Andy, Paul
Your posts are clearing up for me the concepts of objectivity and the
real. I don't think subjectiveness is illusory, but our perception of
the real is. That's why I didn't, perhaps still don't, understand
what it means to extract the real from social activity. Speaking of
how cognition is a function of subject, object, and collective
thinking, Fleck wrote concerning individuals from different thought
collectives:
"What, for one of them, is important, even essential, is for another
a side issue, not worth discussing. What is obvious for one, is
nonsensical for the other. What is truth (or 'lofty truth') for one
of them, is a 'base invention' (or naive illusion) of another."
I just picked up Wertsch's "The Concept of Activity in Soviety
Psychology" today, and in his introductory chapter, he says much the
same thing concerning the relevance of some aspects of Soviet
psychology for American psychologists.
Paul wrote:
*** as I understand it, this is equivalent to Ilyenkov's theory of
the ideal. Existence or objectivity is the ideal product of practice
that can be reflectively apprehended as the real and that is the only
quality that can be apprehended as the real. Here the transcendence
of Kant's dilemna.
****
Differing thought styles, this relationship between the real and
ideal, and Leontiev's statement that "our sensory organs . . . are a
barrier between the subjective image and the external objective
reality": all seem to underscore the notion that we are constructing,
when we say we agree, a "harmony of illusions."
I wonder how the practice of using terms like "objectivity" and
"real" with their strong commonsense connotations influences our
"theorist organs", our reflection, and our construction of the "real."
Charles
>No, Charles I don't believe this is the case.
>A "harmony of illusions" implies comparison of the world as
>perceived in a given society with a world-in-itself, a comparison
>which is entirely abstract.
>Human activity (labour, practice), and sensuousness as well, is
>objective activity, i.e. activity *in the world*, and therefore
>partakes of the objective. It's subjectiveness is not something
>illusory, but insofar as it is "normal", is part of the social
>practice of a really living, material culture, i.e., objective.
>
>Andy
>
>
>At 07:31 09/10/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> >>>>
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>> The REAL is extracted from social activity.
>>
>>After rereading Leontiev several times, I'm still not sure what he
>>means by "objectivity" nor what Paul means by the REAL.
>>Explanations would be appreciated. Perhaps because of my
>>non-understanding, a question keeps nagging at me: Doesn't socially
>>influenced perception and theorist organs mean that instead of
>>extracting the "real" from social activity, we are constructing, as
>>Fleck would call it, a "harmony of illusions"?
>>
>>Charles Nelson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:15 PST