:-) I do try to use them with at least consistent nuance. But I would
definitely not want to get into a debate about the correct and proper usage
of 'mind', 'consciousness' and 'psyche', so I'll just accept your offer.
Andy
At 08:56 PM 12/03/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>Andy,
>
>I agree entirely. But you use three terms as though synonymous: mind,
>consciousness, and psyche. Would you be willing to trade (forgive the
>mercantile metaphor) 'reference to mind is necessary' for 'reference to
>consciousness is necessary'?
>
>Martin
>
>
>On 3/11/07 8:59 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, sorry, I meant "Martin". :-)
> > I am not claiming that there is a "correlation" between a concept and a
> > thing. e.g. as you say, being a commodity does not depend on a participant
> > in exchange knowing the concept "commodity". Such a judgment is possible
> > from an observer perspective without reference to the participant's theory
> > of what they are doing.
> > But I am saying that the basis for a concept is the ideality involved in
> > the activity. You can't recognise a commodity by its physical properties.
> > Some reference to mind is necessary."Commodity" does not arise as a concept
> > until the practice of exchanging products reaches a certain level of
> > development, which includes products being produced for exchanged, i.e., as
> > ideals. It is impossible to identify a thing as a commodity outside of
> > consideration of the consciousness of the participants.
> > For example, a thing produced *for the purpose of meeting the producer's
> > needs by exchanging it for another person's product* is a commodity only
> > because of the separation of the producer's needs from the producer's
> > labour, and the existence of a relation with other producers such that
> > someone else satisfies the person's needs, and each sees the other as a
> > means to their own ends. This situation is sustainable only through forms
> > of consciousness. It can't happen without appropriate orientation of
> > people's psyches.
> > And in fact if this situation were contrived independently of the
> > consciousness of the participants (e.g., organisation of prison labour),
> > then I would say that the products are not commodities, even though the
> > movement of matter is the same.
> > So "a commodity is a commodity, whether or not I recognize this in my
> > thinking" but not for example if you intended to consume it yourself, but
> > someone exchanged it for something else when you were out of the room, or
> > you intended to exchange it, but no-one else wanted it.
> > Andy
> > At 07:42 PM 11/03/2007 -0600, you wrote:
> >> And Andy, when you say 'David,' I presume you mean Martin? :)
> >>
> >> But you're not saying, are you, that our thinking necessarily 'correlates'
> >> with the concepts formed in our activity? I mean, a commodity is a
> >> commodity, whether or not I recognize this in my thinking.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> On 3/11/07 6:24 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And David, when you say 'practice', I presume you mean purposive
> activity,
> >>> as opposed to simply material action, such as digestion. Material actions
> >>> which are not 'practical' in this sense are not a relevantly necessary
> >>> substrate of concepts. It is only practice which is part of 'mind'
> which is
> >>> the relevant necessary substrate of concepts.Things that we do that
> have no
> >>> correlate in our thinking, such as the use of meaningful artefacts,
> are not
> >>> the basis for concepts.
> >>> Andy
> >>> At 06:03 PM 11/03/2007 -0600, you wrote:
> >>>> David,
> >>>> So when Andy writes 'If you mean that concepts do not exist other
> than in
> >>>> connection with human minds, then I agree,' I think what he *ought* to
> >>>> have said, perhaps what he meant to say, was that concepts do not exist
> >>>> other than in connection with human *practices*. I think we¹d agree
> that a
> >>>> 'commodity' exists in the social world, not merely in a person's
> head. The
> >>>> 'commodity form' is defined, created, by social practices, not in and by
> >>>> individual minds.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > Andy Blunden. The Subject -
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/the-subject.htm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Andy Blunden. The Subject - http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/the-subject.htm
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 01:00:11 PST