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

[Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started



Hi Larry,

If community can coexist with creativity, then we might say it has the
rudiments of a culture. I am not sure what passivity (acceptance?) will
achieve outside of this, i.e. within a bureaucracy.

Best,
Huw

On 26 November 2016 at 16:46, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> I sent a youtube video of Susan Hoff exploring passivity within belonging
> to constituted (instituted?) worlds.
>
> John William Miller believed:
> If one does not begin in community, philosophy will never arrive at
> community and so will not be able to revise or improve any human community.
> Miller’s relational back and forth pairs the human act to prior community
> (common beginning).
> This seems to follow Susan Hoff’s theme. However, Susan adds the focus on
> passivity (let it be) as a necessary relation to activity (taking to heart).
> A spiral theme of loose threads relationally intertwined in the back and
> forth.
> May generate a quality of education which has withdrawn from public
> discourse as liberalism has been ascendant.
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: White, Phillip
> Sent: November 25, 2016 4:20 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>
> John Stuart Mill notes the "empty husks" of education prevalent at the
> time (1836), that have come down through the ages.  here's his solutions:
>
>
> https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/jsmill/diss-disc/
> civilization/civilization.s06.html
>
> CIVILIZATION Section 6, John Stuart Mill, Civilization<https://www.
> laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/jsmill/diss-disc/civilization/
> civilization.s06.html>
> www.laits.utexas.edu
> Civilization John Stuart Mill Section 6 [Improving British education]
> These things must bide their time. But the other of the two great
> desiderata, the regeneration ...
>
>
>
>
>
> dense, but illuminating one hundred and eighty years later.
>
>
> phillip
>
> ________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 5:02:34 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: MCA Issue 3 article for discussion Re-started
>
> Thanks Andy.
>
> On 25 November 2016 at 23:38, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > This is not a one-off event, Huw. I writing his PhD Dissertation on the
> > philosophy of Nature of Democritus and Epicurus he was taking a position
> > opposite to that of Hegel. The dissertation was published in 1841 when
> Marx
> > was aged 22. He credits Feuerbach with the impulse to take a stronger
> > materialist line against Hegel with the publication of the Essence of
> > Christianity in 1841. His notes on Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843)
> show
> > that he was trying to take a dismissive attitude to Hegel, and it is only
> > in the Theses on Feuerbach and The German Ideology of 1845 where the
> > outlines of Marx's distinctive critique of Hegel are clearly present, as
> > David notes, in the form of a critique of Feuerbach. It is reasonable to
> > suppose that he was working out this position at the time he wrote the
> 1844
> > Manuscripts. However, he is still working on how to use Hegel as he
> writes
> > his Political Economy material in 1857-58, after which his position is
> > pretty settled. However, his turn to Hegel in 1881 to understand
> calculus,
> > only 2 years before his death, demonstrate that this was an unfinished
> task.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> > On 26/11/2016 2:58 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Interesting too to consider Marx's mode of analysis, which pertains to
> >> something I'm currently drafting.  Does anyone know when Marx
> specifically
> >> studied and re-fashioned Hegel's dialectic?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Huw
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>