Jan, when you say
>There is only matter (Spinoza's one substance of which thought and extension
>are attributes) and the human form of matter has the ability to interact
>with matter in a way that actualises matter as meaningful - (positions,
>locates, constructs, makes noticeable through purposive activity, works on
>certain aspects and ignores others through scientific models, intervenes
>rather than represents etc.).
that is all fine, but it evades the distinction between the ideal
(objective) and "consciousness," if indeed we can make the distinction, or
in a way that would be consistent across groups/ individuals (whose
historical trajectories through nuclear families diverge). The distinction
concerns our valuing of certain practices, not others; certain discourses,
not others - doesn't it? There are, as you note, multiple ways of engaging
with matter, of defining "the matter at hand" -- so what Nate was
concerned about, as I understand it, was how we determine what's of (more)
value to us -- it's not all neutral territory 'out there'
we (who make culture through disciplinary activities/ art...) are all
actualizing matter as meaningful, in our sayings and doings... What sorts
of sayings and doings will lead to a better world, one that is meaningful
for more than just an elite (or just men)
judy
>There is no sense in Ilyenkov that the meaning, that we incorporate in
>matter via our activity, is positive in the way that you seem to mean by
>excluding negative. Our activity in this world of matter (materialised as
>meaningful, as significant via centuries of human activity – such that our
>very engagement with matter is never without significance and meaning and
>this is what allows our knowledge of it) can be individual, as we continue
>to take as significant what is meaningful to ourselves.
>How we move within this space of meaningful matter varies, involving
>positive and negative sides if you put it like that. (When you refer to
>negative, I was thinking of Vygotsky and Freud saying something like ‘a
>brake is a drive on development’ – that something negative can have a
>positive effect.)
>I don’t know if I have understood what you were getting at here.
-------------
>There can be no spirit “guiding” reality because Ilyenkov is working with a
>way of conceiving matter that does not leave the ideal as a separate realm.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:45 PDT