Hi all,
I can sign under each word in the definition
> I read it and meant it in my own writing as those who are not
familiar with or have developed a close S-O relation through their agency.
The more you get into a subject matter, the more concrete and palpable it
becomes…
In addition it is very close to Ilyenkov’s ideas. By the way it was EVI who
has translated the mentioned above Hegelian essay into Russian.
I wanted to comment the doubt about the correctness of notion of Kultur.
I agree with Mike that “the notion of Kultur in the tradition that ranks
people from without
culture to Kultured” has nothing to do with reality. A man/woman can’t exist
a moment in real abstraction from culture – real historically developed
culture.
So the real problem which had been discussed by both Hegel and EVI was (and
remains) the problem of quality of Object or Subject Matter or Predmet (in
Russian). If an object is abstract itself then a corresponding conscience
(modus of thinking, perception etc.) is equally abstract. The division of
labor in modern society puts a person tête-à-tête with extremely abstract
objects, so most of us are alienated from the concrete forms of Kulture.
May be it sounds roughly from the point of view of Political Correctness,
but that’s how it is.
Can one overcome this alienation? Can we as educational specialists help
with it? That is the question.
Sasha Surmava
_____
From: Wolff-Michael Roth [mailto:mroth@uvic.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:37 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Cc: Mike Cole
Subject: Re: The uneducated
Hi,
I am not sure why Hegel did not say "Rette sich wer kann," for this is both
literal and good as translation. In English it would be something like "Find
shelter those who can" or "Get away those who can". I think if you read the
"uneducated" in the way you read Kultur, then you are too literal, at least
today. I read it and meant it in my own writing as those who are not
familiar with or have developed a close S-O relation through their agency.
The more you get into a subject matter, the more concrete and palpable it
becomes--vectors when you don't know them are abstract, out there, you can't
do anything with them, they are but scratches on paper. To an advanced
physics student or statistician, vectors are things that are as concrete as
the veggies in my garden, you touch them, you do things with them, they
respond to your moves. This changed knowledgeability with respect to vectors
is indicative of a process of learning, of "education," of expanded room to
maneuver.
It is dangerous to read the great works literally, we know this concerns the
bible but also Hegel and others.
Michael
PS: I think it would be an interesting exercise to think through the problem
of ascension from abstract to concrete in the context of mathematics where
the movement appears to be from concrete to abstract . . .
On 2-May-05, at 9:24 PM, bb wrote:
Thanks Mike, for your reply. A concrete response to these contradictions
needs more than you.
bb
From: Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Date: May 2, 2005 8:42:43 PM PDT
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: The uneducated
Language dummy that I am, I do not know the translation of sauve. Nor do I
know the source of the Hegel quote that is apparently out there in google
land. Blush .
However, I believe that the way "abstract" is being interpreted in the
discussion of "rising to the concrete" is that abstractions are
empty until filled with appropriate content. in this sense, "Only those who
know nothing" would be an appropriate response to the
question "Who can think abstractly." Given my long standing distrust of the
notion of Kultur in the tradition that ranks people from without
culture to Kultured, this might be incorrect to the specific case, bb. But
my interpretation would at least link the ideas under discussion in
a non-pejoritive way.
mike
On 5/2/05, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>after saying in French "Sauve qui peut" answers his question, "Only the
>uneducated."
Interesting discursive move. At once powerful and exclusive, and while
unsituated, ironic. So many levels of meaning that I'm wondering whether to
embrace Hegel anymore.
Thanks for sharing!
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PDT