Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 19 January 2012 11:33, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Mmmm, hard to keep track of whatever it was we disagreed about here, Huw,
> but my reaction to what you say would be that an abstract concept also
> mirrors reality, but in a different way. The task of the thinker is to
> "reconstruct the real in thought" and that begins from an abstraction which
> best encapsulates the whole Gestalt, but lacks concreteness, and must
> therefore mark the beginning point of a mental reconstruction of the real.
> Yes?
>
> Andy


The abstract system, in the sense portrayed by Marx, could not be
implemented.  It would not work.  It would not be a system in its own right.

Thought inheres within a material system.  One is never outside
materiality.  Although the system of thought allows us to mentally
construct pseudo systems that would not work if implemented.

I think there can be value in beginning with abstractions (in this sense),
although Marx in the passage quoted seemed against it.

Huw


>
>
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that a concrete conception, as referred to here, by
>> Marx, refers to conceptions that authentically mirror the concrete, the
>> material, the phenomena.
>>
>> All systems comprise of material relations.
>>
>> I refer to material here because this is directly related to structure.
>>
>> Concrete is not merely a concentration of abstractions, it is a
>> concentration that mirrors the phenomena of interest in the concrete world.
>>  Alternatively if we were to implement our concrete conceptions we would
>> also have a concrete system.
>>
>> Huw
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca