And Andy, when you say 'David,' I presume you mean Martin? :)
But you're not saying, are you, that our thinking necessarily 'correlates'
with the concepts formed in our activity? I mean, a commodity is a
commodity, whether or not I recognize this in my thinking.
On 3/11/07 6:24 PM, "Andy Blunden" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> And David, when you say 'practice', I presume you mean purposive activity,
> as opposed to simply material action, such as digestion. Material actions
> which are not 'practical' in this sense are not a relevantly necessary
> substrate of concepts. It is only practice which is part of 'mind' which is
> the relevant necessary substrate of concepts.Things that we do that have no
> correlate in our thinking, such as the use of meaningful artefacts, are not
> the basis for concepts.
> At 06:03 PM 11/03/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>> So when Andy writes 'If you mean that concepts do not exist other than in
>> connection with human minds, then I agree,' I think what he *ought* to
>> have said, perhaps what he meant to say, was that concepts do not exist
>> other than in connection with human *practices*. I think we¹d agree that a
>> 'commodity' exists in the social world, not merely in a person's head. The
>> 'commodity form' is defined, created, by social practices, not in and by
>> individual minds.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 01:00:10 PST