Judy asks, 'I wonder, if it IS possible to separate "will" from "that side
[of consciousness] wh. accommodates itself to the ideal object"?', and of
course it isn't, but that's exactly what abstraction is about. I'm
clutching at straws really, in these excerpts which you have cleverly
strung together from my mail, in each case trying to look at the
counterposed concepts - to which Diane drew attention in her mail - as
opposite sides of a unity.
You also questioned the "assertion that the division of labor is THE basis
of the ideal", which is indeed what lay behind my spin on this, but I
hesitated to introduce it, because it is true only in an historical, not
immediate, way. The way I understand it is that once human society has
developed a way of splitting our intellectual activity away from our wilful
activity and positing these as the proper activities of two different
social groupings, and solving the problem of re-coordinating this humanness
which has been split into two, then we have the basis for internalising
this dichotomy in the form of concepts of intellect and will.
Andy
_____________________________________
At 02:58 04/09/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Revising my previous note --
>in response to Andy who wrote:
>
>>My understanding is that the concept of "intellect" is the result of
>>abstracting from consciousness that side which accommodates itself to the
>>ideal object, as opposed to *will*, that side of consciousness which takes
>>the object as something to be subordinated; a concept made possible by the
>>deveelopment of intellectual activities, separate from actually changing
>>the world.
>
>I wonder, if it IS possible to separate "will" from "that side [of
>consciousness] wh. accommodates itself to the ideal object" --
>if intellect stripped of will is possible. Walkerdine among others would
>characterize intellect precisely as the willful reorganization of
>spontaneous concepts in the mastery of reason.
>
>Now, for those more familiar with Marxism than I, is this (the presumption
>of a separation and opposing of will and intellect) warranted by the
>theoretical assertion that the division of labor is THE basis of the ideal?
>
>Andy also wrote, regarding the separation of "ideation" from the Ideal:
>
>>I would add that it is not so much the "appearance" of consciousness and
>>will, but the separation of the psyche into "intellect" and "will" as
>>distinct, opposed mental activities.
>AND
>>
>>I think at this point it is worth re-looking at Ilyenkov's advice to
>>recognise the concept of 'ideal' as the importantly human entity, rather
>>than 'consciousness'.
>
>Nate's recent posting on the sociality of animals complicates the
>explanation of what the demarcating line might be between humans/ animals.
>I agree with Nate & others that it is our mediational means, the
>objectified results of our labor (of all kinds) that distinguishes us from
>KoKo -- but only because (as implied by Mike's ref. to the zpd in this
>matter) we have been living within our objectified idealS for so long (all
>of human hist, anyway)
>
>judyt
>
**************************************************
* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Consultant,
* and Manager of Videoconferencing Operations
* http://home.mira.net/~andy/
* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)
**************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:45 PDT