Re: "rise of china" and wst

        The notion of "free will" is indeed a chimera, unacceptable to
both social and natural science.  To the extent that our behaviors are
determined by the sociocultural milieu, we are not free.  To the extent
that any remaining behaviors are determined by genetic factors and
personal experience from the womb onward, we are not free.  B.F. Skinner
said it long ago.  Freedom is an illusion fostered by our ignorance of all
the determinants of our behavior.  Nonetheless, we perceive ourselves to
be, within limits, free.  That perception is also real, even if founded in
ignorance.  Deal with it!

        Warren


On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:

> 
>  
>  The bigger issue, however, is (as always) the (mis)conceptualization of
>  WST as a positivist theory.  Of course, the Owl of Minerva business
>  applies to it as much as to any other theoretical framework.  In this
>  case, however, we have Wallerstein's explicit statement that we are in a
>  period of systemic transition, when traditional rules no longer apply
> 
> Remind me again--why exactly are we supposed to declare 'anything goes'?
> 
> , and
>  free choice dominates over established structures 
> 
> I've never understood how one can reconcile 'free choice' with the concept of 
>social science.  Religious believers in free choice believe the creator 
>endowed his favorite creation (man) with this capacity--why should anyone else 
>believe it?  Determinations may be so complex that they defy predictability, 
>this, however, does not mean actions cease to have causes.  And if they have 
>causes, it is difficult to know what 'free choice' means..  No matter how 
>chaotic the current period is/becomes, everything that happens will probably 
>be explicable by looking at what came before (in different temporalities).  As 
>always, efforts to control the process of change will be severely compromised 
>by the many forces beyond the control of those trying to do the controlling.
> 
> 
>   This means that past precedents of
>  hegemonic transitions may be largely useless in elucidating (much less
>  predicting) the outcome of the current transition (though Wallerstein
>  himself sometimes forgets this in practice).
> 
> Thank goodness!  Otherwise it would appear that his entire project of 
>illuminating the processes of the world system is basically a waste of time...
> 
> Steven Sherman
> 
> 
>  r+M1462@csf.colorado.edu>
>  Received: from  rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com
>          [172.18.150.5]) by air-yd05.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; Thu,
>          01 Mar 2001 02:43:50 -0500
>  Received: from  csf.colorado.edu (csf.colorado.edu [128.138.129.195])
>          by rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2001
>          02:43:41 -0500
>  Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=csf.colorado.edu) by
>          csf.colorado.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.14 #2) id 14YNkH-0002pI-00; Thu,
>          01 Mar 2001 00:43:29 -0700
>  Received: from bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu
>          (bc70219@bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu [128.226.6.4]) by
>          csf.colorado.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/ITS-5.0/csf) with ESMTP id AAA10805 for
>          <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:41:05 -0700 (MST)
>  Received: from localhost (bc70219@localhost) by
>          bingsun2.cc.binghamton.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id
>          f217etH29184; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:40:55 -0500 (EST)
> 
>  Subject: Re: "rise of china" 
>