Got installment one. Great material [ideality? :-)) ] to work with. Will
comment after more installments, unless you want something before you go on.
Regarding par 31 you comment: "Assimilation of social consciousness is
then, as Vygotsky puts it, learning the production of meaningful objects:
Idealities." This directly relate the relationship of the concept of
ideality to the concept of meaningfulness (your end notes do this several
times), a relationship I am more and more seeing as close to synonymous
(keeping in mind these perhaps equivalent concepts originate in different
knowledge domains). In making this transition from "ideality" to
"meaning," we may be passing from philosophy to psychology and social
science. My questions, what did Vygotsky have to say about meaning that
relates to our discussion of ideality, and did he relate meaning and
A side comment: I think ideality (meaningfulness) needs to be distinguished
from materiality when we speak of produced objects - we produce both the
material object and its meaning (its ideality). A meaningful object has
both ideality and materiality. A meaningful object is not the same as
ideality and ideality is not equivalent to meaningful objects.
At 04:23 PM 5/14/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>I'm sending you my annotations in installments. This is the first 4th of
>the paper and probably the most important part.
>A few words on the annotations. The original annotations included precis
>and criticisms of each paragraph. Of these there are two sets, the first
>is black, the second (done later is dark red). Some of these still
>appear in the version I sent you, but not all. In response to your
>questions etc. I'm annotating the paper once again, this time in a lighter
>purple script. Instead of annotating each paragraph I've annotated some
>paragraphs that appear to me to be of critical significance while other
>annotations are relevant to groups of paragraphs. The annotations
>themselves are presented as end notes and you can identify the reference
>by traversing between commentary and text.
>This third annotating review of EVI has enabled me to clarify further my
>critique of EVI (see notes on paragraphs 39 through 41 and especially the
>2nd paragraph of my notes for EVI's paragraph 41).
>As you should see from the annotations I am building on EVI's work rather
>than simply criticising it.
>Looking forward to your response,
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>Steve Gabosch
>Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:17 PM
>Subject: Re: Response to Steve G on EVI and Bakhurst
>Your great response convinced me that I need to, for the moment, put aside
>Bakhurst, Jones, and many of the very excellent and important issues and
>points you raise, and work specifically on Ilyenkov's article on the
>concept of the ideal. I hope you will join me.
>Two posts are on their way.
>The first post has a large file attachment. I have annotated the EVI
>article "The Concept of the Ideal" paragraph by paragraph. Doing this has
>been an amazing learning experience. I think I did a pretty good job with
>this annotation project.
>The second post is a discussion of the EVI article, including some
>thoughts I have on possible implications of EVI's concept of the ideal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 12:05:48 PST