[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] dualism and monism
- To: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] dualism and monism
- From: Mike Cole <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:11:43 -0800
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Ht1ifxXV5K8HBTN3sffJ0FN5PyQbJ1MFZEtBtmr3FhA=; b=xhVNtk4g3Og7gQAY3n6/OKGXNJDxoHpmbN1TnkkH1ihM0TKDGPBwzg8S8alYULKh5a 6Nn/LeehdBq02GnPTiAG2dyHzDt+d41XzjpLr1u3rlZU0NtP4nkZ/3k5yqFQuciZgciF 83FrLngS2Fp5nY2whj9L9IRmGVxn3gC6ioGcs=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; b=BU6MgdHnXPrUgmbjTmyZpKPa+HtLFBDceutJEEgAqeavVVvDry6/7ud5UAGqTET4n2 AnofzwJgtm+bcjamba8v7Z3tWNGHj6CnsMDT1hOLjogCtAqqcJdx6hkPHU/comrI36vv jvWNfMv7ef7qEBEIsZoSduhdncsaPPkDLUpcM=
- In-reply-to: <49A5D948.email@example.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <C5CB0636.1E8D4firstname.lastname@example.org> <49A5D948.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
The quote from Martin EXACTLY describes the "two psychologies" problem
that was Luria's life time work to overcome. For him it was idiographic VS
nomothetic and descriptive VS. explanatory. For me, the expanded conception
of the artifact, the artificial, in Ilyenkov appears to provide a way out.
To remind us, Martin wrote .. from chapter 4 of "Dialectical Logic," on
"From two different, dualistically isolated halves, having no connection at
all with each other, you could not create a single, integral system. What
was needed was not dualism, but monism, not two initial principles but one
only. Because, when there were two different initial principles, there were
two different sciences, which never merged into one."
We cannot escape dualisms when we start with them. They are derivative, not
primal was/is my guess.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ineresting, the parallel discussions on inside/outside and material/mental,
> ideal/natural. ?
> Yes the quote is a good one, Martin, forcing me to try harder to clarify my
> view on monism. There is no doubt at all that the overcoming of Kant's
> dualism was the main issue for that period of criticism of Kant, with
> Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. I think Fichte did a fair job of it, but left
> us with a Jacobin subjectivism which solved the problem of dualism by
> subsuming everything under Ego. In my opinion, Schelling's attempt to
> recover an objective world in a monist system (Nature) relies a lot on the
> kind of gesture I have mentioned. But I think it was Hegel who succeeded in
> a monism which could be really productive. I think Feuerbach had it right
> when he accused Hegel of having an abstract and not a real natural human
> beings constituting Spirit, and Marx pointed us in the right direction,
> etc., etc., in all of which I should give thanks to Ilyenkov ...
> Mike said it in his tuppence worth. When confronted with a duality, I think
> we should asked "how is this distinction mediated?" rather than "this
> distinction is false (or illusory)." This was Hegel's approach.
> Of course one also needs some kind of conception of the nature of the
> underlying reality, and this should not incorporate a dualism.
> Martin Packer wrote:
>> Andy, this is cheap scholarship, copying quotes, but... from chapter 4 of
>> "Dialectical Logic," on Fichte:
>> "From two different, dualistically isolated halves, having no connection
>> all with each other, you could not create a single, integral system. What
>> was needed was not dualism, but monism, not two initial principles but one
>> only. Because, when there were two different initial principles, there
>> two different sciences, which never merged into one."
>> Just words? Just WORDS? JUST words?
>> On 2/23/09 9:58 PM, "Andy Blunden" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> The point I want to make is this: to claim that everything
>>> is material or by some such sweeping statement make a claim
>>> to a radical monism, is just words. At some point you have
>>> to make a distinction. It doesn't really matter whether you
>>> call everything "Spirit", "matter", "nature", "texts" or
>>> whatever. So long as it is "everything" it is nothing, it is
>>> just a Kantian "thing-in-itself."
>> xmca mailing list
> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list