Re: [xmca] on activity theory

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

Haydi,

Please don't go yet!  The article you sent us raises many questions for me. For example, towards the end the author makes this statement:

"Only one thing is demanded of the concept: it must adequately express the essence of its object, i.e., it must be true. Absolutely any thing can serve as material for the expression of this essence. Such is the ideally malleable nature of the concept."

Apparently concepts exist in some universal realm, separate from both objects and from people? Objects presumably exist materially? But apparently an object has an essence? And a concept has to "express" that essence? What does all this mean? Take a concept such as "beauty." If I look at a rose and consider that it is beautiful, in what way have I used the concept to express the essence of the rose? What *is* the 'essence' of a rose? How do I 'demand' something of the concept?

I'm baffled as to how this is a metaphysics - okay, an ontology - that avoids "the realm of 'rootless non-foundational , ethereal phantasmic spirits'" as you put it in an earlier message. The essences, and the concepts, here seem fantastical to me!

martin


On Mar 28, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Larry 
> I think we'd better stop here . Five people who began discussing the thread drew away from the discussion , Manfred included ; And I wonder if anybody is following us . Somebody might warn us to go off list for personal discussion . In fact , I was waiting for Manfred to respond to Martin's questions when I read Brecht's excellent explications on the THESES . I still evaluate them as 'brilliant' . I was and am curious to know how he launches L's ideas to what have passed or are being passed within Egypt . That will be the place and time where and when we can judge about the utility or triviality of the ideas . The monopolistic view of immersion in the ideas and theories is not always so fruitful . Testimonies are greatly needed . Greg and Helena are just continuing the main thread and I'm sure you are the man for all seasons . Pleasurable for me to see you join them , too . 
> 
> CONCEPTS , IDEAS , NOTIONS , HYPOTHESES , THEORIES ARE NOT METAPHYSICAL JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL . BETTER SAY , IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT ANY IMMATERIAL IS NECESSARILY METAPHYSICAL . THOSE WHO THOUGHT THE SPARKS WERE HIDDEN WITHIN THE ROCK TO BE EXPELLED BY ONE BIG HEAVY BLOW OF THE STEEL WERE IDEALISTS / META-PHYSICIANS .
> 
> Best
> Haydi
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> To: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
> Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 22:44:52
> Subject: Re: [xmca] on activity theory
> 
> 
> Haydi
> Thank you for posting the article about Il'enkov.
> I appreciate the way Andrew Maidansky translated Il'enkov and his times for English readers.
> The questions of metaphysics (beyond physics) is a theme opened up by Martin in his reply to Andy. I merely jumped through the opening.
> I want to acknowledge the way Il'enkov uses AS structure to represent one thing as another. Whether we want to acknowledge this as meta physics is open to further inquiry. On page 299 part VI il'enkov is suggesting the form of the ideal is most purely expressed as value form in commodity relations. What I want to draw attention to is the metaphors (as structure) within the concepts *materialization*, * incarnation*,  and *embodiment*. 
> Here is a summary of this part VI:
>  
> Il'enkov proposed the value form of commodity exchange as the most typical and fundamental, purely ideal, -characterized by its complete indifference to its own manifestation. Indifferent to any sensually tangible material of its EMBODIMENT, its MATERIALIZATION. The form of value INCARNATES into the *natural body* of the commodity but independently of the peculiarities of THIS natural body. The form of value INCARNATES through its body within the *shape* of the natural body BUT independent of the shape of the natural body. The natural body supplies the *shape* through which the form of value is INCARNATED.
> The form of value, as a pure ideal, remains something different from any material, sensually tangible body OF the value forms INCARNATION, from any corporeal reality.
>  
> Haydi, this understanding is thought provoking.
> I will pause without further comment.
>  
> Larry 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Larry
>> The way you speak is so friendly and so appealing . Don't worry ! I've always read your posts very carefully . But it's not a matter of compliments or annoyance . On this occasion , I've begun to read Leontiev's 'Activity Consciousness  Personality' once again . If I understand something from the dialogues and exchanges , I will talk for sure . And we are always IN FRIENDSHIP !
>> Truly
>> Haydi  
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>>  From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> To: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@yahoo.com>; Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; "haydizulfei@gmail.com" <haydizulfei@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 7:17:02
>> Subject: 
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> 
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> 


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca