Re: Re(2): Lang embodied?

From: Paul H. Dillon (illonph@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 17:05:11 PDT


Nate,

The subject-object opposition is only one of the meanings of "objectivity"
and probably the least important in the dialectical materialist tradition.
Additionally, there are etymological issues. Two German words, the Latin
derived "objekt" and the native "gegenstand" are translated as "object" in
English: the former a real and the latter an intentional object in the first
acception. "Objekt" is the object of a subject, e.g., the object of desire,
while "gegenstand" is the object of knowledge.

Three levels of objectivity can be distinguished in Hegel: (a) an object
that is independent of the subject, which is the level you are addressing in
your comments to Peter, (b) an object that stands over against a subject and
is to be overcome, eg. a crisis that calls for a certain type of action, a
deadline to be met, etc. and (c) an object that has been worked up to
NECESSITY and rationality or necessity itself. In materialist dialectics
the latter is the most important usage and the one in which the
subject-object dichotomy of the first level is overcome. This is the basis
of the possibility of the concrete universal in general and the basis on
which the interests of one element of the totality can reflect those of
the whole; eg, the interests of one class can represent the interests of the
society as a whole. Of course this perspective is premised on the
fundamental recognition of the process of dialectical change and the
sublation of previous stages and oppositions.

From this perspective Jay's "factorization" problem vanishes and becomes
part of the general problem of what is necessary, a position I've been
advancing here for some time now.

Paul H. Dillon

----- Original Message -----
From: Nate Schmolze <nate_schmolze@yahoo.com>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 7:14 AM
Subject: RE: Re(2): Lang embodied?

> Peter said,
>
> i'm afraid that marx would not have had much time for the post
> modernists (indeed he settled accounts to his satisfaction with the 19th
> century equivalents) as you rightly imply. class, for example bourgeois
and
> proletarian, indeed, is considered as an objective category in the sense
> that
> the existence of these classes in modern capitalist society is a fact
> (sorry,
> nate!) about how social production takes place, whether people like it,
know
> it, or not. i guess that, for marx, without an understanding of that fact
> (not
> just in general but concretely in terms of a detailed analysis of the
system
> and how it works) any conception of political or social institutions, of
> what
> they are for and how they work will remain hopelessly abstract, inadequate
> (and
> therefore ideological, in so far as it will fail to penetrate to the
> essential
> socio-economic contradictions out of which such institutions arise).
>
> No need to be sorry Peter, I agree. The point I'd make is the
"objectivity"
> that Marx speaks to was done in such away that it becomes absurd to argue
as
> some capitalists did at the time that Capital was a handbook for
> capitalists. Now, your use of "objective" above I would situate in some
> sense, as "anti-objective" in the sense there is a definite politics to
it.
> When I think of objectivity liberalism comes to mind which attempts to
make
> the "objectivity" (again I see this as subjective) transparent, which
hides
> the political, class aspect that Marx "objectively" brought out.
>
> What and where we put content in the objective and subjective boxes seem
> less important to me than say from what standpoint one is talking about
> objectivity. For Marx, he was NOT taking an objective "objective"
standpoint
> on class but one that was directed to not only understanding the world,
but
> also changing it. So, respectfully I would like to ask what is your "not
so
> objective" objective standpoint. Your discussion of Blair was helpful
here,
> which I did not sense in the paper itself. I think Marx, Ilenkov, and you
> have much more faith in the role of science in transforming society than
> myself. I tend to see it in a Foucaultian fashion much more along the
line
> of Marxist criticisms of the state.
>
> It seems to me, as you hinted at in your last post that there are concrete
> struggles here. It seems to me that the left has put its eggs in the
wrong
> basket for far too long. Now we can hold on to our scientific facts and
> objective truth, but when the day is done Blair and Clinton are the voice
of
> the left. The last election in our state for governor 80% of "working
class"
> voted for a republican governor (Dictator actually with the most liberal
> line item veto in the states) that is "anti-working class" to his core.
>
> Maybe it was your emphasis on "life activity" but the discussion seemed
> abstract in the sense it was devoid of content. Materialism (big or
small)
> is fine, but what are we materializing to.
>
> Nate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
> 1stUp.com - Free the Web
> Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:34 PDT