Sasha, this is the bit I object to:
Alexander Surmava wrote:
> Those which unifies “primitives” and really advanced thinkers is their
> common object oriented activity, their common smart movement according the
> objective shape of their objects, while their antagonists specialized in
> some type of ideology which according to Marx’s definition is a false form
> of consciousness. I do seriously insist that “tribal people” as well as
> little children use genuine concepts (of objects of their practical life)
> while “Logical Positivist philosophers” using the genuine concepts in their
> practical personal life in their professional thinking are standing lower
> than “tribal people” and children because “Logical Positivist philosophers”
> can’t go further empty words, or general, abstract “conceptions”.
Can I make some dot points:
1. As I understand it, "object oriented activity" unifies
not only "advanced thinkers" and "primitives" but also
molluscs. So that's not saying much. Is that right?
2. "False Consciousness" is not a term Marx ever used. It is
a term from jurispudence which Lukacs used to mean basically
beliefs based on insufficient information, not "ideology."
That usage was invented in the 1980s to discredit Marxism.
3. When you say that everyone (incl. "tribal people" and
little children") use concepts, but define these concepts as
"objects of their practical life" this is again saying
nothing as even a donkey uses "objects of their practical life."
4. To say that "Logical Positivist philosophers" stand lower
than "tribal people and children" in their professional work
ignores the fact that if asked to particpate in the same
kind of reflections, people who are not philosophers will
give answers equally silly as "Logical Positivist
philosophers," precisely because it is not their profession.
5. You never equate, but repeatedly *link*, children and
"primitives," that is to say trainee language/artefact users
and skilled language/artefact users. True again that in
these passage you only link "primitives" with children, but
one gets the impression that people whose cultural roots
stand midway between modernity and "primitives" might still
be seen as relatively immature in their thinking.
6. An observation: I am reading about the Algerian
Liberation War (1955-62) at the moment. A writer observed
how the Algerians used modern technology, communications and
organisational forms to fight the French. I am reminded of
how Fundamentalist Christians use postmodern communications
to promote their interpretations of the Bible. My point:
Einstein didn't use Atom bombs. Science and technology are
cultural-historical products and the type of activity
necessary to produce them is not required to use them.
Scientific and non-scientific thinking co-exist among users
of the self-same culture. I think we have to be very
cautious in ranking people's thinking according to the
historical place of the artefacts they think with. I drive a
car with manual transmission. I will make mistakes if I am
asked to drive an automatic. But I don't think I drive at a
lower level than someone who drives an automatic.
:)
Andy
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmcaReceived on Wed Apr 30 04:06 PDT 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 01 2008 - 17:14:14 PDT