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

[Xmca-l] Re: Fw: Re: Vygotsky,Marx, & summer reading



Haydi, since this list has discussed the difference between 'moments' and 'parts' before, I will beg the patience of the list by pointing to this passage in Hegel's Philosophy of Right which we are reading in our reading group today: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/prstate1.htm#PR278

Hegel is talking about states and organisms at the same time here. An organism is called an "organism" because it is made up of organs (which are moments) not parts. The point is that none of the organs (or moments) can live other than as parts of the whole, and vice versa. The interesting thing to me is that he contrasts the modern state (which is an organism, and whose various organs are 'moments') with the medieval state in which the monarch collected taxes and made war with other monarchs, while civil society was run by corporations and guilds, and the whole state was simply an "aggregate" of these "parts" not an organic whole, not yet conforming to the concept of a state. So the relation between a part and a moment is that parts can become moments through the development of an aggregate into an integral whole.

Hope this is of interest.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research
On 23/08/2017 4:50 PM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
Andy,

Right! A discussion being run just between two persons on a Forum is not always beneficial ; it should be an exception rather than the rule. It is good you warn us against that!

Additionally , each of us are reacting and feeling responsible for what passes on the Forum collectively and communicatively ; thank goodness we have good-willed moderators!

Though me a lesser student , I co-operated with you on finding responses to the posed questions .

On 'moments' I begged the information to the effect that , as you now say , we are bound to be clear with our circumlocutor as we expect him/her to thusly be ! Our rightful challenges should not take the form of testing especially when our addressee is a full intelligent researcher himself!

No , much of a headache inflicts us when we aim to conceptually scan the Cosmos and the daily chores as well. This point is all running all through your novel response. There are lots of 'if's and 'in case of's and all dependencies and relations .

The gist of the matter was that we could speak of wholes and parts in their static features in any domain as you come with some but not in their unified oneness in motion ; the Cosmos IS of all parts but the Cosmos runs not partially but momentarily and any outright intervention (based on miscalculations in our conceptions) brings it to a halt and our mystics see the high manifestations of these spectacular momentary visions in God as abstractions but scientists also have their own visions in turn .

You then will agree to be finished with the debate now . Many thanks for your co-operation.

Best wishes

Haydi



------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
*To:* "‪eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
*Sent:* Wednesday, 23 August 2017, 4:39:33
*Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Fw: Re: Vygotsky,Marx, & summer reading

Haydi, I really can't deal with so many questions, certainly
not if we want this to be more than a dialogue between the
two of us. So I will respond to your first paragraph only.

Here is Hegel on moments:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slsubjec.htm#SL163
.
It comes at the beginning of "The Concept" because it is
only with the formation of a concept of the whole that
moments of the whole can arise. Universal, Particular and
Individual are the archetypes of "moments" for Hegel, but he
also sees the Legislature, the Executive (public service)
and the Crown (or President) as three moments of the state.
The name of a thing is a whole -everyone is a person
("person" = Universal). But humanity is also made up
communities, it being taken that a person cannot be a person
unless they participate in some human community ("community"
in this sense = particular). And every person is an
individual, born at some time and place and dying in some
time and place, with their own unique mind ("individual").
Do you see the sense in which these 3 moments are all
simultaneously the whole?

All the various communities are parts of the whole of
humanity, just as each individual is a part of a community.
But we can equally say that the various demographic
groupings (age, gender, employment, etc.) are parts of the
whole. It depends on the units chosen, that is, of how the
whole is conceived.

Here is Hegel on whole and parts:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slappear.htm#SL135
.

Our mind does not create the problem; our minds are part  of
the same social formation which creates the object we think
about and reproduce in our activity. Nonetheless, it is
always legitimate to ask how much of a basis a given "whole"
has in the material world or in activity. For example, when
a science first begins it orients to an object which is an
Appearance (or Phenomenon) - some problem strikes the eye
and people address themselves to it. For example, as a young
man Marx was outraged by the injustices he saw around him in
Germany - censorship, autocracy, persecution of the
peasantry, etc - but after 20 years of study he formed a
different conception of the whole - capitalism. David made
the same point last week pointing to how Vygotsky said that
some sciences addressed themselves to natural wholes
(including pedology) while other sciences studied the
general processes underlying phenomena (Psychology,
Medicine, Biology, ...). So the whole is not arbitrary -
different wholes, different units, different problems,
different insights, different remedies.

That's more than enough!

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research
On 23/08/2017 4:10 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> Thank you for your solemn answering , Andy.
>
> I follow your responses not my questions. I admit too many
> questions but they are related at least for me.
>
> I have not reached 'moment' in Hegel yet but first it was
> Wolff-Michael years ago who referred to it on debates and
> ever since I've got to be clear with it at no cost. If I
> may ... I would say "each moment IS the whole" might be a
> little bit faulty ; and it might cross your saying of
> wholes and parts to David ; being a whole despite
> containing parts ; you here differentiate between moments
> and parts yet I do not get the distinction ; I would say
> if moments and parts are matters of Natures of Phenomena
> or again it's our 'mind' which creates the problem ,
> ontology/epistemology things! ; is it the case that
> whatever thing we're talking about , finites vs infinite ,
> determinate
> being/emptiness/filledness/nothingness/transition/becoming/concepts/notion/ought/actuality
> vs clock parts , we can talk of wholes and parts?
>
>