[Xmca-l] Re: Anniversary for Sakharov's Essay

[Haydi Zulfei]

 Who practically defends relatedness , one's being related to Nature and the Social Community , to the other to avoid selfishness , egoism and narcissistic madness , say , related to Otherness??

In this message and in this borrowing , I have no specific creature  addressed just intending elucidating some obscurities :

Quotes by Vanessa :

"[Under capitalism] the productive forces appear as a world for themselves, quite independent ofand divorced from the individuals, alongside the individuals; the reason for this is that the
individuals, whose forces they are, exist split up and in opposition to one another, whilst, on the
other hand, these forces are only real forces in the intercourse and association of these individuals.
Thus, on the one hand, we have a totality of productive forces, which have, as it were, taken on a
material form and are for the individuals themselves no longer the forces of the individuals but of
private property, and hence of the individuals only insofar as they are owners of private property.
[…] On the other hand, standing against these productive forces, we have the majority of the
individuals from whom these forces have been wrested away, and who, robbed thus of all real lifecontent, have become abstract individuals, who are, however, by this very fact put into a position
to enter into relation with one another as individuals. […] Things have now come to such a pass
that the individuals must appropriate the existing totality of productive forces, not only to achieve
self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard their very existence. (The German Ideology, MECW 5:
86-7)"

 
Criticizing Democritus as against Epicurus :


"Speaking exactly and in the prosaic sense, the members of civil society are not atoms. The specificproperty of the atom is that it has no properties and is therefore not connected with beings outside
it by any relationship determined by its own natural necessity. The atom has no needs, it is selfsufficient; the world outside it is an absolute vacuum, i.e., it is contentless, senseless, meaningless,
just because the atom has all fullness in itself. The egoistic individual in civil society may in his
non-sensuous imagination and lifeless abstraction inflate himself into an atom, i.e., into an
unrelated, self-sufficient, wantless, absolutely full, blessed being. Unblessed sensuous reality does
not bother about his imagination, each of his senses compels him to believe in the existence of the
world and of individuals outside him, and even his profane stomach reminds him every day that
the world outside him is not empty, but is what really fills. Every activity and property of his
being, every one of his vital urges, becomes a need, a necessity, which his self-seeking transforms
into seeking for other things and human beings outside him. […] It is therefore not the state that
holds the atoms of civil society together, but the fact that they are atoms only in imagination, in
the heaven of their fancy, but in reality beings tremendously different from atoms, in other words,
not divine egoists, but egoistic human beings. (The Holy Family, MECW 4:120-1)" 


And many others.


And if time allows , knowing who's the one Marx criticizes and what's the former up to ? Attached.

Gratefully

Haydi

    On Sunday, July 22, 2018, 8:05:02 PM GMT+4:30, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:  
 
 #yiv8909097479 #yiv8909097479 -- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv8909097479 
Actually Andy, we are a little bit in agreement, maybe even more than a little.




There is the word and the meaning. Word is different than meaning. Meaning is not word.




To point out your sentence: "In a sense, ethics and moral are what is not cause and effect."




"Sense" points to what is human. Sense distinguishes in a field of perception. Cause and effect are independent of sense. The words "ethics" and "morals" and their meanings to which they point are how we "make sense" of cause and effect, that is, to make cause and effect human.




The pot is clay, but clay is not the pot (because clay can be not-pot, i.e. a plate), but also if the pot shatters the pot is no more, the clay remains.





Kind regards,




Annalisa


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180723/638e8b79/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: The Ego and His Own - Max Stirner.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2043213 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180723/638e8b79/attachment-0001.pdf