[Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza

[Lplarry]

Andy,
Following your lead it may be preferable to say single (individual) to indicate the uniqueness of variable  social actions. This doubling  (by including both terms) may crystallize the intended meaning as you mention.
Andy is this vein can we also include the term (examples)?

Then the moving TRANS forming from single (individual) social acts towards (practices) would indicate the movement from examples to exemplary actions and further movement (historicity) toward (framework) practices. 
(framework) practices being another doubling.
So moving (transforming) from single social  examples through exemplary social  examples crystallizing in social framework practices.
Is this reasonable? 
Or not




Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Andy Blunden
Sent: July 24, 2017 6:57 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: Alexander Surmava
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza

Larry, when you say "Action IS individual," did you mention 
to say that *actions* - the individual units of *action* are 
individual? In which can it is of course a tautology.
But *action* is irreducibly *social*, and so is every 
"individual" action. Or better, so is every "singular" action.

A lot of relevant differences are coded in the English 
language by the use of the count-noun or mass noun form, but 
on the whole the set of words (action, actions, activity, 
activities) and the set of words (practice, practices) have 
no systematic difference running across all disciplines and 
schools of thought. For us CHATters, "activities" are practices.

If you read Hegel and Marx, there is an added issue: the 
German words for action (Handlung) and activity (Tatigkeit) 
are more or less inverted for Hegel, and he doesn't use 
Aktivitat at all.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 24/07/2017 11:42 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> Alexander, Mike,
> Thanks for the article.
> Moving to page 51 I noticed that when referencing Bernstein he contrasted (action) with (practice) and did not REPEAT (identity) the thesis about the role of practice in knowing).
> Two formulas:
> • Knowing THROUGH ‘action’
> • Verification of knowing THROUGH ‘practice’
>
> These two formulas closely RESEMBLE each other but do not co-incide
>
> Action IS individual
> Practice IS a social category.
>
> Sociohistorical (practice) in the final analysis is nothing other than the SUM total of the actions of individual who are separate.
>
> Individual action is LIKE a single experiment.  They are alike in that both individual action & a single experiment are poorly suited to the role of :
>
> A philosophical criterion of (truth).
>
> I do not have the background to intelligently comment, but did register this theme as provocative FOR further thought and wording.
> And for generating intelligent commentary
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
> From: Ivan Uemlianin
> Sent: July 20, 2017 11:17 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Cc: Alexander Surmava
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
>
> Yes very interesting thank you! (Ilyenkov fan)
>
> Ivan
>
> --
> festina lente
>
>
>> On 20 Jul 2017, at 18:00, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> This article might prove of interest to those who have been discussing
>> LSV's sources in
>> marx and spinoza.
>> mike
>> <Ilyenkov_and_the_Revolution_in_Psycholog.pdf>
>
>