: Firstly, I think the whole 'classification' debate is something of a sideline, playing on teh homophnous quality of 'class'a nd 'classification'.As "class" related to "exploitation" and "alienation" are central to your claims I find such a statement astonishing. But you have already glossed over the assumption that the two possess any difference. "Classification" is solely an engagement of the mind and is not "given" to us by either the physical or the evolved social world.
: I did think about making a post replacing the word 'class' with teh word 'fish' to referr to teh same refferent, but I opted against that.
Do I hear a hint of nominalism creeping in here? I hope so. Death to naive essentialism. If you were to replace 'class' with 'fish' and retain the ideas behind what you are attempting to describe I would find it perfectly okay?
: However I do want to try and distinguish teh two.
You are making a dualistic division between your cherished definition of "class" and the "classification" that the mind engages in. In reality, "class" is a subset of "classification" as it is a nominalistic operation of the mind.
: Classification is an attempt to create identifiable sets, by reference to common attributes.
Halleluah . . . so far.
: Class, in society, is the process by people are assigned to teh productive system,
Assigned? Clearly a teleological phenomenon. What particular Will has 'assigned' them? And furthermore, you're saying taht our mental classifications of "social classes" are completely different from the "other" classifications the mind makes. "Class" is something reality gives us and "classification" is something our minds engage in? No, "class" is an operational subset of "classification". "Capitalist" class and "worker" class are outcomes of the "classification" operation that has occurred in your own mind, as well as the minds of others here. It is no more a priori valid than any other operations of "classification" that either your mind, my mind, or any other mind has ever engaged in. "Classifications" including "class" are continuously upgraded, discarded, improved, and expanded as we obtain new experiences.
: and is more an experiential category, than a classification-
How? Why? What evidence do you have for this? Classifying more complex phenomena may, indeed, present more difficulties. However, there is no possible valid distinction within the "classification" function.
: one may attempt to classify classes,
No, that is what one's mind does, period. Before our minds classify there are no such things as "classification" including "class".
: through rdferrence to some shared similarity or disimilairty (bob knows, tehre are many different ways of trying to calssify social class),
Amen. Infinitely so.
: but that doesn't detract from teh underlying fact taht classes may exist beyond classification.
This is pure essentialism and is absolutely incorrect. "Class" is an outcome of the mind's "classification" process and only "exists" in a nominal sense as minds conceive of them. The physical existance is mind-independent, but all "classifications" including "class" are nominal and mind-dependent.
: Now, to illustrate (and to, I'll admit, bamboozle) let us look to Cricket.
Okay, I hope y'all read his cricket example.
Cricket is a specific game, with specific objectives, designed by specific people seeking to gain specific pleasure by associating with other specific people in specific manners. The complete nature of the game has been specifically designed and is, thus, of a teleological nature. Society, in any form, throughout history is a continuous process with no specific ends and no specific rules. Methinks your relating of cricket, a specific teleological event, with society demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the non-teleological nature of society.
: I hope this demonstrates how I concieve class- a capitalist is guaranteed in his existence by the ownership of capital, he may vary his relations to his workers, but the underlying logic remains..
This is the essentialist method that defines "the underlying essences of things". You are relying on a metaphysical argument about the nature of the wage relationship to define your classes for you. In short, you say: all production, including capital, has been produced by workers but since not all production is owned by workers then the workers have been "alienated". However, this "alienation" and "production" and "capital" are also all "classifications" asserted by your own mind and do not exist independent of them (although the physical states do exist as such). You state earlier that the mind engages in classification and then come back here and contradict yourself by acting as if classes determine themselves for you.
No. "Social class" is a portion of the mind's "classification" operation and does not exist outside this function. Your whole classification and, thus, class arguement is based upon ancient Platonic Essentialism.
Death to Essentialism.
