[Xmca-l] Re: The Inimitability of Grammar
Joseph Gilbert
joeg4us@roadrunner.com
Fri Apr 4 09:07:04 PDT 2014
Dear Huw,
I have presented plenty to think about. I have gotten no responsive reply. My “interest” is not a belief; it is an observation, a discovery, as plain as day to me. I discovered it BY inquiring. Once something is found, one no longer searches for it. Regarding logic; i would like to receive some logical responses to what I say. So far, I have not. Why is that? What is your logical response? This brings to mind a situation that happened when I was in middle school. During volley-ball I developed a serve that none could/would return. I did not develop it for that purpose, it just turned out that way. I would hit the ball from below and it would soar high over the court and then gracefully descend right in the middle of the other side. It was not a fast-ball. I guess it was the unusualness of it that befuddled the players. They just didm.t seem to be able to “get” it.
Please check out some of my writings which can be accessed by searching for “Joseph Gilbert sound symbolism”. Once I saw and understood the landscape of vocal/verbal communication, there was no need for more research. I saw how the vibratory state of the speaker is transferred to the hearer along with the emotional feeling associated with that state. That was a major revelation. Look at phonograph records: The shape of the ripples within the grooves correlates to specific sounds and the specific sounds correlate to universal emotional reactions. So, there is a correlation between the shape of what is read by a stylus, sound waves imparted into the air and the experience of certain emotional states by a listener. That shape can be utilized as a storage medium for sound sheds light on human vocal communication.
Rather than presenting me with suggestions of unnecessary and irrelevant roadblocks why not try to understand what I have already shown? Did you understand it? Did it make sense? Did it not make sense? If not, why not? Why do youall not present me with any rational/logical come-back? Is it that you do not want to embarrass me with your “learned” perspectives? Is it that you have no time for “meaningless chatter”? Or is it that you are unwilling to consider something simply and perhaps take a controversial stand? It seems this is still the Wild West and you are like the sheriff who seeks to maintain the status quo. “There’ll be none of those new-fangled ideas around hear, not as long as I’m in charge”.
Research can be a distraction from the obvious. An experiment was done with monkeys to determine whether babies prefer a bare wire “mother” or a soft and cuddly “mother”. Research can be done forever without ever necessitating one to take a stand. And research is never conclusive. There is always more that can be done. Let us discuss without prejudice, what is already evident. If one is truly hungry for understanding, one will not insist on unnecessary research, but will actually apply what is available now. The more I see of the establishment, the sadder does the picture become. There is not one sector of society that does not exhibit the theme of the whole. Like fractals.
I identified with my quest and not with some hierarchy of established authority. What makes sense, makes sense. I would like to be received on that basis rather than with some non-responsive put-down. “Go off and do more research”, is not responsive. The problem seems to be a genuine lack of interest and a hostility to controversy. Astonishing! Who would have guessed? I used to hold high esteem for professorial folk. That was an ideal, my ideal, and evidently not representative of what is really happening. How could I have been so naive?!
Can’t you say some thing in response to what I have presented you with regarding my original reason for contributing my work to this forum? That the sounds of our voice communicate meaning is not obscure or hidden. It is obvious to everyone except, it seems to some who understand its implications and shy away from that conclusion.
Joseph C. Gilbert
On Apr 4, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joseph,
>
>> From scanning your occasionally posts over the last six years, as far as I
> can see the principal problem you are having stems from holding your
> interest as a belief rather than an object of inquiry. You are not
> admitting for any thorough logic in your interest, which is why are you are
> continually faced with "academic" rejection.
>
> Have you, for example, studied some of the bio-mechanics of the ear, such
> as how movements in the air matter become translated into nerve pulses?
> Have you studied how word utterances influence the nervous structure of
> behaviour? Have you studied the social processes in the establishment of
> norms and how these influence meaning of sounds?
>
> If you undertake such disciplined study and demonstrate the logic of your
> interest, then I would predict you'll get more favourable responses -- from
> the scientific perspective, you'd start to be useful and relevant.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 02:55, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear David,
>> I was not expecting you to agree with me, but rather hoping that you'll
>> would grasp what I was explaining and respond in some relevant fashion. It
>> seems either you do not understand or do not want to understand my
>> offering. I admit, I am disappointed and frustrated with this long-time
>> situation. For me, it is not about blaming or, heaven forbid, insulting
>> anyone, it's simply about attempting to share a discovery. I assumed, long
>> ago, that those in the academic world would be the most likely to
>> understand what I had found. But it eventually became evident to me that
>> the very ones who, I had assumed it would be the most fruitful to share my
>> work with, are the most resistant to new ideas that relate to their turf. I
>> have yet to receive a cogent or even minimally relevant response from any
>> person in the world of academia, except for one Margaret Magnus. She was
>> denied consideration of her doctorate thesis by Chomsky's linguistics
>> department at MIT. She persisted and received her doctor of philosophy
>> degree from Trondheim University. It seems that because her findings ran
>> counter to the doctrine of many current linguists (that there is no
>> relationship between the sounds of words and their meanings), that even
>> though her method of proof of her assertion was scientifically sound, the
>> established order would not even consider her work on its merit. She is the
>> only one of those in academia who responded intelligently to what I shared
>> with her. She posted my writings on her website, "Magical Letter Page" and
>> also put it on the web so that when one searches for "Joseph Gilbert sound
>> symbolism" my writing comes up.
>> I was saying that, after seeing many examples of academic writings
>> on the subject of phonosemiotics, I have found almost none that make any
>> sense and/or offer any solid assertions. It is obvious to me that the
>> sounds we make with our voices express what's going on with us. The ability
>> to vocalize evolved because the ability to communicate was an advantage.
>> So, what was being communicated by vocal utterances? Whatever it was still
>> persists in all spoken-word languages. Ultimately, after all our thinking,
>> we are left with the sounds of our words and with the persistent
>> uncertainty of the final meaning of any of the many things we may talk
>> about. We can gain an abstract understanding, with words, of how things
>> work, but with all our reasoning we still cannot come to any conclusion as
>> to what any of it means to us. It is the sounds themselves of our words,
>> that serve to inform us of how we are affected by that which makes up our
>> world. Although this informing takes place subliminally, it is all we have
>> to go on in our quest for a sense of meaning. That is the magic of
>> language: How we spell/pronounce our words is what creates the spell of the
>> our language. This is very primal and quite simple, but has far-reaching
>> ramifications. The spoken word is the driver of human affairs.
>> I come from a partly Jewish background and have much appreciation
>> for who the Jewish people are and the role they play in earthly affairs.
>> It's all about asking the relevant questions and not taking any
>> wooden nickels.
>>
>> Joseph C. Gilbert
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, of course, I sent out the results of the experiment without any
>>> explanation because I believe that people should think for themselves.
>>> But Mike is right--I am mildly insulted when I receive exhortations to
>>> be relevant, be useful, and think for myself by agreeing with the
>>> person insulting me.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I shouldn't be. The truth is that I have been thinking for
>>> myself for so long that I actually bore myself while still managing to
>>> baffle the reviewers of prominent journals. And it is true that
>>> sometimes--yea, often--I would rather think the way that Vygotsky did,
>>> particularly since the way he thought seems more useful and relevant
>>> to my work than the way that I do.
>>>
>>> I would also like to think the way that Hannah Arendt did. One of the
>>> interesting remarks she makes in support of the Kantian idea that evil
>>> is always superficial and only moral good is genuinely profound is
>>> that Eichman had not mastered the grammar of the German language, and
>>> he speaks it rather the way that Arendt herself speaks English, even
>>> though Eichmann is a native speaker of German. What Arendt means that
>>> rather than consciously and deliberately master the intricate system
>>> of German articles and case endings and genders, Eichmann takes a
>>> shortcut--he simply memorizes phrases and uses them whole, the way we
>>> do when we are speaking or trying to write a very complex foreign
>>> language (in my case, Russian).
>>>
>>> At first I thought this was merely the hauteur of a very educated
>>> German Jew, the star pupil of Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers,
>>> confronted with an unsuccessful peripatetic oil salesman who failed to
>>> complete a high school education and used the extermination of the
>>> Jews as a way of advancing a lackluster career. But Margaret Von
>>> Trotta, who in the course of making the film "Hanna Arendt" also
>>> subjected herself to thousands of hours of Eichmann testimony, makes
>>> exactly the same remark. As a consequence of a lack of conscious
>>> awareness of the way the German language works and a reliance on
>>> memorized phrases, Eichmann's language is necessarily thoughtless and
>>> cliche ridden.
>>>
>>> Von Trotta's example is this. The judge asks Eichmann if the "Final
>>> Solution" would have unrolled differently had their been "civic
>>> responsibility", the judge is very clearly interested in whether
>>> people like Eichmann, who essentially bear no ill will whatsoever
>>> towards Jews and are simply doing a job that is somewhat more
>>> lucrative and promising than selling oil, would want to change their
>>> job if they were confronted with the kind of civic resistance that the
>>> "Final Solution" encountered in, say, Denmark or Serbia or Bulgaria
>>> (where local populations actively resisted the attempt to round up
>>> Jews).
>>>
>>> Eichmann makes no attempt to understand the question. He simply says
>>> had it benefited from sufficient hierarchical organization, it would
>>> undoubtedly have been more efficient and more efficiacious. But of
>>> course the result is nonsense, because in this case "X" is precisely a
>>> form of resistance to hierarchical organization. Eichmann does not
>>> speak German; instead, German speaks him.
>>>
>>> Bateson remarks that the reason why keeping a room tidy requires work,
>>> but it just gets untidy by itself is simple entropy; there are many
>>> more ways of being untidy than there are of being tidy (and when he
>>> says this, what he is really showing us--almost perfectly--is the big
>>> difference between the way we mediate reality and the way reality,
>>> objectively, really is). In the same way, being grammatical requires
>>> work, because there are infinitely many ways of being ungrammatical
>>> and relatively fewer ways of being grammatical. We can, of course,
>>> save work by replacing one psychological function (grammaticality)
>>> with another (memory), but when we do this run up against Arendt's
>>> biggest problem.
>>>
>>> Arendt is shocked that Eichmann uses Kant to justify his actions and
>>> even gives a reasonably good, though no doubt memorized, version of
>>> the Categorical Imperative. She concludes that there are simply very
>>> many ways of being evil, and relatively few of being good. The only
>>> reliable method of telling the difference is to think and speak for
>>> yourself. Paradoxically, or perhaps not so, this is something we do
>>> not do well unless we actually listen to others and respond to them in
>>> sentences that cannot be readily Googled.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> simply want to advance their career, So the I want people to think
>>> for themselves. B
>>>
>>> On 4 April 2014 01:35, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I believe David is commenting on Joseph's exhortation that we spend our
>>>> time more usefully, Michael.
>>>>
>>>> hangin' out in southern california.
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Michael <mlevykh@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> But what exactly does your "little experiment" mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therapist, Affective Speech Remediation
>>>>>
>>>>> Psycho-Educational Consultant
>>>>>
>>>>> Voice Teacher, Vocal Coach
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.autisticvancouver.com/> www.autisticvancouver.com
>>>>>
>>>>> 604.322.1019
>>>>>
>>>>> Sharpening the Ear for Better Communication
>>>>>
>>>>> and Socially Appropriate Behaviour
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>>>> Sent: April-02-14 11:48 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just tried a little experiment. I googled "Think for yourself!" "Be
>>>>>
>>>>> relevant!" and "Be useful!" to see how many times someone has had,
>>>>>
>>>>> more or less, these exact sentiments in these exact words.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's what I found:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Be useful!" 4,030,020 matches in .32 seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Be relevant!" 607,000,000 in 0.26 seconds. (Much easier to find.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Think for yourself!" 717 million mentions in only .040 seconds!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>
>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 April 2014 11:24, Lois Holzman <lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to know more about you. I appreciate your comment on the
>> current
>>>>> "conversational thread."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lois
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lois Holzman
>>>>>
>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy
>>>>>
>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966
>>>>>
>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org
>>>>>
>>>>>> Social Media
>>>>>
>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blogs
>>>>>
>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News
>>>>>
>>>>>> Websites
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World
>>>>>
>>>>>> All Stars Project
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> May I suggest that you-all emphasize your own questioning and
>> thinking
>>>>> rather than mainly referring to great innovators and thinkers of the
>> past.
>>>>> By concentrating on what has already been said by recognized
>> authorities,
>>>>> one stays mired in the past. It is natural for intelligent, conscious
>>>>> beings
>>>>> to have their own wonderings/questions. What are yours? Do you wish to
>>>>> remake the world in any way? Would you like to have a peaceful planet
>> for
>>>>> your grandchildren? What needs to be done in order to achieve that? How
>>>>> about a new perception, an updated world-view, based upon our best
>> current
>>>>> knowledge of human nature? Just as many Christians look backward to
>> Jesus
>>>>> to
>>>>> chart their course, academicians in this current corporate state tend
>> to
>>>>> remain stuck in the already accepted arguments and premises established
>>>>> long
>>>>> ago. Please break free and really accomplish something useful with your
>>>>> wealth of knowledge rather than mostly engaging in "small talk" among
>> your
>>>>> cohorts in an isolated i
>>>>>
>>>>> vory tower. We (humanity) need all the help we can get. It seems you
>>>>> should
>>>>> be able to do more than split hairs among yourselves while the real
>> needs
>>>>> of
>>>>> the world go unaddressed. Get back to the basics and build from there,
>>>>> using
>>>>> what you really believe to be true as your navigational instruments.
>> Think
>>>>> for yourselves! Be original! Be relevant! Be useful!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joseph Gilbert
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 8:27 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems like you nailed it, Robert, (and Benjamin read it there?).
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The lesson I take away from this is that we are all "so-called
>>>>> thinkers"
>>>>> by
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> virtue of the fact that our consciousness is mediated through
>> culture.
>>>>> The
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> imagined present never precisely matches the encountered future.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In so far as there is an antidote to this characteristic of humans,
>> so
>>>>> far
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as I can figure out, it is develop cultural practices that might be
>>>>> called
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "critical" in that they diverge from the common imaginary worlds.
>>>>> Having
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> criticized, the preferred next step would be to test out your
>> imagined
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> world in practice in order to discover its flaws.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do others conclude?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Robert Lake
>>>>> <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See highlighted phrase below :-).
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marx-Engels Correspondence 1893
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Engels to Franz Mehring Abstract
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Source: *Marx and Engels Correspondence*;
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Publisher: International Publishers (1968);
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First Published: *Gestamtausgabe*;
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Translated: Donna Torr;
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Transcribed: Sally
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ryan<
>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/volunteers/biographies/sryan.htm
>>>>>> in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2000;
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HTML Markup: Sally Ryan.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> London, July 14, 1893
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Today is my first opportunity to thank you for the *Lessing Legend*
>>>>> you
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> were kind enough to send me. I did not want to reply with a bare
>>>>> formal
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> acknowledgment of receipt of the book but intended at the same
>> time to
>>>>> tell
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you something about it, about its contents. Hence the delay.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I shall begin at the end -- the appendix on historical
>> materialism, in
>>>>> which
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you have described the main things excellently and for any
>>>>> unprejudiced
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> person convincingly. If I find anything to object to it is that you
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> attribute more credit to me than I deserve, even if I count in
>>>>> everything
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which I might possibly have found out for myself - in time - but
>> which
>>>>> Marx
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with his more rapid *coup d'oeil* (grasp) and wider vision
>> discovered
>>>>> much
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more quickly. When one has the good fortune to work for forty years
>>>>> with a
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> man like Marx, one does not usually get the recognition one thinks
>> one
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> deserves during his lifetime. Then if the greater man dies, the
>> lesser
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> easily gets overrated, and this seems to me to be just my case at
>>>>> present;
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> history will set all this right in the end and by that time one
>> will
>>>>> be
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> safely round the corner and know nothing more about anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise there is only one other point lacking, which, however,
>> Marx
>>>>> and I
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to
>> which
>>>>> we
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and *were
>> bound
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lay*,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the main emphasis, in the first place, on the *derivation* of
>>>>> political,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising
>>>>> through
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so
>> doing we
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> neglected the formal side -- the ways and means by which these
>>>>> notions,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> etc., come about -- for the sake of the content. This has given our
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings, of which
>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Barth is a striking example.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker
>>>>> consciously,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> indeed, but with a false consciousness.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Martin John Packer
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia attributes the phase to Engels.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2014, at 8:13 PM, Douglas Williams <djwdoc@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi--
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The term false consciousness is from Walter Benjamin in a 1930
>>>>> review
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Siegfried Kracauer's Die Angestellten, drawing from Marx. The
>> idea in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marx
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is described in terms of alienation and estrangement from real
>>>>> objects
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> activity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 5:14 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic
>> interactionism
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, so far as I know, the term "false consciousness" was
>> invented
>>>>> by
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> feminists in the 1970s and was never used by Marx, and I don't
>> think
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> concept is consistent with his ideas, as expressed in the Theses
>> on
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Feuerbach which you quoted, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Richardson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... In the first place, it should be noted that Marx, like
>> Spinoza
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Freud, believed that most of what men consciously think is
>> "false"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness, is ideology and rationalization; that the true
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mainsprings
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of man's actions are unconscious to him.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list