a. blunden suggests:
>First thing would be uyou'd have to have an opinion on *what* object hegel
>is describing.
>A
yes, i noticed this discussion of object earlier, but i suppose i am
looking for something that might continue the thread, since
you seemed so close to saying "Hegel was wrong" and i just
wanted to keep that going, as i agree, and as do a few others here seem to
-
if it all comes down to opinion, then there's not much to be done. but if
it can be arrived through something along the lines of Wittgenstein's
Tractatus,
using the method of logical positivism to prove logical positivism can't
work,
then i reckon that's where i'm thinking, if that makes sense.... do you
know
what i mean?
how can a dialactic be used in a way that substaintiates its limitation?
depends on the object. Hmmm. lemme think on it.
diane
>
>At 10:05 19/06/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>>WHAT IF...?
>>
>>What if Hegel, and so Marx, were wrong? What if dialectics are a
>>mis-taken practice of writing that fails to produce anything beyond the
>>limitations of its own design?
>>How would we know?
>>
**********************************************************************
:point where everything listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
***********************************************************************
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:39 PDT