[Xmca-l] Re: poverty/class

[Larry Purss]

Greg,
You pose a question in this comment and are selecting a possible path for
us to follow:

"And I think the Hegel's theory of subjectivity is
fundamentally contrary to the childist theory of subjectivity
which is more Kantian to my mind (I fear that may take a lot
of explaining, but I'll leave it at that for now).

I'd love to hear more from David about what he thinks the
consequences are of taking on a childist approach. What is
lost in that approach? And similarly, what is gained by taking
a more Vygotskian approach?"
-greg

Does this question  relate to Andy wanting to explore the mis-readings of
Hegel  being interpreted AS ideal rather than AS RESPONSE to
Kant's transcendental categorical Idealism. I wonder if Andy is  suggesting
THIS interpretation confuses a reading of Hegel which is already difficult
enough to understand.

Greg, is your "Kantian reading" of transcendental pre-existing INTRINSIC
categories the souce of your *reading* Kant AS articulating an INTRINSIC
childist THEORY OF *subjectivity* [and subjective knowledge]??

I will add the question which I understand Shotter is exploring as a realm
of experience that is more INCLUSIVE than EITHER the transcendental or the
traditional notion of *empirical* fact.  Shotter refers to William James
RADICAL empiricism as questioning DISCRETE essentialized substances
in James proposal for returning to the lived experience of the *stream* of
consciousness PRIOR TO [PRE-EXISTING] either the transcendental idealized
subject OR empirical discrete FACTS.

I read Shotter as exploring James realm of *lived experience* as
pre-existing BOTH the transcendental subject AND objective discrete facts.

Greg, to return to your question: "what is gained by taking a more
Vygotskian approach?" and how does this approach overlap a Bahktinian
approach?
The concept of *lived experience* can be read on the one hand from within
an INTRINSIC pre-existing transcendental - empirical fact *constellation*
OR on the other hand the concept of *lived experience* can also be read
from a communicative shared cultural historical community *constellation*

How central is the notion of *lived experience* as a concept that is more
inclusive and goes BEYOND the limits of BOTH transcendental egos AND
discrete empirical *objective* FACTS?
Larry



On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Yes, as usual I was too quick to respond.
> It was the end of your first message which led me astray:
>
>
>    is not about the intrinsic flowering of the individual but rather is
>    about the imbricated emergence of an individual who is shot through
>    / consummated by others. (pace Hegel, imho).
>
> It was not obvious what the "pace" referred to.
>
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>
>
> Greg Thompson wrote:
>
>> Andy, sorry for the delayed response. Like David, I think you've read my
>> post against my intentions. My point was to locate Hegel and Bakhtin
>> together so as to suggest that neither Bakhtin nor Hegel were childist.
>> Quite the opposite. Still catching up.
>> -greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Well, Hegel says very little about recognition in his mature
>>     works, and I sort of doubt that Bakhtin studied the works of the
>>     Young Hegel and was "influenced" or "inflected" by them, but I
>>     don't know much about Bakhtin.
>>
>>     But I really don't know how you can connect Hegel's theory of
>>     subjectivity to "childism" I really don't. Are yo ureferring to
>>     the Logic, or what he has to say about education in the Philosophy
>>     of Right, or his Psychology in the Philosophy of Spirit? One of
>>     the bees Hegel had in his bonnet was the fad (as he saw it) for
>>     wanting children to "think for themselves". Hegel thought this was
>>     liberal silliness. What passage of Hegel gave you this impression,
>>     Greg?
>>
>>
>>     Andy
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>>     *Andy Blunden*
>>     http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>>     Greg Thompson wrote:
>>
>>         Andy,
>>
>>         I fear that you are going to discover that I'm really a one
>>         trick pony...
>>
>>         I read Bakhtin's notion of "consummation" as being inflected
>>         by Hegel's concept of recognition (it isn't exactly the same
>>         but the parallels are striking - one is consummated by the
>>         gaze of the other).
>>         And I think the Hegel's theory of subjectivity is
>>         fundamentally contrary to the childist theory of subjectivity
>>         which is more Kantian to my mind (I fear that may take a lot
>>         of explaining, but I'll leave it at that for now).
>>
>>         I'd love to hear more from David about what he thinks the
>>         consequences are of taking on a childist approach. What is
>>         lost in that approach? And similarly, what is gained by taking
>>         a more Vygotskian approach?
>>         -greg
>>
>>
>>         On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Andy Blunden
>>         <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>
>>             why do you say "pace Hegel" Greg?
>>
>>             andy
>>                    ------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------
>>             *Andy Blunden*
>>             http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>         <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             Greg Thompson wrote:
>>
>>                 David,
>>                 Yes, you caught what I was saying in your
>>         parenthetical. My
>>                 point was that
>>                 Vera nicely lays out and critiques the dominant view of
>>                 creativity - i.e.
>>                 the one where creativity is anti-social.
>>
>>                 And I'd add that in my reading of Bakhtin, I have
>>         difficulty
>>                 imagining him
>>                 as a childist, not because of his disdain for children (a
>>                 topic of which I
>>                 had no knowledge prior to your post), but because I
>>         see him as
>>                 drawing on a
>>                 different understanding of human subjectivity - one
>>         that draws
>>                 from a
>>                 tradition that is not about the intrinsic flowering of the
>>                 individual but
>>                 rather is about the imbricated emergence of an
>>         individual who
>>                 is shot
>>                 through / consummated by others. (pace Hegel, imho).
>>
>>                 -greg
>>
>>
>>
>