Yes, Peter's ideal piece is on my site - http://members.home.net/vygotsky/
(near bottom).
What I am still left wondering is, can the ideal help us look or think about
this other content. What about the objective, material, and historical base
of practice in which the "ideal" exists but practices that more are open to
change. If I understand Paul correctly he argues that knowledge, reasoning
has a historical transcedental quality. If we take this as a given, which
of course I don't, what happens when we translate this from that context to
another. It seems if we take content like sexism, racism, classism, etc. it
has an ideal quality and follows a similar logic or existence that lenin
described. They have been repeated again and again through human
consciousness to reach the level of _______?
What I am sensing is a certain seperation reasoning-practice or maybe even
science-everyday life that even if we can academically seperate does not
function that way in practice. Even if we accept that science serves some
kind of super structure - how students to take education for example gain
access to that knowledge is through a cultural system of meanings -
mediated. Even if we take the current state of affairs and how certain
research gets funded and others don't - how certain books get published and
others don't - in a hundred years from now is this going to be understood as
the best we have to offer.
It may be correct to assume it served as some sort of essence of our age,
but it would be incorrect to assume it had a pure existence - unfolding -
that is seperate from our cultural belief system that decides what knowledge
is most worth. The importance of the historical should not be to reinforce
seperation but to demonstrate the non-seperation. What we see as reasoning
inside things
or having an eternal existence is part of the life activity - we are part
of - the non seperation.
I mean what if Marx stopped at demonstrating the ideal quality of money or
labor - just showed its historical trancendental quality. I don't read him
as accepting the determinates of history, but the opposite opening up the
collective possibility of changing it. It seems to me right to point toward
the ideal qualities of things in the lines of Marx but in the end we have to
get rid of money, right?
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:47 PDT