Hi Paul, I think I agree with the gist of your point if it is that there are
different ways in which the Ideal has been understood. The all too familiar
understanding of the concept 'ideal' arises in a Cartesian and empiricist
tradition that understand Mind and World as separate and ideal and material
as polar opposites. I'm not sure whether I fully understand what you mean by
information in systems theory below;
>One of the reasons it would be of value to explore "the concept of the
>ideal" seems to me to be the contrast "the ideal" as used in contemporary
>dialectical materialism with "information" as it occurs in
>cybernetic/systems theory inspired social theories
...unless you mean the assumption of a 'Given' world from which information
is retrieved? A difficulty I have is that I have only skim read messages
over recent months and have not followed the June/July? discussion that Nate
referred to. Jan
Jan Derry
www.edu.bham.ac.uk/SAT/Derry.html
>From: "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: possible September discussion paper?
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 07:05:33 -0700
>
>Jan,
>
>Most of the readings on xmca presume certain knowledge and the discussions
>always have participants with more or less to contribute but that was one
>of
>the reasons I thought it might be worthwhile reading it since people who
>have worked with the material, e.g., Andy and you, on the list. I myself
>first learned of the essay in Bakhurst's book and that's my motivation for
>working with the original.
>
>One of the reasons it would be of value to explore "the concept of the
>ideal" seems to me to be the contrast "the ideal" as used in contemporary
>dialectical materialism with "information" as it occurs in
>cybernetic/systems theory inspired social theories. Perhaps you would
>agree
>with me that it is quite difficult to state the difference simply but that
>it is nevertheless a central issue for comparing the two approaches and
>understanding their differences. As such it's significant for avoiding
>what
>Leont'ev called: "the formula of vulgar eclecticism: 'both one and the
>other'".
>
>In general it seems the Ilyenkov essay would provide a suitable theoretical
>platform for examining a number of issues that arise here repeatedly.
>
>As to the form of reading it, perhaps we could arrange for different
>volunteers to prepare paragraph-by-paragraph precis of the essay itself and
>post them to initiate the process. I know that's the way I was initially
>taught to read philosophy and we've already seen this here with the
>discussion of Yeat's "Among School Children" admittedly a difficult poem,
>the discussion of which was quite enriching and conflict free although it
>involved participants who often see themselves cast as antagonists.
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:56 PDT