[Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder

[Andy Blunden]

Exactly, Huw. But I am interested in the change!
You expressed that change on the passive voice. But it was an active 
struggle to change that concept. It's object was a concept which was 
*contrary* to conventional wisdom. ANL's AT is ok before and after a 
revolution but fails to understand the overthrow of the former and its 
replacement by another.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Huw Lloyd wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> So it was the object until it was fully recognised that it shouldn't 
> be.  Why does this contradict Leontyev?
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On 22 September 2014 14:32, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     It's an 12 minute talk, Huw, (8 mins for discussion) aimed at
>     critiquing the foundations of AT, proposing a new foundation, and
>     presenting an outline of how asbestos was first produced and then
>     banned. :) The full story is in the book. But thanks for the
>     pointer. I'll try to address it.
>
>     I don't touch on AN Leontyev's dualism of need and object, but you
>     have raised it. There is a need for insulation material for
>     buildings. There is also a need for buildings that don't give you
>     cancer. The need for insulation does not find an adequate object
>     in asbestos because asbestos fails to meet the need for safety. A
>     need can be met by different objects. I can resolve that
>     contradiction by spelling out the need more precisely. But
>     asbestos production *was* the object and yet it didn't meet the
>     need - for safe insulation.
>
>     But the real object of the talk is to critique the idea that if a
>     social formation is producing something (either because the
>     Central Ctee said so or because the market said so) then ipso
>     facto there is an objective need for it. This is OK for dealing
>     with the child who is not doing their homework and failing to
>     learn to read. The teacher with some good reason thinks they have
>     the final say, the Truth, about the objective need for literacy.
>     But the fact is that the Central Committee and the Market both get
>     it very wrong sometimes. And these are after all, for social
>     theory, the interesting cases. In large measure that is the
>     problem I am addressing myself to.
>
>     Andy
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>