Andy writes:
>It *is* important though, to not just make a kind of "metaphor", but to
>keep in mind the material basis for the homology between Capital and The
>Logic, because the word Logic implies "necessity", and while the relations
>of capital manifest themselves to us as necessity, in fact they are not,
>they can be dispensed with.
>the internal-external relation there is vital then.
first, it would seem that you, Andy, are the newest darling to the list,
so i'd like to
extend a welcome - i'm not as awful as i might seem. but, as eva noted, i
am wildly irreverent when it comes to certain philosophers and their
philosophies,
which is not to say i think it's _all_ a hill o' poop, but building on
these mountains
is dangerous work. one slip and you're in it, up to your ears, so to speak.
in response to eva's request for a more concise critique of dialectics,
i dare say it is there, in your final sentence - the internal-external
relation -
this is the basis of dialectical reasoning, yes? as i recall, it is
something along the
lines of thesis-antithesis-synthesis-thesis-antithesis-synthesis, and so
on and so on,
a dialectical circle of critical change based on contradictions and
conflicts, and these emerge in the internal-external production of
knowledge
or activity, as we internalize language and externalize social activity,
dream of the stars and invent rocket ships, and so on...
there is, it seems to me, a complicated and chaotic transmutation that
takes
place in the internal-external process, as "concepts" or any one person's
particular
ideal invention=word takes on a particular reality for any person -
this "concept" or "word" is then languaged into a particular
discourse-activity,
historically located in proximity to whatever institution is dominant at
the
time of this social process - today, it is the marriage of science and
technology
into transnational capitalism: so let us indeed take the bagel as an
example:
no, let's not. put the bagel away.
the process of internalization and externalization is contingent upon an
infinite
quality of variables, such as nate mentioned earlier, gender, race, the
colonized consciousness, the terrorist agenda, the fundamentalist crusade,
the politically corrupt, and so on - there is no way to control what
internalization will produce in externalization because of all the
mediating social and historical factors
that inhibit and constrain activity in the social world -
no one is immune to the workings of repression and desire, for example -
anything can mean anything to anyone, depending upon a particular need -
if control is the need (and it usually is) then the externalizing process
does not produce "activity" but effects already-existent systems of
suppression or oppressions,
given that we are all existing in such nearness to the institutions that
legitimize such
practices (e.g., universities, gov'ts, health regimes, etc) -
there is no logic to this process, there is only chaos, and while chaos is
a self-regulating process, it is also subjected to those controls that are
so seductive -
hence, eco-disasters, social displacement, economic ruin, increased
divisions between the price of privilege and the expansion of the base
upon which privilege must stand (the rich get richer because the poor get
poorer) -
recently a man in the Middle East underwent a reverse transsexual
operation, because he couldn't bear the way he was treated whilst "being"
a woman: why couldn't he see those oppressions when he was a man? why was
it necessary to have the operation and live as a woman in order to see and
realize how awful it is to "be" a woman
in certain Muslim and Islamic states? - whatever he internalized about
being a woman, while he was a man, was clearly distinct from the masculine
practices of his social milieu, or he was ignorant of the oppressions
because he occupied the body of an oppressor (men) and idealized the body
of the oppressed (women) - or he didn't see the oppression because of the
position of his privilege -
either way, it is incredible to me that he would return to being a man in
spite of his desires to live as a woman in a place where women are
degraded to such an extent - and yet it makes sense because he has that
choice, and he made it.
in terms of internalization-externalization, there is much chaos that
intercedes,
as i said, depending upon one's institutionalized proximity, and the
colonized conscience, which is NOT to take up the master-slave relations
of Hegel,
but is to say that the dialectic movements theorized by such men are
naive, innocent, and oblivious to actual ways of being-in-the-world when
the world is so systemically unjust.
my critique against the dialectics resides in its simplicity, naivete, and
historical location, that is, its relation to those privileges that ensure
a philosopher (Hegel) can believe that he can "see" what is not actually
visible to his line of vision -
Vygotsky, while adored, committed the same process of applying an ideal
into a laboratory setting and then generalizing the effects into a social
theory -
his own proximity to certain institutions, historically located,
constrains the theorizing as a particular discourse that needs to be
understood as such, not carried forward into an other place of ruling
relations -
social interations are complex, unpredictable, and at times, heinous. yes,
many great technological advancements have been made, but for whose
benefit?
how has any scientific production made a difference in the ways the world
is
stratified through these privileges?
personally, i think academia is too neurotic to understand how theory
might make sense to the world, rather, we ought to be asking how the world
makes sense to theory, how the "out there" ceaselessly contradicts the
work that gets done "in here" and why there is this persistent resistance
to what this implies.
ah well.
enough.
diane
**********************************************************************
: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 - 01:00:40 PDT