[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication

[Andy Blunden]

I guess you are pressing, Martin, for a discussion of the
very interesting topic of the interrelation between at least
4 different development processes here: (1) The relation
between the order of an individual writer's cognition of a
topic and the order in which they present their results to
the reader (which Marx addressed in the 1873 Afterword); (2)
The relation between the historical development of a science
leading up to the formulation of a new key principle and the
reconstruction of the science on the basis of this new
principle whether by one or many writers (which Marx
discusses in the 1857 passage, and which Thomas Kuhn talked
about); (3) The relation between the individual's cognition
of the subject matter and the science itself at the given
stage of its development - which I think Marx took for
granted, but Vygotsky certainly talked about; (4) the
relation between the Logical unfolding of the concepts of
the science and their historical evolution (something which
Marx talks about a couple of pages later on in that 1857
passage). There has been controversy about this amongst
Hegel scholars, but the outcome has been that Hegel does
*not* claim that history recapitulates Logic, though it does
from time to time. - it depends.

I reviewed a book, "Marx's Capital and Hegel's Logic," in
which 12 different writers all presented their view of the
these relations. Every one had a different reading of (2)
above, let alone the other relations. Interesting topic.

Andy

http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Capital+Logic_Review.pdf

Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 20/10/2017 12:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> Marx addresses this in the passage well-known to CHATters,
> about abstract and concrete:
>
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 20/10/2017 11:05 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
>> Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about “the start” of Marx’s analysis, and about its “stages,” but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
>>
>>    Of course the method of presentation must differ in form
>>    from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the
>>    material in detail, to analyse its different forms of
>>    development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only
>>    after this work is done, can the actual movement be
>>    adequately described. If this is done successfully, if
>>    the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as
>>    in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a
>>    mere a priori construction.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
>> Seems to me that if we’re going to talk about the details of Marx’s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it’s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>