xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes
Paul scrobe:
>
>One is to question the entire marxist basis (as
>Phillip and others seem wont to do, unnecessary clutter!), the other is to
>determine the deviations from the original marxist concepts.
>
>I would like to take the latter in a kind of rambling read through of Ch
>1.
moi aussi, moi aussi, mon ami! i'm just struggling to sort the
Communist Soviet political dogma from the Marx. it seems like many
Russians were attempting to do this to, but still had to encode their work
with dogma.
>
>
>Some general observations first:
>
>(a) chapter 1 ranges broadly and Leont'ev says he raises many
>problems that cannot be dealt with in the present work.
except, these problems were/are being dealt with in the west but he can't
acknowledge them.
>
>
>(b) a framework is laid out
yes
>
>
>(c) tension between "individual" and "collective" emerges
yes
>
>(d) history of consciousness not contained within psychology
okay
>
>Commented reading:
>
> The brain developed (=got bigger, certainly more complex and
>differentiated as well) AFTER hominids were fully bipedal with a fully
>upright head and had been using tools for 1.5 million years.. Thus the
>ideal (essential mediation to the environment) had become the framework
>within which modern hominids developed.
ah, so we are using anthropological/archaeological sources - but did
Leontiev have access to this information? it's pretty new, isn't it?
>
>
> "It was in neolithic times that man's
(sic)
>
>mastery of the great arts of civizilzation -- of pottery, weaving,
>agriculture, and the domestication of animals -- became firmly
>established .
>. . Each of these techniques assumews centuries of active and methodical
>observation, of bold hypotheses tested by means of endlessly repeated
>experiments." (C Levi-Straus: The Savage Mind). Only a short 20,000 ya
>after millions of years of increasing dependence on tools.
>
>
>
>thought processes:
>
>production of ideas originally incorporated into material activity =>
>production of conditions of existence.
>
>THE PROBLEM: how, having sensory perceptions as its only source, thought
>penetrates the surface of phenomena that act on our sensory organs.
for this i refer to Edelman. and other neurologists.
>
>On [16] Leont'ev neatly addresses himself to (a) vulgar materialists, (b)
>transcendental idealists, and (c) neo-positivists: "In contrast to the
>views of the laws of logic (a) as if they arise from principles of the
>working of the mind (or (b) as if they express immanent laws of a thinking
>spirit, (c) or finally as if they are evoked by the development of the
>language of science itself), the marxist position is . .
why the very specific name-calling?
>
it is a genre i'm bothered by - is this the local soviet genre of
dealing with others?
phillip
>
>
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \
Buddha speaking to Vasettha:
One is not a brahmin by birth,
Nor by birth a non-brahmin.
By action is one a brahmin,
by action is one a non-brahmin.
So that is how the truly wise
See action as it really is,
Seers of dependent origination,
Skilled in actions and its results.
Action makes the world
go round,
Action makes this
generation turn.
Living beings are bound
by action
Like the chariot wheel
by the pin.
phillip white
third grade teacher
doctoral student
scrambling a dissertation
denver, colorado
phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:00 PDT