Charles, if we accept that differing views (in so far as they are valid)
arise from differing positions in the network of social relations, then
<bold>objectivity</bold> is the undeniable fact that *all* people live in
a common material world, and most particularly and importantly, in this
day and age, that we live and work within a global division of labour and
global market and earn a living in currency the exchange rates for which
are tested on a minute-by-minute basis.


The content of our differing views therefore is objectively contained in
the material impact that our practice has on one another via this actual,
material web of social relations,



Andy



At 18:26 10/10/2000 -0700, you wrote:

>>>> 

<excerpt>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:


<fontfamily><param>Times_New_Roman</param>"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.</fontfamily>"


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:

<fontfamily><param>Times_New_Roman</param>*** 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.

****


</fontfamily>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



<excerpt>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:

>>>> 

<excerpt>Paul wrote:


<excerpt> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>The REAL is extracted
from social activity.

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>

</smaller></fontfamily>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

</excerpt></excerpt>


</excerpt><<<<<<<<



**************************************************

* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Support Team Leader

* Email ablunden@unimelb.edu.au or andy@mira.net  

* http://home.mira.net/~andy/

* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)

**************************************************