No, Charles I don't believe this is the case.

A "harmony of illusions" implies comparison of the world as perceived in
a given society with a world-in-itself, a comparison which is entirely
abstract.

Human activity (labour, practice), and sensuousness as well, is objective
activity, i.e. activity *in the world*, and therefore partakes of the
objective. It's subjectiveness is not something illusory, but insofar as
it is "normal", is part of the social practice of a really living,
material culture, i.e., objective.


Andy




At 07:31 09/10/2000 -0700, you wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt>Paul wrote:


<excerpt> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>The REAL is extracted
from social activity.

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>

</smaller></fontfamily>After rereading Leontiev several times, I'm still
not sure what he means by "objectivity" nor what Paul means by the REAL.
Explanations would be appreciated.  Perhaps because of my
non-understanding, a question keeps nagging at me: Doesn't socially
influenced perception and theorist organs mean that instead of extracting
the "real" from social activity, we are constructing, as Fleck would call
it, a "harmony of illusions"?  


Charles Nelson


    


</excerpt><<<<<<<<



**************************************************

* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Support Team Leader

* Email ablunden@unimelb.edu.au or andy@mira.net  

* http://home.mira.net/~andy/

* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)

**************************************************