Re: [xmca] ego, self, etc.

Martin, I think there is a difference between, on one hand, recognising
that science creates something objective, i.e., something which transcends
the habitus, or subjective point of view, of the scientists who create the
science, and on the other hand, claiming that any particular scientific
product is "absolute knowledge". Objective not= Absolute.
In a sense what is subjective comes into being and passes away, but that
which is objective does not so much pass away as get taken up and negated
by another, and in that sense although relative, is a part or aspect of the
absolute (the movement itself). This is true, I think, both historically
and culturally (in the words of the French diachronically and synchronically).

Andy
At 02:06 PM 2/02/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>The point where I have the most difficulty with Bourdieu is when he claims
>that science is able to generate knowledge that is able to transcend the
>conditions of its own production; that by objectifying our techniques of
>objectification we can obtain a "sovereign, absolute view" of the 'game' we
>are studying. Seems to me that science itself is a game (multiple games)
>that we need to reflect on, for sure, but which cannot provide absolute
>knowledge. A very Hegelian place for him to end, no?!
>
>Martin

  Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sat Feb 2 16:03 PST 2008