Eva,
You seem to raise to issues in your comment to the ten year old thread: one
has to do with the externalization of culture in the physical environment,
the other with the relationship between dog and blind person. The latter
relationship depends on the dog's being able to "read" the environment which
is made possible because culture is "CONCRETIZED (literally, not
metaphorically) in the
>streets across which a the person/dog system is moving: the geometrically
>regular streets and buildings, the flow of people, the multitude of rules
>signalled by "unrelated" environmental events (also culturally organized
>such as red or green lights flashing over traffic lanes at time intervals
>which are culturally constrained.....and so on).
This to me is the essence of Ilyenkov's notion of the ideal. 'twould be
interesting to hear Peter Jones comments on this, hint, hint :-)
Bakhurst culls this quote to illustrate Ilyenkov's idea:
"Human beings exist as human beings, as subjects of activity directed both
upon the world around them and on themselves, from such time, and for so
long, as they activelyt produce and reproduce their own lives in forms
created by themselves, by their own labour. And this labour, this real
transformation of their surroundings and of themselves, performed in
socially developed and socially sanctioned forms, is just that process ...
inside which the ideal is born ... It is the process in which the
idealization of reality , of nature and of social relations takes place, in
which the language of symbols is born, as the external body of the ideal
form of the external world. In this lies the whole secret of the ideal and
its solution."
I sense some very interesting issues here, especially the relationship
between the dog's interpretation of the objectification of culture
(idealized materiality) and the human's. But then we might fall into the
imponderable question as to whether dog's have buddha nature.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:20:36 PDT