Following your lead it may be preferable to say
single (individual) to indicate the uniqueness of
variable social actions. This doubling (by
including both terms) may crystallize the intended
meaning as you mention.
Andy is this vein can we also include the term
Then the moving TRANS forming from single
(individual) social acts towards (practices) would
indicate the movement from examples to exemplary
actions and further movement (historicity) toward
(framework) practices being another doubling.
So moving (transforming) from single social examples
through exemplary social examples crystallizing in
social framework practices.
Is this reasonable?
Sent from my Windows 10 phone
*From: *Andy Blunden <mailto:email@example.com>
*Sent: *July 24, 2017 6:57 AM
*To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
*Cc: *Alexander Surmava <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
*Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
Larry, when you say "Action IS individual," did you
to say that *actions* - the individual units of
individual? In which can it is of course a tautology.
But *action* is irreducibly *social*, and so is every
"individual" action. Or better, so is every
A lot of relevant differences are coded in the English
language by the use of the count-noun or mass noun
on the whole the set of words (action, actions,
activities) and the set of words (practice,
no systematic difference running across all
schools of thought. For us CHATters, "activities" are
If you read Hegel and Marx, there is an added issue: the
German words for action (Handlung) and activity
are more or less inverted for Hegel, and he doesn't use
Aktivitat at all.
On 24/07/2017 11:42 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> Alexander, Mike,
> Thanks for the article.
> Moving to page 51 I noticed that when referencing
Bernstein he contrasted (action) with (practice) and
did not REPEAT (identity) the thesis about the role
of practice in knowing).
> Two formulas:
> • Knowing THROUGH ‘action’
> • Verification of knowing THROUGH ‘practice’
> These two formulas closely RESEMBLE each other but
do not co-incide
> Action IS individual
> Practice IS a social category.
> Sociohistorical (practice) in the final analysis is
nothing other than the SUM total of the actions of
individual who are separate.
> Individual action is LIKE a single experiment.
They are alike in that both individual action & a
single experiment are poorly suited to the role of :
> A philosophical criterion of (truth).
> I do not have the background to intelligently
comment, but did register this theme as provocative
FOR further thought and wording.
> And for generating intelligent commentary
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> From: Ivan Uemlianin
> Sent: July 20, 2017 11:17 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Cc: Alexander Surmava
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
> Yes very interesting thank you! (Ilyenkov fan)
> festina lente
>> On 20 Jul 2017, at 18:00, mike cole
<email@example.com> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> This article might prove of interest to those who
have been discussing
>> LSV's sources in
>> marx and spinoza.