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

[Xmca-l] Re: Hegel on Action



Communication is hard, isn't it? You have interpreted what I have said in the exact 100% opposite of my meaning, Greg.

The European Rationalists and Empiricists of the Enlightenment broke with the monism of the Catholic Church and proposed that matter existed outside of and independently of human consciousness but the nature of matter could be known by the respective programs of rationalism and empiricism. This is the view which guided the development of philosophy and science in the West and remains common sense to this day.

*Hegel proposed a viable alternative to this ontology*

But he did not do that by providing "new" definitions of matter and consciousness. He proposed a new monist starting point and reconstructed an entire world view beginning from that single concept which, in the spirit of his own times, he called "Spirit". I call it "Activity" and the article shows that this interpretation is true to Hegel's intention.

So please, rather than imagining how matter and consciousness could somehow get mixed up with one another and we can discover psychokinesis and tell the future with dreams, be open to taking Activity as the substance of a world view.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 16/07/2017 4:45 AM, Greg Thompson wrote:
Andy,

I must confess to being entirely confused by your suggestion that "matter is everything outside of consciousness". It sounds like you are starting the conversation by saying "there is matter on the one hand and there is consciousness on the other hand and never the twain shall meet." Perhaps that is an essential starting point for understanding activity, but I would at least like to imagine it could be otherwise.

In my work I am trying to
​do this work of imagining
how it could be otherwise. I'm trying to think of this another way
​, t​
o get a grip on things in some way that does not split the world in two
​ right at the get-go​
.
​
​I assume that for you this is an ontological commitment. You start by assuming (asserting? realizing?) that there are two types of things in the world - matter and consciousness. I'd rather not start there.​ Because this involves a disagreement in our starting assumptions, I don't suspect we'll get very far with that conversation (and we've dabbled in that conversation before and indeed we haven't gotten anywhere).

So I thought I would ask a slightly different question: what is the nature of gravity? Is it more like matter or more like consciousness (in that one could imagine gravity being something "outside" of matter in the sense that you are saying "consciousness" is outside of matter)? I know you are committed to non-dualism in some sense and I'm just trying to figure out how you reconcile all of this.

​In solidarity,​
-greg​


On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    No, it would be spreading confusion, Greg.

    "Matter" in this context is everything outside of my
    consciousness. "Activity" in this context is human,
    social practice. Moving attention to the sub-atomic
    level, a field where we have no common sense, sensuous
    knowledge, does not help.

    Andy

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy Blunden
    http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
    http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
    <http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>

    On 15/07/2017 2:31 PM, Greg Thompson wrote:

        Andy,
        Just musing here but I'm wondering if "matter" is
        anything more than activity, particularly when
        considered at the sub-atomic level.
        At that level, matter seems a lot more like the
        holding of relations in some activity (not so
        different from the Notion?).
        Or would that be taking things too far?
        -greg

        On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Andy Blunden
        <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:

            Anyone who got interested in that material about
            "Hegel on Action", here is my contribution.

        https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action
        <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action>
<https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action
        <https://www.academia.edu/33887830/Hegel_on_Action>>

            Andy


-- ------------------------------------------------------------
            Andy Blunden
        http://home.mira.net/~andy
        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
        http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
        <http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>
<http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
        <http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making>>





-- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
        Assistant Professor
        Department of Anthropology
        880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
        Brigham Young University
        Provo, UT 84602
        http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
        <http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>





--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson <http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>