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

[Xmca-l] Re: Hegel on Action



I meant specifically that the aphorism about Hegel having to be turned on his head is not useful.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 17/07/2017 12:16 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
Andy, please just pay respect to the whole of what I have written. We cannot forget our ideas because you have a strong background in this or that. Any respectable learned fellow could come up with vague notions and those who dare challenge them cannot be considered to be totally ignorant or necessarily on the wrong track or worse uttering nonsense. What do you mean by saying "No-one can ever explain what it means without talking
nonsense" . What is the reference for it? To say Hegel have been considered 'idealist' , the last of the German idealists , grounding his philosophy mostly on the Absolute Spirit (idea) reaching therefore to the magnification and strengthening of the powers of the State and its recognition of Civil Rights surrendering the oppressed and the innocent ruled to those monopolistic and absolute rights rendering the innocent accountable to what have come out of them not based on free will but according to the codes of morality prefigured by the very State is nonsensical ? I've been long involved in reading Ilyenko , The rise of the abstract to the concrete in Marx's capital , The dialectical Logic , The piece on Lenin's criticism of the Machists and Bogdanovians as positivists and empirio-critics , The problem of the Ideal , The Universal , The idols and the ideals and his other works . Do you really consider yourself among those who cannot talk about 'it' without talking nonsense? What is the reason behind this? Ilyenko deals with Hegel in brilliant discourse. My talk was not groundless yet I do not claim legitimation . Dialogue is the agenda not monologue disguised in dialogue. Shortly we have processes and products . A concept is a product , the endpoint of a chain of thoughts and actions ; it's neither activity itself nor a form of activity . I've written the details ; you didn't want to go through. This kind of refutation leaves no place for the learners.

Regards
Haydi

       From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
  To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
  Sent: Sunday, 16 July 2017, 14:42:47
  Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel on Action
Haydi, I really don't see how "the interests of the
exploited and the oppressed" comes into this. I say nothing
of "corrections made by Marx on Hegel" though I make several
points of criticism of Hegel and my reading of Marx on Hegel
has certainly contributed to my views here. I just don't see
any value in quoting Marx in an article on Hegel. I have
found that the maxim about "turning Hegel on his head, or
rather back on his feet" unhelpful. I'm not saying it is
wrong, but it never helped me understand Hegel and has led
to a lot of misunderstanding of Hegel and Marx as well.
No-one can ever explain what it means without talking
nonsense. You say "you are quite right with your
understanding of concept not being activity itself" - you
misunderstand me. I am saying that a concept is a form of
activity.

One of the participants in my weekly Hegel Reading Group
told me that the main thing he has learnt from the group is
to simply read what Hegel wrote. He said that all his life
as an Italian Marxist he just repeated what fellow Marxists
had told him about Hegel. Now that he has read Hegel he sees
how small the differences are. He now understands Marx a lot
better for having closely read Hegel.

Hope that clarifies a little.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
On 16/07/2017 7:55 PM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
....

If I'm not mistaken in understanding Andy , he , on
Hegel's lenses , equals 'goal-oriented material activity'
with sharing in 'intention' or at times , fusion of
intention and activity which is not so productive as to
the interests of the exploited and the oppressed . He does
say nothing of the corrections made by Marx on Hegel ,
that is , that Hegel's theory is headlong or upside down ;
that it should be switched in a way that it should look
upright erected quite firm on its feet. I think you are
quite right with your understanding of concept not being
activity itself .

Regards

Haydi


------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
*To:* "ablunden@mira.net" <ablunden@mira.net>; "eXtended
Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
*Sent:* Saturday, 15 July 2017, 18:22:24
*Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel on Action

Andy,
Thanks for this article ‘Hegel on Action’
The paragraph on (logical concepts) was clarifying in the
mutual way we are inclined to take the word itself AS IF
the word were the material concept and not take the
concept AS activity (itself).
I hope I am representing this (reading this) in the way
you intended.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Andy Blunden
Sent: July 15, 2017 5:30 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel on Action

James, I think you're using "material" in some specific
sense which is unknown to me. It seems to me to be something
to do with body language as opposed to speech, maybe
practical consciousness rather than discursive
consciousness. "Material" understood as meaning "made of
matter" would simply be the opposite of "in my imagination".
I find it difficult to get my head around the idea of a
"sign in the mind" and if "mind" was some place other than
the material world where a sign could be located. I'm sure
what you are talking about is perfectly good, but I can't
relate it to the absolutely basic ontological issue which
you raised out of my paper about action.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making


On 15/07/2017 8:15 PM, James Ma wrote:
Thanks for such helpful explanation, Andy.
Regarding my last question, I mean one's feeling or sense
perception involved in social practice in a social context
possesses the material quality of a psychic image (a sign
in the mind). This material quality can be one's facial
expression or bodily movement connected with a particular
feeling.

James

/_____________________________________/

*/James Ma/*///https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa/



On 15 July 2017 at 09:42, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
wrote:
     James, the meaning for words such as "material" and to
     a lesser extent the other words in your message have
     meanings which are extremely context (or discourse)
     dependent. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
     doesn't have a definition of Matter, considering it
     only in relation to Form, but their definition of
     Substance will do the trick. I follow Lenin and
     Vygotsky in my understanding of matter. (Hegel didn't
     like to use the word, because he took it as too linked
     to Atomism. Marx used "material" in a very specific
     way to do with reproduction of the means of life.)

     As to the philosophical meaning of "matter" I think I
     said it in the paper as succinctly as possible. If
     it's in the mind then it is not material. I can't make
     sense of your last question.

     Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
     Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy><http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>
     On 15/07/2017 6:28 PM, James Ma wrote:

         This is interesting to me, Andy. Do you rule out
         anything that has material quality but is actually
         associated with a mental sign (a sign in the mind,
         as Peirce would say)? Do you consider social
         practice (you mentioned earlier) to be tinted with
         the intrapsychological within oneself?

         James

         /_____________________________________/

         */James
         Ma/*///https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa/
         <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa/>



         On 15 July 2017 at 07:11, Andy Blunden
         <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
             No, it would be spreading confusion, Greg.

             "Matter" in this context is everything outside
         of my
             consciousness. "Activity" in this context is
         human,
             social practice. Moving attention to the
         sub-atomic
             level, a field where we have no common sense,
         sensuous
             knowledge, does not help.

             Andy


------------------------------------------------------------
             Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
         <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
         <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>

http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>>
             On 15/07/2017 2:31 PM, Greg Thompson wrote:

                 Andy,
                 Just musing here but I'm wondering if
         "matter" is
                 anything more than activity, particularly
when
                 considered at the sub-atomic level.
                 At that level, matter seems a lot more
         like the
                 holding of relations in some activity (not so
                 different from the Notion?).
                 Or would that be taking things too far?
                 -greg

                 On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Andy
Blunden
                 <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
                 <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
                 <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>> wrote:
                     Anyone who got interested in that
         material about
                     "Hegel on Action", here is my
         contribution.

https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action
         <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action>

         <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action
         <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action>>

           <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action
         <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action>

         <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action
         <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action>>>

                     Andy


                     --
------------------------------------------------------------
                     Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
         <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
                 <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
                 <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>

http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>>
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>>>




                 --        Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
                 Assistant Professor
                 Department of Anthropology
                 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
                 Brigham Young University
                 Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
         <http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>
                 <http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
         <http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>>