Re: [xmca] http://marxismocritico.com/category/psicologia-marxista/

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Haydi

Thanks for bringing these questions out into the open and to ask if THIS
forum "should" make a clear "distinction" between idealism and materialism.
Your last summary comment was:

Now we see that it is only the surgeon’s knife which can save the
situation. A bloody operation is immanent. Many textbooks we will have
to rend in twain, like the veil in the temple [58], many phrases will lose
their head or legs, other theories will be slit in the belly. We are only
interested in the border, the line of the rupture, the line which will be
described by the future knife.

This metaphor expresses the powerful assertion that we are "only"
interested in the "border" regions the "line" which will be "described" by
the future knife.

THIS impulse as a hermeneutical "question" brings us to THIS line of
demarcation.  As I understand your question you are asking "us" on this
forum to please take a "position" on one side of the line or on the other
or at least be clear on the existence of the line and on which side we are
"on"?

THIS question is an appeal for clarity.  However, my understanding of the
tradition of hermeneutical phenomenology is that philosophy is precisely
the posing of THIS question of distinctions and boundaries and taking
sides.  From the perspective of hermeneutical phenomenology THIS question
IS the realm of philosophy.  The answers to these questions are philosophy
'as such".  I also want to emphasize what Martin remind us of.
Phenomenology as represented by Husserl [which is the phenomenology which
Vygotsky critiqued] has been "deepened" by the reflections of Heidegger,
Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Iser working within the tradition of hermeneutical
phenomenology.  I understand this tradition as being engaged with "fuzzy"
boundaries around the questions you are posing.

I know my last response will not offer clarity. I hope we return to
Martin's effort to offer the clarity asked for in Haydi's question.

I want to pause with a fragment from Charles which he just posted.:

On your [Haydi]  last query, Martin has given a good explanation about the
practical reasoning that PRECEDES the self-regulation that comes through
symbols applied to the experience of the self.

I question if Shotter's understanding that "practical reasoning" within
"spontaneous responsiveness" continues to be central to our gestural use of
presentational  ongoing "joint action".  As we develop more internalized
ways of "managing" our conduct do we need to also keep in the foreground
our "joint needs" as spontaneous tacit prereflective presentational
actions.  THIS understanding emphasizes presentational ways of knowing, not
idealized representational pictures IN our minds.

Larry


On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>wrote:

> Now we see that it is only the surgeon’s knife which can
> save the situation. A bloody operation is immanent. Many textbooks we will
> have
> to rend in twain, like the veil in the temple [58], many phrases will lose
> their head or legs, other theories will be slit in the belly. We are only
> interested in the border, the line of the rupture, the line which will be
> described
> by the future knife.
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca