[Xmca-l] Re: Fw: Re: Vygotsky,Marx, & summer reading

Tue Aug 22 07:52:29 PDT 2017

Haydi, you know that is far too many questions at once for 
me. But I will try some quick-fire answers and see how far I 
can get.

'Moment' has a special meaning in Hegel, not unrelated to 
its mathematical meaning: each moment is the whole, but at a 
different level of generality.
'Part' and 'component' are not really scienific words, but I 
would say that 'components' are implicitly mutually 
exclusive parts that add up to the whole, whereas 'part' has 
not such connotation, but could be overlapping, but in "the 
sum of the parts etc ..." parts means components.

Don't really know what you mean by "realm".

Are we talking Hegelian categories here? "Determinate Being" 
(Dasein) is part of Being, whereas Actuality is part of 
Reflection.

"Who affirms?" Don't see how "who comes in here.

"Whole" is a relative term, so yes, we can hierachies of wholes.

"How do we determine thought from action?" We have to figure 
out what is mediating between actions, so as to make sense 
of actions.

Lenin was fully aware of the different senses in which Hegel 
and Marx used the term "Being" and Lenin generally followed 
Marx in his usage.

I think "Being is Nothing" is Hegel's idea, though he is 
recapitulating early Greek thought. SPinoza did not see it 
that way.

I follow Lenin for a definition of "Matter" - "a 
philosophical category denoting everything that exists 
outside of consciousness."

But yes, it is a Substance.

... time for me to go to bed.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
https://andyblunden.academia.edu/research
On 23/08/2017 12:14 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> Andy,
> First I confess my limits in discussion.
> David , Excuse me for intrusion. I really have questions to ask Andy to be understood.
> Andy--to your saying "but precisely because it is a whole despite being not made up of anything other than the parts."
>
>
>     
> What is the difference between 'moment' and 'part' 'component'. And what is the realm of each?
> You have not discriminated between wholes generally ; I'd like to ask if 'finites' are parts of the 'infinite' .
> Does 'determinate being' enter the realm of 'actuality' ? If yes , who affirms who rejects? In what way? If yes , is the 'actuality' a whole? Do we have hierarchies of actual wholes ? In what way do they interact? How do we determine thought from action , actuality from corpus?
> Which of the two does Lenin affirm , determinate being as empty or Being as empty? Nothing is actual? Is Spinoza for Being as empty or Hegel?
> Please don't think I'm muddying anything , No! I was dragged to this point. I do want to get cleared.
> Is this a good definition for matter ? General Monistic substance which gives birth to the whole Universe. Does such Universe accept partioning? If yes , is Hegel for it or against it? What about Marx? 'Notion' comes everywhere in Hegel . Is it a neglect of translation for 'concept' or what Hegel really means is just Notion? Is Notion 'matter' for Hegel?
> I sincerely hope I will not receive the type of response one of our dearest friends received .
> Still student
> Haydi
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>   From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>   To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>   Sent: Tuesday, 22 August 2017, 8:53:44
>   Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky,Marx, & summer reading
>     
> I think it's more a case that the Kellogg Test#c fails the
> Activity Theory test, just as the Kellogg Test#a fails
> Marx's Capital.
>
> The whole is greater than the part (if it is a genuine
> whole) not because there are some additional parts you
> forgot to add up but precisely because it is a whole despite
> being not made up of anything other than the parts.
>
> I am reminded of A N Leontyev's "accusation" that taking
> /perezhivniya /a units of personality set up a logical
> circle: "... / perezhivanie/, as the specific form through
> which the whole personality manifests itself, now occupies
> the place that formerly belonged to the whole personality of
> the child,” that is, determining the child’s
> / perezhivanie/“... a logical vicious circle." Leontyev
> seems to think that teh only genuine form of science is
> reductionism.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>
> On 22/08/2017 11:48 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
>> What other than commodities are the units of capital
>> composed of? That's easy. Commodities are human relations
>> in a congealed form. Ergo, units of capital are made of
>> human relations in an uncongealed form. You are not a
>> fetishist, are you?
>>
>> My point about actions and activities was precisely that
>> activities are NOT made up of anything more than actions;
>> that's why activity fails the third test.
>>
>> I think that Engestrom tries to show some of the abstract
>> rules, the community relations and the division of labor
>> that subtends all this activity, but the distinctions
>> between (e.g.) rules and division of labor, or division of
>> labor and community, are not too clear. As you say,
>> blurring is a problem, if our goal is analysis, and an
>> analysis that shows the heterogeneity (the
>> distinctiveness) of parts.
>>
>> dk
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Macquarie University
>>
>> Recent Article: Vygotsky, Halliday, and Hasan: Towards
>> Conceptual Complementarity
>>
>> Free E-print Downloadable at:
>>
>> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/W7EDsmNSEwnpIKFRG8Up/full
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Andy Blunden
>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>>      Wow! That's a radical claim, David! What other things
>>      (or events) are activities composed of??
>>
>>      And while you're at it, what other than commodities
>>      are units of capital composed of?
>>
>>      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 22/08/2017 6:21 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
>>
>>          Helena:
>>
>>          Yes, the idea that activity is made up of actions,
>>          and that if we take away
>>          actions from activity nothing remains (Leontiev).
>>          To me, this is an
>>          admission that the whole is merely a sum of parts.
>>          Compare Vygotsky's
>>          thought experiment of structuring a game in such a
>>          way that we take away
>>          all the roles and we see that abstract rules
>>          remain (Chapter Seven in* "Mind
>>          in Society")*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>     
>
>