[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science

[Andy Blunden]

But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are revolutionary 
practice! Now you see it now you don't!

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Thanks for the explanation !
>
> A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , 
> the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd 
> seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a matter 
> of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the other 
> Marx or Marxes .  To put it simply even today : The table 
> exists and the idea of the table exists . Does creating 
> fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve our 
> problems ? Now , that's not our main point of reference .
>
>
> What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an addendum 
> to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds (Vygotsky 
> Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could we say : 
> "All true concepts are both universal and concrete" ?
>
> I would not provide support for this because , I think , 
> David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying 
> exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other 
> Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too 
> old .
>
> Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an 
> answer . Many thanks !
>
> Best
>
> Haydi
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
>
> Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ...
> Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it
> is concerned only with independently existing entities. It
> is the study of what forms of being there are, such as
> "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person
> or a culture's belief in the array of different entities
> that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so
> it is an aspect of cultural difference.
> Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the
> limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a
> study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean
> a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources
> of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc.
> It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were
> bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social
> formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology"
> and there was no final answer to the question these sciences
> proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of
> talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural
> and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world.
> Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can
> see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is
> about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ 
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
>
> On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to 
> differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've 
> stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells 
> us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects 
> there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to 
> get involved with them , then science / genuine 
> materialism would not present any meaning to us . All 
> things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On 
> this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking 
> power are involved except that with ontology , we try to 
> conceive things as existent and trace them as external 
> transformables in themselves while with epistemology we 
> deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in 
> the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean 
> "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and 
> gnoseology which is the province of the second of our 
> division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would 
> mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial 
> philosophical term .
> > In what ways am I completely mistaken ?
> > Best
> > Haydi
> >
> >
>
>