Judy, my understanding is that Ilyenkov does not want to redefine the
concepts of 'matter' and 'consciousness', but simply call into question the
identification of the ideal with consciousness. I agree with your comments
in this post of yours. In my experience, one of the barriers to sharing
these insights with those who have been educated in "Orthodox Marxism",
i.e. the very environment Ilyenkov was struggling to overcome, is that
"materialism" is understood to be about the contrast been matter and
consciousness and all the most interesting and important questions are
countered with statements about what is inside the head and what is not.
The whole first part of his article is trying to get around this obstinate
blockage which "orthodox marxists" erect against the ideas of karl marx!
Andy
At 04:11 04/09/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Jan, when you say
>
>>There is only matter (Spinoza's one substance of which thought and
extension
>>are attributes) and the human form of matter has the ability to interact
>>with matter in a way that actualises matter as meaningful - (positions,
>>locates, constructs, makes noticeable through purposive activity, works on
>>certain aspects and ignores others through scientific models, intervenes
>>rather than represents etc.).
>
>that is all fine, but it evades the distinction between the ideal
>(objective) and "consciousness," if indeed we can make the distinction, or
>in a way that would be consistent across groups/ individuals (whose
>historical trajectories through nuclear families diverge). The distinction
>concerns our valuing of certain practices, not others; certain discourses,
>not others - doesn't it? There are, as you note, multiple ways of engaging
>with matter, of defining "the matter at hand" -- so what Nate was
>concerned about, as I understand it, was how we determine what's of (more)
>value to us -- it's not all neutral territory 'out there'
>
>we (who make culture through disciplinary activities/ art...) are all
>actualizing matter as meaningful, in our sayings and doings... What sorts
>of sayings and doings will lead to a better world, one that is meaningful
>for more than just an elite (or just men)
>
>judy
>
>>There is no sense in Ilyenkov that the meaning, that we incorporate in
>>matter via our activity, is positive in the way that you seem to mean by
>>excluding negative. Our activity in this world of matter (materialised as
>>meaningful, as significant via centuries of human activity – such that our
>>very engagement with matter is never without significance and meaning and
>>this is what allows our knowledge of it) can be individual, as we continue
>>to take as significant what is meaningful to ourselves.
>>How we move within this space of meaningful matter varies, involving
>>positive and negative sides if you put it like that. (When you refer to
>>negative, I was thinking of Vygotsky and Freud saying something like ‘a
>>brake is a drive on development’ – that something negative can have a
>>positive effect.)
>>I don’t know if I have understood what you were getting at here.
>-------------
>>There can be no spirit “guiding” reality because Ilyenkov is working with a
>>way of conceiving matter that does not leave the ideal as a separate realm.
>>
>
**************************************************
* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Consultant,
* and Manager of Videoconferencing Operations
* http://home.mira.net/~andy/
* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)
**************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:45 PDT