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

[Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza

I see.

This is a slightly different context. The original meaning of "paradigm," before the popularisation of Thomas Kuhn's work, was a "founding exemplar."
"Exemplar" presumably has the same etymology as "example."

The idea of "an example" as being one of numerous instances of a process is a different concept, the opposite really.


Andy Blunden
On 25/07/2017 2:01 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
I will reference where I got the notion of linking [example] and [framework]. If this becomes interesting will open another thread. From David L. Marshall titled : "Historical and Philosophical Stances: Max Harold Fisch, a Paradigm for Intellectual Historians" -2009-

PAGE 270:

"Max Fisch constitutes an alternative to any intellectual historical method insisting that practiontioners remain agnostics about the value of the ideas they study. It is the chief contention of this essay that he is a 'paradigm' for intellectual historians, a paradigm in the original Greek sense of an *example* and in the DERIVED contemporary sense of a *framework* within which the community of research can proceed. Indeed it is just such *doubling* of the philological object qua example into a carapace for ongoing action and thought that Fisch explored in a variety of ways during his half century of creative intellectual work. "

Andy, not sure if this is adequate context, but the relationality of [example : framework] through the concept *paradigm* seemed generative??

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    "actions" or "an action" ... no extra word is needed.
    Extra words like "singular," "individual" or "single"
    only confuse the matter. "Examples" is too vague.

    Cannot make sense of the rest of your message at all,


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

    On 25/07/2017 12:17 AM, Lplarry wrote:


    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.

    (framework) practices being another doubling.

    So moving (transforming) from single social  examples
    through exemplary social  examples crystallizing in
    social framework practices.

    Is this reasonable?

    Or not

    Sent from my Windows 10 phone

    *From: *Andy Blunden <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
    *Sent: *July 24, 2017 6:57 AM
    *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
    *Cc: *Alexander Surmava <mailto:monada@netvox.ru>
    *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza

    Larry, when you say "Action IS individual," did you

    to say that *actions* - the individual units of
    *action* are

    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
    "singular" action.

    A lot of relevant differences are coded in the English

    language by the use of the count-noun or mass noun
    form, but

    on the whole the set of words (action, actions,

    activities) and the set of words (practice,
    practices) have

    no systematic difference running across all
    disciplines and

    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.



    Andy Blunden

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


    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)


    > Ivan


    > --

    > festina lente



    >> On 20 Jul 2017, at 18:00, mike cole
    <mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:


    >> This article might prove of interest to those who
    have been discussing

    >> LSV's sources in

    >> marx and spinoza.

    >> mike

    >> <Ilyenkov_and_the_Revolution_in_Psycholog.pdf>