11 0ctober
from peter jones, sheffield hallam university
it's gone ominously quiet out there. so, keeping the discussion going a bit...
paul - could i put a couple of objections to your last point or at least ask
for clarification? the question of social versus individual (rather than the
individual as social) has come up a number of times in discussion so far. in
your last comment you said:
'
>Of course reflection is an active process -- but what does that mean?
>Everything I've read in Leont'ev seems to indicate that it's not an active
>process of the individual although the individual is a necessary element in
>the process.
'
how can reflection be 'an active process' if it isn't 'an active process of the
individual'? society cannot ('actively') 'see' anything if no individual sees
it!
i'm sure we actually agree on this point but i would just emphasise marx's
comment that 'above all we must avoid postulating 'society' again as an
abstraction vis-a-vis the individual. The individual IS THE SOCIAL BEING. his
manifestations of life - even if they may not appear in the direct form of
COMMUNAL manifestations of life carried out in association with others - ARE
therefore an expression and confirmation of SOCIAL LIFE' (economic and
philosophical manuscripts of 1844). am i missing the point of your remark?
actually, reading your post further, i see you develop it along these lines, so
maybe we don't have anything to talk about here!
secondly, you said:
>As soon as you say, "a child may reflect on a "natural" tree,
>but s/he also transforms it into a creative piece that may not look like the
>original. " one must ask what the "original" is. That original, as I
>understand this, can only exist as something already "reflected" not as
>something given "as it is out there in the real world". Here the mirror
>metaphor might be useful since it allows the visualization of the infinite
>reflections as in places where there are mirrors on opposing walls or the
>Quaker Oats man holding the Quaker Oats box. One knows that one doesn't find
>the original of the reflections in either of the mirrors and that there is
>no "last Quaker Oats man" as one approaches the visual assymptote.
doesn't this completely undermine the concept of reflection? if the reflection
is not the dependent 'pole' (ie it is the reflection of something) but instead
the thing reflected is itself a reflection (of the reflection) then where does
this leave us?? when you look in the mirror do you see yourself or do you,
instead, become the 'reflection' of what you see there? (thinking about it,
maybe you do...).secondly, why the dichotomy between 'something already
"reflected"' and 'something given "as it is out there in the real world"'? the
'reflection' (if by this you have in mind nature as transformed by human
activity and therefore 'reflecting' or objectifying human 'essential powers')
IS something out there in the real world. the products of human activity are
objects 'out there', natural, sensuous objects. or am i barking up the wrong
tree (so to speak)???
with all best wishes
P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:17 PST