>
>I wouldn't say THEY cause US to do things we wouldn't otherwise do. Economic
>relations and interactions, for example distribution of goods, pricing and
>sales, are mundane aspects of social life. The main factor causing activity
>in any culture is economic.
well, i didn't say they made us do anything. i said they talk about an enitity
as if it were a concrete entity. the "market" is a myth of reified proportions.
as we are systemized in the myth of the global market we become an "us"
in that relation.
>So, before we get into a THEY, we have to consider what everyone has been and
>is doing anyway. As for the THEY, we should be very perspicacious. A THEY
>can either manipulate the market to avariciously seek their own interests, or
>the THEY can attempt to control the avaricious tendencies of several
>manipulators or of the entire 'herd.' I have no doubt that reifications may
>be used by either group. But, I would not extend reification to the entire
>system as that simply condemns human history and is too skeptical of a view to
>hold to and still live in a human community. Only a Neitschean hermit could
>critisize all of humanity and live apart from it. Therefore, I reserve the
>criticism, "reification" for individual perspectives which attempt to force
>particularistic viewpoints without considering the general interest, the
>truthfulness of their statement, or the probability of what they are implying.
>
i think i understand your concern about i and thou. but i also don't
think it is relevent criticism to my main thought.
>I wouldn't say THEY cause US to do things we wouldn't otherwise do. Economic
>relations and interactions, for example distribution of goods, pricing and
>sales, are mundane aspects of social life. The main factor causing activity
>in any culture is economic.
well, i didn't say they made us do anything. i said they talk about an enitity
as if it were a concrete entity. the "market" is a myth of reified proportions.
as we are systemized in the myth of the global market we become an "us"
in that relation.
>So, before we get into a THEY, we have to consider what everyone has been and
>is doing anyway. As for the THEY, we should be very perspicacious. A THEY
>can either manipulate the market to avariciously seek their own interests, or
>the THEY can attempt to control the avaricious tendencies of several
>manipulators or of the entire 'herd.' I have no doubt that reifications may
>be used by either group. But, I would not extend reification to the entire
>system as that simply condemns human history and is too skeptical of a view to
>hold to and still live in a human community. Only a Neitschean hermit could
>critisize all of humanity and live apart from it. Therefore, I reserve the
>criticism, "reification" for individual perspectives which attempt to force
>particularistic viewpoints without considering the general interest, the
>truthfulness of their statement, or the probability of what they are implying.
>
i think i understand your concern about i and thou. but i also don't
think it is relevent criticism to my main thought.