[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts
My take on the "rising to the concrete" is that eventually reification
is needed (a form of synthesis): create new words, expressions, books,
laws, etc. for otherwise the ideal vanishes. But the concept is the
real starting point.
Marx wrote in The 'Economics' (1857-1867):
The concrete is concrete because it is a combination of many
determinations, i.e. a unity of diverse elements. In our thought it
therefore appears as a process of synthesis, as a result, and not as a
starting point, although it is the real starting-point and, therefore,
also the starting point of observation and conception.
On 18 January 2012 12:29, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu> wrote:
> Hi Ahndy,
> This reminds me "rising to from the abstract to the concrete" very much of Marx's rejoinder to Hegel about the French revolution. Hegel applauded the idealogues after the French revolution saying he was pleased that humans were finally walking on their heads. In a swipe at the idealogues, at least it always seemed to me that way, Marx felt it necessary to turn Hegel's view of human action back to walking on their feet. The paragraph you cite seems very similar. Would you say then rising to the concrete is another chance to point out what he sees as the failure of idealogues in truly understanding how social economies would progress. I ask because I have always been a little confused about the use of the phrase "rising to the concrete."
> In middle of that paragraph beginning "It seems to be correct ...".
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>> On 17 January 2012 14:48, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>> The path of acquiring a concept is not the concept. The
>> flight of a moth and is not light.
>> 1. Concepts are processes not entities or structures. Not only
>> ontigenetically, but also microgenetically and culturally.
>> A structure is that which is unchanging relative to a process. One
>> (slowly changing) process can be a structure for other processes. The
>> recognition of the systemic material relations that comprise these
>> structures and processes is my understanding of the term "rising to
>> the concrete". From what I can gather from your contributions, Andy,
>> this dynamic aspect of materiality is absent. In place of these
>> dynamic material relations you have some flavour of idealism, which
>> leads you to frame everything as a process or activity. Which
>> suggests, to me, that you're not able to leverage any insights from
>> the other side of the coin. This seems to be the main divergence.
>> 2. The "anatomy" of a real concept, as Vygotsky sees it, is the
>> several paths of development contained in it. Vygotsky studied
>> these paths of development in order to understand real concepts. A
>> limb is not a person, but to understand the human body one must
>> grasp its parts, its anatomy.
>> xmca mailing list
>> firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
Arturo J Escandon
Department of Spanish and Latin-American Studies
18 Yamazato-cho, Showa-ku
Nagoya, 466-8673 JAPAN
Tel: +81 (52) 832 3111 (extension 3604)
Mobile: +81 (908) 796 4220
xmca mailing list