[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Hegel on Action
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel on Action
- From: Haydi Zulfei <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:58:42 +0000
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rocketmail.com; s=s2048; t=1500209951; bh=Dbk2+3QLnA3Yjf705dByYqtfZ/lmgBx0cY+5LJsc0v8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=a+t2ASU7R7Y1XfkYdyBVHU9ee677cfDK5M2p/iz+fCOlzjigeMU7emixoSv5thsv5d8Q7654nNRX7rFMBjIOHRBPkauxCVZXJIymeiIvJ2hGepsqOKrQUuAtT0g2SIWk9sqR3X36ZwDRFKGxjRVfmG4ADLUocV1+U2AcwFYtZpXNBdNoh09eGTz2h2FSR5ax3G43PVdPFvRHJcS/VYmdEXdNqu+yrkwv/P79Zlm3QFAgqBZ7kOCpY2HFyF20FOXa6hJ9F7eL72rvWipybFhVM5pTyCSbRBZvmv99dLOLUN1JKeARkP8mOoIQ5c4TZnNPPJSy5QBNR6YStxCnFwJG6g==
- In-reply-to: <CAHH++PnTA+RZyg4JVMAzeKrgAQ3ejP3ppYpw39PH_j64SPV+Hw@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHH++PmwGV0C+RDcYffDUTbjRmayMsXRZ8f4Q7Srw+Oi48obKg@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAHH++PnTA+RZyg4JVMAzeKrgAQ3ejP3ppYpw39PH_j64SPV+Hw@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Haydi Zulfei <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Obviously Gravity is a concept like many other concepts. And if you want to put one in a tight corner of replying to a specific question you pose , it leans more to the side of consciousness rather than to the side of matter. Why is it you don't ask yourself if there is any affinity between a table , a rock , a hammer , rockets , spaceships and a notion. You have many ideas on your head , you die (apologies) you take all your ideas with yourself to the grave (again apologies) . What remains of you then? What remains of you is matter. An unthinking body. If your ideas are to persist , it's other thinking bodies who should follow. It's for you a scholar scientist who is enriched with many concepts that gravity inserts such a heavy burden on the mind to the extent that he gets dubious and asks himself : "Is not gravity the very force the Earth exerts on things suspending in the air not to go up but fall down towards the Earth?" By the Nature of gravity you lean on all your recalls of all procedures and processes which have led to the creation of the concept 'gravity' . But consider gravity on the mind's eye of an uneducated person who knows nothing in this and lesser and lower respect. You cannot tell him how to fetch gravity but you can tell him to dig the earth. But with bread both of you can think in mutual understanding . This , as you well know , refers to epistemology . In your sphere of knowing gravity exists . But things are different with the things-in-themselves as contrasting with things-for-us. The ontology proper, let's say. Things in themselves do not need our knowledge and awareness of them as Ilyenko repeatedly remarks independent of our consciousness and will. Some people generalize ontology to other domains. For me it's the breakdown of ontology proper. I think what causes you to get baffled with Andy's definition is that he does not add Lenin's extra notion of 'being to itself' in location and space. With out of consciousness , you claim gravity exists and operates . But when we use Lenin's full definition as to being out of consciousness and being on its own as the ontological status of things-in-themselves in specific location , you cannot claim the 'being' 'ontic' of gravity in itself because for gravity to exist it needs your mind 'epistem' and tangibility and specific location in space . The force being exerted does not have these attributes , is not independent from earth , that is , not on its own. If you take , say , energy for matter proper , my arguments are ruled out. I differentiate between matter and attributes of matter.
From: Greg Thompson <email@example.com>
To: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 23:16:43
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel on Action
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
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.
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 Blunden
> On 15/07/2017 2:31 PM, Greg Thompson wrote:
>> 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?
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
>> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
>> Anyone who got interested in that material about
>> "Hegel on Action", here is my contribution.
>> -- ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602