel planned coal-fired power plants. As David Wessel wrote in a March 1 Wall Street Journal column, it's a "business-friendly, market-loving strain of environmentalism". But Saturday's WSJ reported that the two organizations had been "snookered" by the utility, that the so-called concessions had been planned anyway, and that big loopholes in the terms of the agreement would allow the utility to proceed with the scrapped coal-fired plants anyway. (See "Environmentalist Groups Feud Over Terms of the TXU Buyout", p. A1
As Saturday's article notes, "[I]t can be difficult to determine who is empowered to speak for the environmental movement." But as last week's deal indicates, the idea of an "environmental movement" is a fuzzy, ill-formed one at best. As green capitalism matures, which it is quickly doing, the "movement" as such will need to come to terms, in a much deeper way than has been necessary up till now, on how it wants to relate to capitalism, what capitalism needs, and what environmentalists want. What kind of world.
jd
The recent push by some major corporations to manage the solutions to climate change indicates this broader awareness. The rhetoric is couched in terms of "saving the planet", but I think deep-down the apparent change of heart has more to do with the problem of continuing to make money under changing objective conditions.
Well it's more complicated than that certainly -- the real possibility of some sort of social rebellion around environmental destruction, could force political changes before the full force of, say, climate change, hits business. So business is attempting to get ahead of the wave, and manage it somehow. Hence a renewed interest in Kyoto-like non-solutions like cap-and-trade markets and interest in renewable fuels like ethanol that is creating havoc within agricultural markets. Anything but, heaven forbid, consider cutting consumption.
Anyway, there is a section of the environmental movement more than happy to sidle up next to this green wing of capitalism -- they never saw anything inherent in capitalism that eats away and destroys a healthy relationship with nature (and by this I mean one that sees nature as more than a machine to be tinkered with).
This accommodation came to light last week in the deal struck by the Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund) and National Resources Defense Council that blessed the buyout of the controversial utility TXU by the firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. The two environmental groups are highlighting how they extracted support from the utility for climate change legislation and to cancel planned coal-fired power plants. As David Wessel wrote in a March 1 Wall Street Journal column, it's a "business-friendly, market-loving strain of environmentalism". But Saturday's WSJ reported that the two organizations had been "snookered" by the utility, that the so-called concessions had been planned anyway, and that big loopholes in the terms of the agreement would allow the utility to proceed with the scrapped coal-fired plants anyway. (See "Environmentalist Groups Feud Over Terms of the TXU Buyout", p. A1
As Saturday's article notes, "[I]t can be difficult to determine who is empowered to speak for the environmental movement." But as last week's deal indicates, the idea of an "environmental movement" is a fuzzy, ill-formed one at best. As green capitalism matures, which it is quickly doing, the "movement" as such will need to come to terms, in a much deeper way than has been necessary up till now, on how it wants to relate to capitalism, what capitalism needs, and what environmentalists want. What kind of world.
jd
Saturday, February 24, 2007
KFC
Here's some YouTube video of the frolicking rats at the Greenwich Village KFC:
Frolicking rat video
Why am I fascinated by this? Maybe it is the element of insurgent nature, the way that nature asserts itself, always ready to reclaim the city. And there it is on display, through the plate glass window. Not a zoo of captured and subdued exotica, but wily rodent mardi gras, in full view.
jd
Frolicking rat video
Why am I fascinated by this? Maybe it is the element of insurgent nature, the way that nature asserts itself, always ready to reclaim the city. And there it is on display, through the plate glass window. Not a zoo of captured and subdued exotica, but wily rodent mardi gras, in full view.
jd
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Evolution of consciousness bits
Some evolution of consciousness bits:
-- Silly me. I finished a fairly long project, Globalization, Romanticism and Owen Barfield, which, among other things, is a look at globalization in the context of Owen Barfield's work on the evolution of consciousness. And thinking oh what novelty, only to find out that over the past thirty years plus there has been quite a lot of work done on the evolution of consciousness -- Jean Gebser, Erich Neumann, Ken Wilber, William Irwin Thompson are some key names. From what I have read since then, I don't think Gebser, Neumann, Wilber or Thompson brought/bring the same perspective or feel for the topic that Barfield did.
-- William Irwin Thompson has sympathetic instructions on how to read Rudolf Steiner in his book Coming Into Being (St. Martin's Press, 1996). Literalism is a kind of death. Steiner repeatedly emphasized the difficulty of putting his experiences into images and words in order to communicate them. One must of course not make the mistake of then taking Thompson's translation of Steiner's evolution ideas too literally either. The main point I think is that Steiner's material must be approached not rigidly and literally but flexibly and with an open mind -- poetically, imaginatively.
-- I did a paper/article several months back on using Goethe's scientific approach (shaped via an exercise that Rudolf Steiner described) to investigate human artifacts (paper is Talking with history: Using Goethe's scientific approach with human artifacts). Mainly I was fascinated with all of the connections that come together in a simple artifact, and at so many levels -- physical, social, economic, historical, creative, which all taken together amounts to a spiritual experience.
And now I am reading Gary Lachman's book A Secret History of Consciousness (Lindisfarne Books, 2003), a very readable overview of work by different people (including Steiner, Barfield and Gebser). Lachman describes an experience that P. D. Ouspensky had:
Silly me.
-- Jean Gebser, in his The Ever-Present Origin (Ohio University Press, 1985), breaks the evolution of consciousness into three broad periods: before perspective ("unperspectival"), perspective or "perspectival", and post-perspective or "aperspectival", a period we are entering now (and have been for a several decades). So the discovery of perspective in the period from the 13th to the 16th centuries, which also corresponds to the beginning of Scientific Revolution, and a general shift in the way that people, in Europe at least, viewed the world. The discovery of space, the space between things, the separation of things and in particular the viewer and the viewed were all part of this shift.
The word "network", in the Oxford English Dictionary, has one of its earliest usages in connection to the making of lace. I am not sure what to make of that. Seeing networks required stepping-back from the world, abstracting it into nodes, "sectoring" it as Gebser might say. But I also think there is something new, perhaps "aperspectival" (not sure -- haven't gotten that far in the book!) in thinking about networks today. Perhaps the new thing happens when the network isn't see as just a map of nodes and links, but as a process of interactions.
-- Night Watch by Sergei Lukyanenko is a good read. I don't know that the basic good vs. evil thing holds up well when he tries to put it in the context of world history, and there is a certain endlessness to a struggle that seems to go nowhere. But I did like the basic thread that runs through it that those idle thoughts, the under-the-breath curses when cut-off or done wrong in the parking lot are actual, real curses that affect both the recipient and the world. A cautionary tale to promote right-thinking...
jd
-- Silly me. I finished a fairly long project, Globalization, Romanticism and Owen Barfield, which, among other things, is a look at globalization in the context of Owen Barfield's work on the evolution of consciousness. And thinking oh what novelty, only to find out that over the past thirty years plus there has been quite a lot of work done on the evolution of consciousness -- Jean Gebser, Erich Neumann, Ken Wilber, William Irwin Thompson are some key names. From what I have read since then, I don't think Gebser, Neumann, Wilber or Thompson brought/bring the same perspective or feel for the topic that Barfield did.
-- William Irwin Thompson has sympathetic instructions on how to read Rudolf Steiner in his book Coming Into Being (St. Martin's Press, 1996). Literalism is a kind of death. Steiner repeatedly emphasized the difficulty of putting his experiences into images and words in order to communicate them. One must of course not make the mistake of then taking Thompson's translation of Steiner's evolution ideas too literally either. The main point I think is that Steiner's material must be approached not rigidly and literally but flexibly and with an open mind -- poetically, imaginatively.
-- I did a paper/article several months back on using Goethe's scientific approach (shaped via an exercise that Rudolf Steiner described) to investigate human artifacts (paper is Talking with history: Using Goethe's scientific approach with human artifacts). Mainly I was fascinated with all of the connections that come together in a simple artifact, and at so many levels -- physical, social, economic, historical, creative, which all taken together amounts to a spiritual experience.
And now I am reading Gary Lachman's book A Secret History of Consciousness (Lindisfarne Books, 2003), a very readable overview of work by different people (including Steiner, Barfield and Gebser). Lachman describes an experience that P. D. Ouspensky had:
During his experiments, he took a break on his sofa, smoking a cigarette. Flicking the ash, he looked with wonder at his ashtray. Suddenly he saw this humble object as the center of a vast radiating web of meanings and relations. In a rush of recognition, everything to do with the ashtray flooded his consciousness. Who had made it, its use the material from which it was made, the history of tobacco, the whole long development of humankind's ability to mold its environment. Fire, flame, and the match he had just struck: each seemed a hitherto unopened window on the world, through which he now looked with wonder and amazement. (p 44)
Silly me.
-- Jean Gebser, in his The Ever-Present Origin (Ohio University Press, 1985), breaks the evolution of consciousness into three broad periods: before perspective ("unperspectival"), perspective or "perspectival", and post-perspective or "aperspectival", a period we are entering now (and have been for a several decades). So the discovery of perspective in the period from the 13th to the 16th centuries, which also corresponds to the beginning of Scientific Revolution, and a general shift in the way that people, in Europe at least, viewed the world. The discovery of space, the space between things, the separation of things and in particular the viewer and the viewed were all part of this shift.
It was around this time that lace was first introduced; and here we see that even the fabric could no longer serve merely as a surface, but had to be broken open, as it were, to reveal the visibility of the background or substratum. (p 22)
The word "network", in the Oxford English Dictionary, has one of its earliest usages in connection to the making of lace. I am not sure what to make of that. Seeing networks required stepping-back from the world, abstracting it into nodes, "sectoring" it as Gebser might say. But I also think there is something new, perhaps "aperspectival" (not sure -- haven't gotten that far in the book!) in thinking about networks today. Perhaps the new thing happens when the network isn't see as just a map of nodes and links, but as a process of interactions.
-- Night Watch by Sergei Lukyanenko is a good read. I don't know that the basic good vs. evil thing holds up well when he tries to put it in the context of world history, and there is a certain endlessness to a struggle that seems to go nowhere. But I did like the basic thread that runs through it that those idle thoughts, the under-the-breath curses when cut-off or done wrong in the parking lot are actual, real curses that affect both the recipient and the world. A cautionary tale to promote right-thinking...
jd
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Globalization, Romanticism, and Owen Barfield
Here’s a link (below) to a paper that I did that looks at the idea of a corresponding consciousness globalization to globalization. This consciousness that has been maturing for three hundred years under the general term "modernization," and the process has not matured uncontested. The Romantic Movement of the late 18th and early 19th centuries provided an alternative consciousness with the possibility of alternative futures. Romanticism as an alternative consciousness can be seen not just as a historically specific event, but as an unfinished project. The work of Owen Barfield, the English philosopher, writer and poet, provides a framework for examining Romanticism, globalization and consciousness in the broader context of the evolution of consciousness. Within Barfield's structure, Romanticism constitutes a practical vehicle for evolving beyond the consciousness of globalization.
Globalization, Romanticism, and Owen Barfield
jd
Globalization, Romanticism, and Owen Barfield
jd
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Idea for a political organism
First the name. The tentative name is "Romantic Union". Well it is tentative. The mission of the organism is to restore the unity of the world, of subject and object.
We are trying to restore the Union: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Or "A long long time ago, our species brought forth on this planet, a new consciousness, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that consciousness, or any consciousness so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." (???)
Our field of activity is both in the mind, and in the world. Does that sort of violate our mission by assuming the duality? How about -- to people who see the world as a duality of subject and object, interior and exterior, it will appear like we have two sides to our task? Hmmm. Already this is getting complicated. But we bugger on...
Imagination is the first tool to be taken up in this task. We will use exact sensorial imagination to develop this tool. Goethe shows the way in this respect. Trust in this imagination, our intuitive powers will guide our work. Imagination can break the mind-forged manacles.
Our imagination reveals us as part of nature in profoundly deep ways that we have forgotten; we participate through our directed imagination in the ongoing creation, the eternally becoming of the world. The world, the planet is allowed to be whole again.
In economics we are communist: from each according to ability (no shirkers!); to each according to need. Difficult to imagine anything except food when one is starving or freezing or sick. Need to get to work on that one, right away.
Imagination can help us break the chains of property, but we might get some extra resistance on that one.
In structure, we are not network -- too schematic. We are not organization -- too mechanical. An organism though -- that's the thing. Interconnected, dynamic, in motion, alive. Various organs conscious of what needs to be done because we are part of the organism, it's in the -- can't really say DNA, too mechanical -- the soul? the urphänomen? Tied together by a shared vision, program, and understanding of mission. But a remarkable degree of independence and at the same time, cohesion and coherence.
We recognize that we live in a mighty web of relationships with other people, through the work and play we do and the things we enjoy. We reject the fetish of things as things, we embrace them as products of fellow human beings striving, laboring, creating. We share that with each other; we are mutually dependent on each other. So likewise we reject the notion of intellectual "property". We should have gotten that out of our system in the romper room. No one ever had an idea by him or herself.
We embrace science, but don't stop there. Science can be deepened, extended, made whole. We embrace a new empiricism that allows us to grow new organs of perception.
We embrace technology, but don't allow it to turn us into machines. We know what it is and what it isn't and aren't fooled.
We embrace sensuousness, feeling, creativity, active play. We know if we attend to nature -- we study a flower, we stare at clouds, we feel raindrops -- an awareness or knowing arises; there is something real in that. We embrace the felt change in consciousness when we read a poem, and know there is something real to that. We know, or have known, or want to know, what it means to love and be in love and be loved. We recognize the reality of that. We embrace that reality.
What else? Maybe a good closing line, like, "We have nothing to lose but our chains. We have a world to win." I don't know -- what do you think?
We are trying to restore the Union: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Or "A long long time ago, our species brought forth on this planet, a new consciousness, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that consciousness, or any consciousness so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." (???)
Our field of activity is both in the mind, and in the world. Does that sort of violate our mission by assuming the duality? How about -- to people who see the world as a duality of subject and object, interior and exterior, it will appear like we have two sides to our task? Hmmm. Already this is getting complicated. But we bugger on...
Imagination is the first tool to be taken up in this task. We will use exact sensorial imagination to develop this tool. Goethe shows the way in this respect. Trust in this imagination, our intuitive powers will guide our work. Imagination can break the mind-forged manacles.
Our imagination reveals us as part of nature in profoundly deep ways that we have forgotten; we participate through our directed imagination in the ongoing creation, the eternally becoming of the world. The world, the planet is allowed to be whole again.
In economics we are communist: from each according to ability (no shirkers!); to each according to need. Difficult to imagine anything except food when one is starving or freezing or sick. Need to get to work on that one, right away.
Imagination can help us break the chains of property, but we might get some extra resistance on that one.
In structure, we are not network -- too schematic. We are not organization -- too mechanical. An organism though -- that's the thing. Interconnected, dynamic, in motion, alive. Various organs conscious of what needs to be done because we are part of the organism, it's in the -- can't really say DNA, too mechanical -- the soul? the urphänomen? Tied together by a shared vision, program, and understanding of mission. But a remarkable degree of independence and at the same time, cohesion and coherence.
We recognize that we live in a mighty web of relationships with other people, through the work and play we do and the things we enjoy. We reject the fetish of things as things, we embrace them as products of fellow human beings striving, laboring, creating. We share that with each other; we are mutually dependent on each other. So likewise we reject the notion of intellectual "property". We should have gotten that out of our system in the romper room. No one ever had an idea by him or herself.
We embrace science, but don't stop there. Science can be deepened, extended, made whole. We embrace a new empiricism that allows us to grow new organs of perception.
We embrace technology, but don't allow it to turn us into machines. We know what it is and what it isn't and aren't fooled.
We embrace sensuousness, feeling, creativity, active play. We know if we attend to nature -- we study a flower, we stare at clouds, we feel raindrops -- an awareness or knowing arises; there is something real in that. We embrace the felt change in consciousness when we read a poem, and know there is something real to that. We know, or have known, or want to know, what it means to love and be in love and be loved. We recognize the reality of that. We embrace that reality.
What else? Maybe a good closing line, like, "We have nothing to lose but our chains. We have a world to win." I don't know -- what do you think?
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Ecosystem of globalization -- comments and questions
I received some comments and questions on my Ecosystem of Globalization paper. They were good comments, and I thought I wd share my response. Comments are in italics.
Sorry to be so long in replying. Some of the language was new to me, and I wish I knew more about economics, etc., but it was easy enough for me to follow a lot of it. I thought if you ever expand this, I, personally, would benefit from examples, for example, of extension and intensification.
Extension means growing geographically, by pulling new markets into capitalism. So China becoming a capitalist economy (in whole or part) would be an example of extending. Another example would be a local, non-capitalist economy being pulled into the world economy. Extension is a way of increasing profit etc. by selling more to the new markets, tapping into resources, integrating people as workers and consumers into the (capitalist) world economy.
Intensification is making more profit out of the same market. This can be done by turning existing activity into profit-making activity, e.g., privatizing public services, or people buying services that used to be done by unpaid labor at home (e.g. childcare, food preparation, house cleaning), or people consuming more (helped by easy debt).
So the idea is that once there are no more new areas to pull into capitalism, the only way it can grow is through "intensification."
Random thoughts.
Re: Transportation and globalization. It seems to me this is an important cost to the ecosystem of increasing globalization. I wonder how one would figure the relative costs and benefits of local production and consumption vs spreading out production and shipping goods around the globe.
This is an interesting question. It gets to what is counted as a cost. You are saying that if all of the externalized costs were factored in, global production might not be so cheap...
You say on p 2 “there is no ‘wilderness’ today…outside of capitalism.” Right. Some time ago, the National Forest Service began using the language of “recreation amenities” in relation to public land management. This fits into the original paradigm of public land management as resource management and conservation, rather than preservation. First, it focused on extractable resources like timber, mining, and grazing. Then, recreation amenities came into the same paradigm. I know there are economic analyses of recreation showing how many dollars a nearby community gains from having, say, a national park nearby. I imagine there are more sophisticated economic analyses of recreation as a commodity, but I don’t know.
I think also, even if it isn't managed as a park or for economic exploitation in any way, it still isn't "wilderness". That even if it is "unspoiled" or unexploited, it still is related to capitalism in some way (e.g., an "other" or as a resource reserve that allows everything else in capitalism to go on.
Another negative effect of globalization is the disruption and disenfranchisement of local communities, especially land-based communities. As local communities get caught up in globalization, they lose their connection with the land, resulting is less sustainable ways of treating the land. This might be another concern related to speculative capital on p 3. Disruption of local communities has both human and environmental costs.
This would be a good example of "extension."
On p 4, in your para which begins “It should be noted…,” is it also relevant that new technologies create new needs in existing markets, which in themselves are a sort of new market? Is this intensification? Is that even a useful way to think about it?
Yes, this is a useful way to think about it, it is an example of intensification.
Reading the section on the ecosystem of globalization, I thought of a recent book by Richard Louv, LAST CHILD IN THE WOODS. The subtitle has the catchy phrase “Nature-Deficit Disorder” in it. I liked the book. Among other things, he goes into how kids are blocked from direct contact with nature by insurance companies, homeowners’ associations, liability issues, etc. In other words, he takes up some of the institutional and structural barriers to contact with nature as well as the psychological ones. Now, looking back at my notes, I have no idea why I thought of that in reading this section of your paper. Maybe you can see a connection. Anyway, I liked the book.
No, it is very apropos. You had mentioned the book to me, and I think I had it in mind. (Wait -- I see Richard Louv is quoted in WSJ article in footnote # 10).
On page 6, note 11, I chuckled. Finally some light humor in a dismal situation!
I wasn’t sure what you meant by "the end of value" on page 7, but I wanted to know. This sounds like a useful and interesting concept.
"Value" is a Marx concept, and the way I understand it is that it describes a particular kind of relationship between people and between people and nature. The idea here is that capitalism turns everything into an economic quantity. So it is also way of looking at the world, not for any intrinsic usefulness or quality or in its own right something with a right to exist, but as a means to increase wealth. In this sense, the "end of value" is a good thing. That was another paper (http://www.gocatgo.com/texts/eov.html)
So, here is my big question, and maybe the central question of your paper. If I understand you right, capitalism is inherently anti-environment or anti-environmental-sustainability, by virtue of its need to continually extend and intensify production. Only an overthrow of Capital will foster sustainability. Got it. Are there variations on capitalism which are not inherently destructive; can capitalism evolve, or is a revolution required? And if capitalism is irredeemable vis a vis the environment, are there any practical alternatives in the foreseeable future?
I think what I was trying to get at is that capitalism is not "anti-environment or anti-environmental-sustainability". But rather that capitalism creates a certain kind of environment to ensure ongoing profitability. Although it often looks like it, I don't think capitalism will commit environmental suicide (well it still might, but it's a losing bet no matter how you think of it). "Sustainability" raises the question of sustainable on whose terms? Towards what end? So it might be possible to have a "sustainable environment" of tree plantations, ocean fish farms, and private nature parks. But your idea of sustainable would be much different I expect. But your main point, what is to be done -- that's the thing. It might sound counter-intuitive, but I guess the important thing is getting people to think differently, to be conscious of this, to realize that they can do things and that things can be different. You are certainly part of that. People have different talents and will apply those as they see fit. I think that there is something radical in developing a qualitative, holistic, monistic sense of nature; but a decent understanding of capitalism is important too. So the question to me is how does consciousness change, what ideas are put out there and discussed and argued out. And the political and economic solutions will flow from that. I hope.
I would like to bring these kinds of issues into my courses more. I did last week in a one-day discussion on ecopsychology with the Wilderness Therapy students, and they got into it. I think it is a set of questions they ask a lot, but which rarely get brought into ecopsychology discussions. Andy Fisher (RADICAL ECOPSYCHOLOGY) does too, questioning capitalism and current social paradigms, but still, it is oddly absent from ecopsychology discussions. Anyway, thanks for sharing this paper with me. Keep me posted. If you have or see anything else that would be a good, broad intro to the economics of environmental sustainability, let me know.
Hmm. James O'Conner has an essay, call "Is Sustainable Capitalism Possible?", anthologized in Natural Causes, that raises some important questions -- I think starts well, but gets dense as it goes on about capitalism (I still need to finish reading it). There's a chapter from the Deep Ecology for the 21st Century by Donald Worster, "The shaky ground of sustainability" that looks alright, but I just glanced over it. The Brundtland Commission Report "Our Common Future" from the late 1980s is the classic UN-type document, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Common_Future.
Or the Wikipedia entry on sustainable development might be helpful to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development
I'll give it some more thought.
-- jd
Sorry to be so long in replying. Some of the language was new to me, and I wish I knew more about economics, etc., but it was easy enough for me to follow a lot of it. I thought if you ever expand this, I, personally, would benefit from examples, for example, of extension and intensification.
Extension means growing geographically, by pulling new markets into capitalism. So China becoming a capitalist economy (in whole or part) would be an example of extending. Another example would be a local, non-capitalist economy being pulled into the world economy. Extension is a way of increasing profit etc. by selling more to the new markets, tapping into resources, integrating people as workers and consumers into the (capitalist) world economy.
Intensification is making more profit out of the same market. This can be done by turning existing activity into profit-making activity, e.g., privatizing public services, or people buying services that used to be done by unpaid labor at home (e.g. childcare, food preparation, house cleaning), or people consuming more (helped by easy debt).
So the idea is that once there are no more new areas to pull into capitalism, the only way it can grow is through "intensification."
Random thoughts.
Re: Transportation and globalization. It seems to me this is an important cost to the ecosystem of increasing globalization. I wonder how one would figure the relative costs and benefits of local production and consumption vs spreading out production and shipping goods around the globe.
This is an interesting question. It gets to what is counted as a cost. You are saying that if all of the externalized costs were factored in, global production might not be so cheap...
You say on p 2 “there is no ‘wilderness’ today…outside of capitalism.” Right. Some time ago, the National Forest Service began using the language of “recreation amenities” in relation to public land management. This fits into the original paradigm of public land management as resource management and conservation, rather than preservation. First, it focused on extractable resources like timber, mining, and grazing. Then, recreation amenities came into the same paradigm. I know there are economic analyses of recreation showing how many dollars a nearby community gains from having, say, a national park nearby. I imagine there are more sophisticated economic analyses of recreation as a commodity, but I don’t know.
I think also, even if it isn't managed as a park or for economic exploitation in any way, it still isn't "wilderness". That even if it is "unspoiled" or unexploited, it still is related to capitalism in some way (e.g., an "other" or as a resource reserve that allows everything else in capitalism to go on.
Another negative effect of globalization is the disruption and disenfranchisement of local communities, especially land-based communities. As local communities get caught up in globalization, they lose their connection with the land, resulting is less sustainable ways of treating the land. This might be another concern related to speculative capital on p 3. Disruption of local communities has both human and environmental costs.
This would be a good example of "extension."
On p 4, in your para which begins “It should be noted…,” is it also relevant that new technologies create new needs in existing markets, which in themselves are a sort of new market? Is this intensification? Is that even a useful way to think about it?
Yes, this is a useful way to think about it, it is an example of intensification.
Reading the section on the ecosystem of globalization, I thought of a recent book by Richard Louv, LAST CHILD IN THE WOODS. The subtitle has the catchy phrase “Nature-Deficit Disorder” in it. I liked the book. Among other things, he goes into how kids are blocked from direct contact with nature by insurance companies, homeowners’ associations, liability issues, etc. In other words, he takes up some of the institutional and structural barriers to contact with nature as well as the psychological ones. Now, looking back at my notes, I have no idea why I thought of that in reading this section of your paper. Maybe you can see a connection. Anyway, I liked the book.
No, it is very apropos. You had mentioned the book to me, and I think I had it in mind. (Wait -- I see Richard Louv is quoted in WSJ article in footnote # 10).
On page 6, note 11, I chuckled. Finally some light humor in a dismal situation!
I wasn’t sure what you meant by "the end of value" on page 7, but I wanted to know. This sounds like a useful and interesting concept.
"Value" is a Marx concept, and the way I understand it is that it describes a particular kind of relationship between people and between people and nature. The idea here is that capitalism turns everything into an economic quantity. So it is also way of looking at the world, not for any intrinsic usefulness or quality or in its own right something with a right to exist, but as a means to increase wealth. In this sense, the "end of value" is a good thing. That was another paper (http://www.gocatgo.com/texts/eov.html)
So, here is my big question, and maybe the central question of your paper. If I understand you right, capitalism is inherently anti-environment or anti-environmental-sustainability, by virtue of its need to continually extend and intensify production. Only an overthrow of Capital will foster sustainability. Got it. Are there variations on capitalism which are not inherently destructive; can capitalism evolve, or is a revolution required? And if capitalism is irredeemable vis a vis the environment, are there any practical alternatives in the foreseeable future?
I think what I was trying to get at is that capitalism is not "anti-environment or anti-environmental-sustainability". But rather that capitalism creates a certain kind of environment to ensure ongoing profitability. Although it often looks like it, I don't think capitalism will commit environmental suicide (well it still might, but it's a losing bet no matter how you think of it). "Sustainability" raises the question of sustainable on whose terms? Towards what end? So it might be possible to have a "sustainable environment" of tree plantations, ocean fish farms, and private nature parks. But your idea of sustainable would be much different I expect. But your main point, what is to be done -- that's the thing. It might sound counter-intuitive, but I guess the important thing is getting people to think differently, to be conscious of this, to realize that they can do things and that things can be different. You are certainly part of that. People have different talents and will apply those as they see fit. I think that there is something radical in developing a qualitative, holistic, monistic sense of nature; but a decent understanding of capitalism is important too. So the question to me is how does consciousness change, what ideas are put out there and discussed and argued out. And the political and economic solutions will flow from that. I hope.
I would like to bring these kinds of issues into my courses more. I did last week in a one-day discussion on ecopsychology with the Wilderness Therapy students, and they got into it. I think it is a set of questions they ask a lot, but which rarely get brought into ecopsychology discussions. Andy Fisher (RADICAL ECOPSYCHOLOGY) does too, questioning capitalism and current social paradigms, but still, it is oddly absent from ecopsychology discussions. Anyway, thanks for sharing this paper with me. Keep me posted. If you have or see anything else that would be a good, broad intro to the economics of environmental sustainability, let me know.
Hmm. James O'Conner has an essay, call "Is Sustainable Capitalism Possible?", anthologized in Natural Causes, that raises some important questions -- I think starts well, but gets dense as it goes on about capitalism (I still need to finish reading it). There's a chapter from the Deep Ecology for the 21st Century by Donald Worster, "The shaky ground of sustainability" that looks alright, but I just glanced over it. The Brundtland Commission Report "Our Common Future" from the late 1980s is the classic UN-type document, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Common_Future.
Or the Wikipedia entry on sustainable development might be helpful to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development
I'll give it some more thought.
-- jd
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Green Party in Illinois
The Illinois Green Party (ILGP) achieved an important goal in the November 7 election when their gubanatorial slate of Rich Whitney and Julie Samuels pulled 10.4 percent of the statewide vote, and in some counties over 25% of the vote. Not only were the numbers respectable in themselves, but more important, by pulling more than 5 percent of the popular vote the party attained "major party" status. This means that for future electoral campaigns, the number of signatures that must be collected to get on the ballot is much much lower. So this past week's results mean that it the door is open at least through 2010 for the Greens to run more candidates. Major party status also carries some responsibilities, like conforming to local structures and primary procedures (so "committeemen" and local central committees).
The ILGP post-election newsletter points out that where the media coverage was the fairest, the Greens did the best. The Rockford Register Star endorsed Whitney, and he pulled 24 percent of the vote in that county.
More info is on the ILGP web page.
jd
The ILGP post-election newsletter points out that where the media coverage was the fairest, the Greens did the best. The Rockford Register Star endorsed Whitney, and he pulled 24 percent of the vote in that county.
More info is on the ILGP web page.
jd
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Quid pro
Here is a blog-of-note that gets a fair amount of thoughtful commentary:
Feral Scholar by Stan Goff
(Okay full disclosure: he put a reference / citation to something I wrote on his blog, which is what prompted be to look at it, which I appreciate. Regardless though, it's a very good, active site.)
jd
Feral Scholar by Stan Goff
(Okay full disclosure: he put a reference / citation to something I wrote on his blog, which is what prompted be to look at it, which I appreciate. Regardless though, it's a very good, active site.)
jd
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Venture capital, oil capital and the environment
"Venture Capitalists Ignite Bitter Fight With Push for California Oil Tax" reads the headline of a Wednesday (9/27/06) page one story in the Wall Street Journal (by George Anders and Rebecca Buckman). The story describes a struggle over Proposition 87 in California, which will impose a 6% tax on oil output to pay for research and development of alternative fuels. Big backers of the proposition include Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist who made his money at Sun Microsystems; Google founder Larry Page;, Wendy Schmidt, wife of Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and John Doerr, "a prominent partner at VC [VC == venture capitalist] firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers." Oil companies of course are fighting back, with California-based oil giant Chevron taking the lead.
The struggle highlights one kind of split that is opening around environmental, and in particular, climate change, issues. In 2002, Joel Kovel wrote a book whose title, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? (Zed Books), sums up one common line of thinking on the Left -- we either destroy capitalism, or it will destroy the world. As the publisher's blurb sums, "Kovel indicts ... capitalism as ecodestructive and unreformable." Capitalism is ecodestructive and unreformable in many senses, but splits like the one reported in the WSJ suggest another tack. And that is that a section of capital, maybe a decisive section, will recognize that capitalism and an environment capable of sustaining human life are not fundamentally incompatible. With a properly managed ecosystem, the expanded reproduction of capitalism can continue. All that is required for profit is the expropriation of surplus labor. Whether that takes place at an oil field or a solar panel factory is irrelevant.
If capitalism can negotiate the shift in the energy regime, in terms of the environment it can continue lumber along by creating a more and more tightly managed ecosystem. By "managed" I mean practices that will become increasingly aggressive over time, made possible by more and more sophisticated monitoring tools (e.g., satellites networks, ocean buoys, even microtransponders on insects -- see Radio frequency identification and tracking of individual ants engaged in colony scale division of labour); more use of genetically engineered organisms; computer-enhanced agri- and aqua- and silvi- and horti- culture (e.g., open ocean fish farms), private nature reserves, etc. Not all of these are "bad", the point mainly is that capitalism, or globalization-as-capitalism-in-the-age-of-electronics will create a new ecosystem, just as every production regime has done in the past, to maximize its continued existence (see The Ecosystem of Globalization for a bit more on this). Paul Burkett's 1999 book Marx and nature: A red and green perspective (New York: St. Martin's Press) is pretty good on the environment and the "limits of capitalism": "We may not like it, but the fact is that capitalism can survive any ecological catastrophe short of the extinction of human life." p. 192)
A chart accompanying the WSJ article mentioned above indicates a dramatic growth in VC investment in green technologies -- over $350 million in the first half of the this year, well beyond the slightly more that $200 million in all of last year. The WSJ article points out that Proposition 87 in California is being championed by sections of capital that have invested in green technology and stand to gain if it succeeds (money from the oil sector is transferred to the green energy sector). Prop 87 has become the arena in which this struggle between sections of capital are fighting out this struggle over the environment -- the natural conditions within which capitalism operates -- but this struggle takes place on capitalist terms. While we all benefit, I suppose, by now choking to death from smog or dying from heat exhaustion or drowning in coastal flooding or frying in UV radiation, the fundamental crisis is not resolved. And by fundamental crisis I mean capitalism's destruction of humanity (does this statement need to be justified?)
[An aside: venture capital has a connection to speculative capital (uses pools of otherwise idle capital, absorbs risk of new research, chance of big payoffs not through direct expropriation of surplus value but via the transfer of value due to either monopoly rents or individual value transforming into social value made possible by "intellectual property" monopolies, volatility of outlook for new firms provides playground for speculative capital, no doubt more connections)]
jd
The struggle highlights one kind of split that is opening around environmental, and in particular, climate change, issues. In 2002, Joel Kovel wrote a book whose title, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? (Zed Books), sums up one common line of thinking on the Left -- we either destroy capitalism, or it will destroy the world. As the publisher's blurb sums, "Kovel indicts ... capitalism as ecodestructive and unreformable." Capitalism is ecodestructive and unreformable in many senses, but splits like the one reported in the WSJ suggest another tack. And that is that a section of capital, maybe a decisive section, will recognize that capitalism and an environment capable of sustaining human life are not fundamentally incompatible. With a properly managed ecosystem, the expanded reproduction of capitalism can continue. All that is required for profit is the expropriation of surplus labor. Whether that takes place at an oil field or a solar panel factory is irrelevant.
If capitalism can negotiate the shift in the energy regime, in terms of the environment it can continue lumber along by creating a more and more tightly managed ecosystem. By "managed" I mean practices that will become increasingly aggressive over time, made possible by more and more sophisticated monitoring tools (e.g., satellites networks, ocean buoys, even microtransponders on insects -- see Radio frequency identification and tracking of individual ants engaged in colony scale division of labour); more use of genetically engineered organisms; computer-enhanced agri- and aqua- and silvi- and horti- culture (e.g., open ocean fish farms), private nature reserves, etc. Not all of these are "bad", the point mainly is that capitalism, or globalization-as-capitalism-in-the-age-of-electronics will create a new ecosystem, just as every production regime has done in the past, to maximize its continued existence (see The Ecosystem of Globalization for a bit more on this). Paul Burkett's 1999 book Marx and nature: A red and green perspective (New York: St. Martin's Press) is pretty good on the environment and the "limits of capitalism": "We may not like it, but the fact is that capitalism can survive any ecological catastrophe short of the extinction of human life." p. 192)
A chart accompanying the WSJ article mentioned above indicates a dramatic growth in VC investment in green technologies -- over $350 million in the first half of the this year, well beyond the slightly more that $200 million in all of last year. The WSJ article points out that Proposition 87 in California is being championed by sections of capital that have invested in green technology and stand to gain if it succeeds (money from the oil sector is transferred to the green energy sector). Prop 87 has become the arena in which this struggle between sections of capital are fighting out this struggle over the environment -- the natural conditions within which capitalism operates -- but this struggle takes place on capitalist terms. While we all benefit, I suppose, by now choking to death from smog or dying from heat exhaustion or drowning in coastal flooding or frying in UV radiation, the fundamental crisis is not resolved. And by fundamental crisis I mean capitalism's destruction of humanity (does this statement need to be justified?)
[An aside: venture capital has a connection to speculative capital (uses pools of otherwise idle capital, absorbs risk of new research, chance of big payoffs not through direct expropriation of surplus value but via the transfer of value due to either monopoly rents or individual value transforming into social value made possible by "intellectual property" monopolies, volatility of outlook for new firms provides playground for speculative capital, no doubt more connections)]
jd
On the speculative capital front
-- Poor Brian Hunter and Amaranth Advisors. The 31-year-old trader lost about $5 billion of the hedge funds assets "in about a week" (see e.g. The Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2006, p. A1). "Brash" trades gone bad in natural gas futures highlight the difficulties hedge funds can face. It' not quite right to say "lost" -- the firm "lost" the money to other speculators.
-- Hank Paulson goes to China. In his trip earlier in September (2006), Treasury Secretary Paulson sought to head off growing anti-China sentiment in the U.S. The 9/13/06 reported that he "signaled he won't engage in China-bashing and will instead seek to persuade Americans that they stand to benefit from China's economic rise." Well not just "Americans" -- today's WSJ (9/28/06) reports that his former firm, Goldman Sachs, stands to make "buckets of money" from a $2.58 billion investment last May in the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, its "single-largest investment of all time." The bank is going public next month, and based on current interest in the IPO, Goldman Sachs is likely to double its money.
jd
-- Hank Paulson goes to China. In his trip earlier in September (2006), Treasury Secretary Paulson sought to head off growing anti-China sentiment in the U.S. The 9/13/06 reported that he "signaled he won't engage in China-bashing and will instead seek to persuade Americans that they stand to benefit from China's economic rise." Well not just "Americans" -- today's WSJ (9/28/06) reports that his former firm, Goldman Sachs, stands to make "buckets of money" from a $2.58 billion investment last May in the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, its "single-largest investment of all time." The bank is going public next month, and based on current interest in the IPO, Goldman Sachs is likely to double its money.
jd
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Which is more complicated...?
A question came up about whether it is fair to say "While the human-made artifact is no more complex than a plant or animal or even a rock, it is no less complex either" (in a piece on Goethean science and human artifacts). The human, machine-like order placed over raw materials is no where as complex as that of a natural substance.
My reply was:
I was trying to address that we lose sight of where the things around us come from -- not just non-human nature (not sure how else to say that) but also social processes. First, these artifacts do come from nature and by exploring that aspect of them we recover something, or maybe at least understand something of the human-nature relationship. Second, I am not trying to say that, say, one of those robo-dogs is as complex as a real dog as a dog. But I do think that history and social relations are expressed in the artifact, but that this dimension is generally obscured or lost. That dimension is very complex because it ties into a very large web (if not ultimately all) of human interactions, history, desires, etc., and expresses nature processes of a different sort than that of a dog. (And Goethean science helps us reach and experience that, etc. etc.)
(Also, this human dimension also exists for non-human nature to the extent that human beings have transformed ecosystems, species, etc.)
jd
My reply was:
I was trying to address that we lose sight of where the things around us come from -- not just non-human nature (not sure how else to say that) but also social processes. First, these artifacts do come from nature and by exploring that aspect of them we recover something, or maybe at least understand something of the human-nature relationship. Second, I am not trying to say that, say, one of those robo-dogs is as complex as a real dog as a dog. But I do think that history and social relations are expressed in the artifact, but that this dimension is generally obscured or lost. That dimension is very complex because it ties into a very large web (if not ultimately all) of human interactions, history, desires, etc., and expresses nature processes of a different sort than that of a dog. (And Goethean science helps us reach and experience that, etc. etc.)
(Also, this human dimension also exists for non-human nature to the extent that human beings have transformed ecosystems, species, etc.)
jd
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Goethean science overview
The following is an excerpt from a longer piece I did, it gives an overview of Goethe's approach to science. The numbers in parentheses are page references to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Scientific studies, translated and edited by Douglas Miller (1988). - jd
Although Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's approach to science is primarily a way of knowing (Wahl, 2005), it implies at the same time a particular understanding of how the world is organized. In Goethe's world view, nature is "alive and active, with its efforts directed from the whole to the parts" (20). Everything is interconnected and dynamic and in a process of formation (bildung). Goethe's world view is monistic. Concepts, ideas, even the "archetype" (urphänomen) are not separate from phenomena, standing behind it, but part of the phenomena.
This living, dynamic, interconnected world is known first through the senses. The Goethean approach is strongly empirical, emphasizing the importance of direct observation and experience in knowing the world. The phenomena is central, but Goethe also recognized that perception is a participatory act, anticipating phenomenology by 100 years (Heinemann, 1934; Seamon, 1998). The observed works on the observer as much as the observer works on the observed. In a play on words ("an ingenious turn of phrase"), "objective thinking" for Goethe "means that my thinking is not separate from objects; that the elements of the object, the perceptions of the object, flow into my thinking and are fully permeated by it; that my perception itself is a thinking, and my thinking a perception." (39) The observer-as-subject does not disappear when "thinking objectively" (if even that were possible).
Empirical data is always understood within a theoretical framework, and so it is important for the investigator to be conscious of the framework being used. Goethe went a step further though, bringing his artistic sensibility to bear on the investigation. The careful, detailed observation of phenomena is complemented by what he called "exact sensory imagination" (46). Phenomena are processes that are in a constant state of formation, and empiricism can only examine parts of a process, snapshots in time. Because a process exists and develops through its interconnections, it has an integrity that cannot be grasped through dissection or reduction (although they may contribute to understanding). This is especially the case with living organisms. In order to grasp the living whole of the phenomenon, the investigator must bring the phenomenon to life in the imagination.
Experiments play an important role in Goethean science, but Goethe cautions against the easy temptation of drawing false conclusions. Experiments are properly used to recreate previous experience, or to coax new experiences out of phenomenon under specific conditions. Using experiments to prove a hypothesis is "detrimental" (15), because of the tendency to ignore experiences that fall outside of the hypothesis: "Thus we can never be too careful in our efforts to avoid drawing hasty conclusions from experiments or using them directly as proof to bear out some theory. For here at this pass, this transition from empirical evidence to judgment, cognition to application, all the inner enemies of man lie in wait." (14) For the investigator, phenomena are part of many causes and effects; the appropriate question is not one of causes or purpose ("what are they for?"), but of determining the conditions under which phenomena arise ("where do they come from?"). (121)
Goethe described different stages or modes of knowing, using different terms in various writings. In one place he describes a sequence flowing from "empirical phenomena", observations found in nature, to "scientific phenomena", where the phenomena is understood well enough to reproduce under controlled conditions, via experiments, to "pure phenomena", which is a purely mental process, where the heart of the phenomena is comprehended, and "the human mind gives a definition to the empirically variable, excludes the accidental, sets aside the impure, untangles the complicated, and even discovers the unknown." (25) Elsewhere he describes an empirical phase of careful study yielding to the necessity of visualizing internally the various observations in order to gain a sense of the whole. Empirical observation gives way to an intuitive perception:
Elsewhere, Goethe describes his general process as proceeding from empirical observation to archetype (118), and elsewhere, "of what nature bears within itself as law" (147).
Goethe's concept of "archetype" is one of his more difficult concepts. In his "Maxims", Goethe describes the archetype in four ways: as "ideal" in the sense of the "ultimate we can know"; "real" because we experience its expression; "symbolic" because it represents all instances; "identical" because it is identical with all instances. The archetype is expressed concretely through phenomena. The archetype describes an inner lawfulness or logic or coherence, a "structural range" (120) within which the archetype can be expressed. Naydler (1996) describes it like this: "The Archetypal Phenomenon is experienced when a group or sequence of phenomena real an underlying meaningfulness and internal coherence which is grasped by the intellect in a moment of intuitive comprehension." (p. 103)
Goethe sought to identify archetypes for minerals (Amrine, 1998; Steiner, 2000), plants and animals. Through the emphasis of one aspect over another, the archetype manifests in various forms. Goethe described his archetypal plant in a 1787 letter: "The primordial plant is turning out to be the most marvelous creation in the world... With this model and the key to it an infinite number of additional plants can be invented, which must be logical, that is, if they do not exist, they could exist, and are not mere artistic or poetic shadows or semblances, but have an inner truth and necessity. The same law is applicable to every other living thing." (328-9)
The archetype should not be considered as a Platonic ideal form standing behind phenomena (Heinemann, 1934). Nor is it a blueprint or formula, or an abstract or symbolic rendition separate from the phenomena. Nor is it a statistical average or composite. The archetype is not separate from the phenomena. When challenged by Schiller that his archetype "was not an observation from experience" but "an idea," Goethe retorted, "Then I may rejoice that I have ideas without knowing it, and can even see them with my own eyes." (20)
The unification of object, perception and thought achieved through "exact sensory imagination" is a direct way of knowing. "Let us not seek for something behind the phenomena -- they themselves are the theory" (307), where theory is understood in its traditional sense as a "way of seeing" (Amrine, 1998). "There is a delicate empiricism that makes itself identical with the object, thereby becoming true theory." (307) In fact, for Goethe the observer has little say in the matter:
The "many different forms of existence" require different modes of thinking to fully know the object, including poetic and scientific modes (Root, 2006). In knowing the object, the object becomes "an organ of perception," a new way of sensing the world.
References
Amrine, F. (1998). The metamorphosis of the scientist. In Seamon, D. and Zajonc, A., eds. Goethe's Way of Science: Towards a phenomenology of nature.
Heinemann, F. (1934). Goethe's phenomenological method. Philosophy. (9) 67- 82.
Miller, D. ed. and trans. (1988). Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Scientific studies. New York: Suhrkamp Publishers.
Naydler, J. (1996). Goethe on science. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Root, C. (Spring, 2006). Conversation between friends: An inspiration for Goethe's phenomenological method. In context. 15. Ghent, NY: The Nature Institute.
Seamon, D. (1998). Goethe, nature and phenomenology: An introduction. In Seamon, D. and Zajonc, A., eds. Goethe's Way of Science: Towards a phenomenology of nature.
Steiner, R. (2000). Nature's open secret: Introductions to Goethe's scientific writings. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press.
Wahl, D. (Summer, 2005). "Zaire Empirie": Goethean science as a way of knowing. Janus Head. 8(1).
Although Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's approach to science is primarily a way of knowing (Wahl, 2005), it implies at the same time a particular understanding of how the world is organized. In Goethe's world view, nature is "alive and active, with its efforts directed from the whole to the parts" (20). Everything is interconnected and dynamic and in a process of formation (bildung). Goethe's world view is monistic. Concepts, ideas, even the "archetype" (urphänomen) are not separate from phenomena, standing behind it, but part of the phenomena.
This living, dynamic, interconnected world is known first through the senses. The Goethean approach is strongly empirical, emphasizing the importance of direct observation and experience in knowing the world. The phenomena is central, but Goethe also recognized that perception is a participatory act, anticipating phenomenology by 100 years (Heinemann, 1934; Seamon, 1998). The observed works on the observer as much as the observer works on the observed. In a play on words ("an ingenious turn of phrase"), "objective thinking" for Goethe "means that my thinking is not separate from objects; that the elements of the object, the perceptions of the object, flow into my thinking and are fully permeated by it; that my perception itself is a thinking, and my thinking a perception." (39) The observer-as-subject does not disappear when "thinking objectively" (if even that were possible).
Empirical data is always understood within a theoretical framework, and so it is important for the investigator to be conscious of the framework being used. Goethe went a step further though, bringing his artistic sensibility to bear on the investigation. The careful, detailed observation of phenomena is complemented by what he called "exact sensory imagination" (46). Phenomena are processes that are in a constant state of formation, and empiricism can only examine parts of a process, snapshots in time. Because a process exists and develops through its interconnections, it has an integrity that cannot be grasped through dissection or reduction (although they may contribute to understanding). This is especially the case with living organisms. In order to grasp the living whole of the phenomenon, the investigator must bring the phenomenon to life in the imagination.
Experiments play an important role in Goethean science, but Goethe cautions against the easy temptation of drawing false conclusions. Experiments are properly used to recreate previous experience, or to coax new experiences out of phenomenon under specific conditions. Using experiments to prove a hypothesis is "detrimental" (15), because of the tendency to ignore experiences that fall outside of the hypothesis: "Thus we can never be too careful in our efforts to avoid drawing hasty conclusions from experiments or using them directly as proof to bear out some theory. For here at this pass, this transition from empirical evidence to judgment, cognition to application, all the inner enemies of man lie in wait." (14) For the investigator, phenomena are part of many causes and effects; the appropriate question is not one of causes or purpose ("what are they for?"), but of determining the conditions under which phenomena arise ("where do they come from?"). (121)
Goethe described different stages or modes of knowing, using different terms in various writings. In one place he describes a sequence flowing from "empirical phenomena", observations found in nature, to "scientific phenomena", where the phenomena is understood well enough to reproduce under controlled conditions, via experiments, to "pure phenomena", which is a purely mental process, where the heart of the phenomena is comprehended, and "the human mind gives a definition to the empirically variable, excludes the accidental, sets aside the impure, untangles the complicated, and even discovers the unknown." (25) Elsewhere he describes an empirical phase of careful study yielding to the necessity of visualizing internally the various observations in order to gain a sense of the whole. Empirical observation gives way to an intuitive perception:
If I look at the created object, inquire into its creation, and follow this process back as far as I can, I will find a series of steps. Since these are not actually seen together before me, I must visualize them in my memory so that they form a certain ideal whole.
At first I will tend to think in terms of steps, but nature leaves no gaps, and thus, in the end, I will have to see this progression of uninterrupted activity as a whole. I can do so by dissolving the particular without destroying the impression itself.
If we imagine the outcome of these attempts, we will see that empirical observation finally ceases, intuitive perception of the developing organism begins, and the idea is brought to expression in the end. (75)
Elsewhere, Goethe describes his general process as proceeding from empirical observation to archetype (118), and elsewhere, "of what nature bears within itself as law" (147).
Goethe's concept of "archetype" is one of his more difficult concepts. In his "Maxims", Goethe describes the archetype in four ways: as "ideal" in the sense of the "ultimate we can know"; "real" because we experience its expression; "symbolic" because it represents all instances; "identical" because it is identical with all instances. The archetype is expressed concretely through phenomena. The archetype describes an inner lawfulness or logic or coherence, a "structural range" (120) within which the archetype can be expressed. Naydler (1996) describes it like this: "The Archetypal Phenomenon is experienced when a group or sequence of phenomena real an underlying meaningfulness and internal coherence which is grasped by the intellect in a moment of intuitive comprehension." (p. 103)
Goethe sought to identify archetypes for minerals (Amrine, 1998; Steiner, 2000), plants and animals. Through the emphasis of one aspect over another, the archetype manifests in various forms. Goethe described his archetypal plant in a 1787 letter: "The primordial plant is turning out to be the most marvelous creation in the world... With this model and the key to it an infinite number of additional plants can be invented, which must be logical, that is, if they do not exist, they could exist, and are not mere artistic or poetic shadows or semblances, but have an inner truth and necessity. The same law is applicable to every other living thing." (328-9)
The archetype should not be considered as a Platonic ideal form standing behind phenomena (Heinemann, 1934). Nor is it a blueprint or formula, or an abstract or symbolic rendition separate from the phenomena. Nor is it a statistical average or composite. The archetype is not separate from the phenomena. When challenged by Schiller that his archetype "was not an observation from experience" but "an idea," Goethe retorted, "Then I may rejoice that I have ideas without knowing it, and can even see them with my own eyes." (20)
The unification of object, perception and thought achieved through "exact sensory imagination" is a direct way of knowing. "Let us not seek for something behind the phenomena -- they themselves are the theory" (307), where theory is understood in its traditional sense as a "way of seeing" (Amrine, 1998). "There is a delicate empiricism that makes itself identical with the object, thereby becoming true theory." (307) In fact, for Goethe the observer has little say in the matter:
When in the exercise of his powers of observation man undertakes to confront the world of nature, he will at first experience a tremendous compulsion to bring what he finds there under his control. Before long, however, these objects will thrust themselves upon him with such force that he, in turn, must feel the obligation to acknowledge their power and pay homage to their effects. When this mutual interaction becomes evident he will make a discovery which, in a double sense, is limitless; among the objects he will find many different forms of existence and modes of change, a variety of relationships livingly interwoven; in himself, on the other hand, a potential for infinite growth through constant adaptation of his sensibilities and judgment to new ways of acquiring knowledge and responding with action. This discovery produces a deep sense of pleasure and would bring the last touch of happiness in life if not for certain obstacles (within and without) which impede our progress along this beautiful path to perfection. (61)
The "many different forms of existence" require different modes of thinking to fully know the object, including poetic and scientific modes (Root, 2006). In knowing the object, the object becomes "an organ of perception," a new way of sensing the world.
References
Amrine, F. (1998). The metamorphosis of the scientist. In Seamon, D. and Zajonc, A., eds. Goethe's Way of Science: Towards a phenomenology of nature.
Heinemann, F. (1934). Goethe's phenomenological method. Philosophy. (9) 67- 82.
Miller, D. ed. and trans. (1988). Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Scientific studies. New York: Suhrkamp Publishers.
Naydler, J. (1996). Goethe on science. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Root, C. (Spring, 2006). Conversation between friends: An inspiration for Goethe's phenomenological method. In context. 15. Ghent, NY: The Nature Institute.
Seamon, D. (1998). Goethe, nature and phenomenology: An introduction. In Seamon, D. and Zajonc, A., eds. Goethe's Way of Science: Towards a phenomenology of nature.
Steiner, R. (2000). Nature's open secret: Introductions to Goethe's scientific writings. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press.
Wahl, D. (Summer, 2005). "Zaire Empirie": Goethean science as a way of knowing. Janus Head. 8(1).
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Goethean science and human artifacts
I wrote up an essay sort of thing on Goethean scienec and how it might be used in the investigation of human artifacts. Here's the link: Talking with history: Using Goethe's scientific approach with human artifacts
jd
jd
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Salsa recipe
What is cooking if not interconnection? This recipe came from Liz. (Thanks Liz).
Liz's Salsa
6 jalapeno peppers
1 12-oz can Hunt's whole tomatoes
1/2 large sweet onion, chopped
1/2 bunch of cilantro, chopped
Juice of one lime
Garlic powder (maybe a tablespoon?), or few cloves fresh garlic
8 shakes of salt
some black pepper
Boil the jalapeno peppers in water until army green (or less), remove stems.
In a blender, combine everything and blend away.
Heat will vary w/ jalapenos, you can also adjust by number of peppers; lime juice cuts the heat. Salsa will mellow overnight (refrigerate of course).
The hot part of the peppers is the white stuff that holds the seeds, so you could do a nice salsa fresca by removing that part of the fresh jalapenos, and use fresh tomatoes instead of canned in above recipe. I've never tried it, but...
Liz's Salsa
6 jalapeno peppers
1 12-oz can Hunt's whole tomatoes
1/2 large sweet onion, chopped
1/2 bunch of cilantro, chopped
Juice of one lime
Garlic powder (maybe a tablespoon?), or few cloves fresh garlic
8 shakes of salt
some black pepper
Boil the jalapeno peppers in water until army green (or less), remove stems.
In a blender, combine everything and blend away.
Heat will vary w/ jalapenos, you can also adjust by number of peppers; lime juice cuts the heat. Salsa will mellow overnight (refrigerate of course).
The hot part of the peppers is the white stuff that holds the seeds, so you could do a nice salsa fresca by removing that part of the fresh jalapenos, and use fresh tomatoes instead of canned in above recipe. I've never tried it, but...
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Four laws of ecology
Barry Commoner's Four laws of ecology:
1. Everything is connected to everything else.
2. Everything must go somewhere.
3. Nature knows best.
4. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
From The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology, 1971.
1. Everything is connected to everything else.
2. Everything must go somewhere.
3. Nature knows best.
4. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
From The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology, 1971.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
