[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts
Hello Huw, Andy
I'd use 'generate' rather than 'works' - and I wouldn't use 'mirror'. The
two domains ( of the thought experiment and that of actuality in praxis
,living) are relate not through 'complete description of particulars of
actuality' (we cannot fully capture all detail of living) corroborating
some image 'mirrored' -; but the relation is through 'operational
coherences' ( to use Maturana's expression) of praxis of living , or
'criterion of acceptability' that we use in listening to accounts in our
'languaging' in conversations about experience. Just to say that this does
not reduce to the domain of our physiological living, actuality is
experienced 'in between'.
Second on systems: I find helpful that 'system' as notion is in our
'thought experiment domain' , not existing 'in the world' , so I'm confused
trying to interpret
"All systems comprise of material relations".
I am distinguishing a 'static' use of system , where to talk of parts and
whole is not a dynamic analysis ; and a relational use - where relations
afford identity ( not parts ). Is the identify affording capacity
'material' in your sense?
Apologies for the interruption both..
Relevant Maturana paper:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Huw Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> On 19 January 2012 11:33, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Mmmm, hard to keep track of whatever it was we disagreed about here, Huw,
> > but my reaction to what you say would be that an abstract concept also
> > mirrors reality, but in a different way. The task of the thinker is to
> > "reconstruct the real in thought" and that begins from an abstraction
> > best encapsulates the whole Gestalt, but lacks concreteness, and must
> > therefore mark the beginning point of a mental reconstruction of the
> > Yes?
> > Andy
> The abstract system, in the sense portrayed by Marx, could not be
> implemented. It would not work. It would not be a system in its own
> Thought inheres within a material system. One is never outside
> materiality. Although the system of thought allows us to mentally
> construct pseudo systems that would not work if implemented.
> I think there can be value in beginning with abstractions (in this sense),
> although Marx in the passage quoted seemed against it.
> > Huw Lloyd wrote:
> >> My understanding is that a concrete conception, as referred to here, by
> >> Marx, refers to conceptions that authentically mirror the concrete, the
> >> material, the phenomena.
> >> All systems comprise of material relations.
> >> I refer to material here because this is directly related to structure.
> >> Concrete is not merely a concentration of abstractions, it is a
> >> concentration that mirrors the phenomena of interest in the concrete
> >> Alternatively if we were to implement our concrete conceptions we would
> >> also have a concrete system.
> >> Huw
> > ______________________________**____________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list