[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo Finnish Insufficiences

Dear Haydi,
Although your message was to Arturo - I enjoyed reading it very much. I  have only minutes to say  that reification is always still open. So 'sedimentation' is also 'still there' as possibility to reinterpret.
 you say 
"He also needs 'consciousness' to take from . But what is consciousness ? It's there fixed for ever like a storage-house  on the alert for you to give it the honour of your presence and seek some needy things out of it and then leave without a good-bye ? "
 This is very felt: and
You have to act even today and in the future , too , taking from the consciousness  
 [which was emerging in social relations]
but with each
 taking you encounter it anew because you should act in the direction of 
[an on-going situation of relations in actuality - there is actuality]
{Maybe there will be something 'like' 
a particular goal... maybe not
But after achievement of understanding in dialogue - maybe some conceptual relations then  begins forming and tranforming in awareness??}
 Also very quickly I heard and conversed very briefly with a person called Vyacheslav Maracha, and we recognised together a very 'convoluted loop' that the Moscow Methodology Circle took - beginning in the 1950's of 'thinking as activity' , all sorts of levels and inventions were made  ( very funny to reflect upon )to 'compensate' - but now there is recognition  ( as does Davydov) that 'thinking ' is not activity...
 Also I was reading Virilio this morning ' The Art of the Motor' - a little quote
" We now know that we can exhaust the world's being, so why not anticipate that we can also rapidly exhaust the fragile sphere of our dreams, our fantasies, our amazements - which no one is now presenting as the ultimate goal of a civilization that would actually end up experimenting with them.
But the works of the Surrealists, particularly their famous 'Dream Bank," showed the poverty of the trivial dream, which is so curiously lacking in variety and imagination that the representation of our desires becomes a load of drivel, with endless repetition of a few limited themes. .......
We have clearly reached the point of no return here, with a major question about what now appears to be an abuse of language. Although determined to prove the opposite, creative man [!sic!] is not for all that  creator; creation is not his realm, and though so often used, the word creator is inappropriate. In a sense man is more definitely an engineer."
 p71 (A Terminal Artpp61-75 'The Art of the Motor' 1995  		 	   		  __________________________________________
xmca mailing list