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

[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science

The question of boundaries outlines and creation itself as concepts.  Are these boundary "markers" pre existing forms with pre existing relations
Or is the actual emergence of particular boundaries and formations such as (true concepts)  actually more fuzzy and emergent phenomena?
We can then AMPLIFY a particular "quadrant" and give it more "value" and "character" and in the process more definition and difference with our making "de/cisions"
However, if we stop here at "de/cision we are in the quadrant of science (which may kill to di/sect and analyze.)
 we imagine this quadrant containing "true concepts" and being causes "of" events.
Are we AMPLIFYING a particular quadrant and with this magnification this quadrant is sensed as more "real" and "true".
Or is it possible that each quadrant has its own "character" and each opens us to an aspect of a deeper "truth" that the presupposed boundaries (as markers) are actually showing as more fuzzy?

I am trying to honour pluralism and each quadrant. Is there a place here for "morphic" truth and "meta" morphic truth. 
This may be a romantic place that transforms "science" as actually being plural?

-----Original Message-----
From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
Sent: ‎2015-‎09-‎05 5:19 AM
To: "‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪" <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science

But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are revolutionary 
practice! Now you see it now you don't!

*Andy Blunden*
On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> Andy,
> Thanks for the explanation !
> A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , 
> the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd 
> seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a matter 
> of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the other 
> Marx or Marxes .  To put it simply even today : The table 
> exists and the idea of the table exists . Does creating 
> fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve our 
> problems ? Now , that's not our main point of reference .
> What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an addendum 
> to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds (Vygotsky 
> Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could we say : 
> "All true concepts are both universal and concrete" ?
> I would not provide support for this because , I think , 
> David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying 
> exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other 
> Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too 
> old .
> Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an 
> answer . Many thanks !
> Best
> Haydi
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ...
> Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it
> is concerned only with independently existing entities. It
> is the study of what forms of being there are, such as
> "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person
> or a culture's belief in the array of different entities
> that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so
> it is an aspect of cultural difference.
> Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the
> limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a
> study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean
> a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources
> of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc.
> It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were
> bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social
> formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology"
> and there was no final answer to the question these sciences
> proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of
> talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural
> and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world.
> Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can
> see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is
> about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ 
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to 
> differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've 
> stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells 
> us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects 
> there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to 
> get involved with them , then science / genuine 
> materialism would not present any meaning to us . All 
> things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On 
> this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking 
> power are involved except that with ontology , we try to 
> conceive things as existent and trace them as external 
> transformables in themselves while with epistemology we 
> deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in 
> the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean 
> "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and 
> gnoseology which is the province of the second of our 
> division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would 
> mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial 
> philosophical term .
> > In what ways am I completely mistaken ?
> > Best
> > Haydi
> >
> >