Re: [xmca] Subject and Self

Andy you write:

3. "What do I mean by "subject"? I definitively do *not* mean it in the
Kantian sense as an individual "agent" or "self", a sense which is most
common amongst CHAT theorists even though the origins of CHAT are in Marx
and Hegel, and not Kant. I use the word "subject" in a sense consistent
with Marx's use, though Marx does not tend to use the word "subject" very
often or with precision; he says "personages" occasionally that is all, and

I use the word "subject" is a sense derived from Hegel, but by means of a
"pragmatic interpretation" of Hegel, i.e., from the point of view of CHAT,
so it is not quite Hegelian either, but closest to Hegel. In other words I
use it in a way no-one else does. So I do not mean "self" or "individual"
or "person" when I say subject. But nor do I mean the "subject position" of

structuralism, and nor do I mean the idea of "collective subject" which is
either an anachronism or a confused conception, since if being a subject
entails consciousness and will or moral responsibility, then obviously only

human individuals can be conscious, have a will or be morally responsible,
or for that matter, have rights."

Would it be fair to state that when your subject is being studied it is
Engstrom's triangle? That it is the gestalt of the context?

eric

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Dec 19 06:20 PST 2007