Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:58:12 -0500


Hi DJ Bailey,

I disagree that cooperation presumes the absence of competition or conflict in a specific relationship.  I understand social relationship and social interaction as having the kind of dynamic relationship referred to by Giddens' "structuration."  That is, a social relationship is real, but not actual.  An interaction is actual, and a prior social relationship is one of the generative mechanisms that informs each actual interaction, and a modified social relationship is the consequence of each interaction.  Each social relationship is, therefore, a structural reality that is a consequence of multiple past interactions.  Some of these past interactions, but not all, will have been either competitive or conflictual, some cooperative.

It seems to me to be an instance of misplaced concreteness to say that "cooperation" and "conflict" can themselves conflict.  They are terms that signify concepts of interaction, and refer to really different kinds of actual events.

Best regards,

Dick   

-----Original Message-----
From: Bailey,DJ (pgr) [mailto:D.J.Bailey-AT-lse.ac.uk] 
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:59 AM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Surely cooperation presumes the absence of competition/conflict (at least in the specific relationship that you are describing).  To achieve one requires the absence of the other - therefore I would argue that they are indeed in competition/conflict with each other.

If I want to create a cooperative society it requires that I absent forms of competition/conflict within that society.  I am therefore in conflict with conflictual behaviour/relationships.

to go back to jamie's point, then, I would argue that competition and conflict may have co-existed; but that competition always requires the imposition of constraints upon those with whom we compete, and therefore competition (whilst seemingly contributing towards the evolutionary progression of humanity) may actually have contributed towards the stunting of humanity's development if we compare it to the counter-historical example of a society without competition.

-----Original Message-----
From: Moodey, Richard W [mailto:MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu]
Sent: 14 November 2003 14:51
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Hi Jamie,

You wrote:

Might it not be that competition and aggression has proved successful within evolution as much as cooperation and thus both have had their place in species evolution and also in human social development - implying that both are aspects of nature and of society where the concept of primacy or triumph is not necessarily the best way of think about what we want to take from each?


I reply:

Well put.  Cooperation, competition, and conflict are aspects of nature and society.  None can "triumph" over the others, as they are not, themselves, in competition or conflict.

Regards,

Dick 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


> Hi Dick,
>
> But it hasn't, i.e. notwithstanding inter-(and intra-)specific
> aggression, species have proliferated and flourished. If aggression 
> dominated both inter- and intra- the whole show would come to a halt 
> (as of course it might yet owing to contingent aggression within a 
> contingently powerful species, i.e. ours; it would remain the case 
> that there could be no process of biological evolution if love did not 
> triumph over evil, Eros over Thanatos).
>
> Mervyn
>
>
>
>
>  "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> writes
> >Hi Mervyn,
> >
> >You wrote:
> >
> >"One can argue that, given that biological evolution proceeds, it
> >must be the case that co-operation, care etc prevails over 
> >self-preservation, aggression etc within species."
> >
> >But isn't it possible that conflict among (between)different
> >communities may prevail over co-operation among (between)them, even 
> >as this conflict requires high degrees of co-operation within each of 
> >these communities?
> >
> >I don't write this out of any basic disagreement with the other
> >arguments for the either the existence or the fundamental goodness of 
> >something (not yet fully specified, perhaps) that we can point to 
> >with the
heuristic
> >concept, "human nature."
> >
> >Regards,
> >
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---