Re: [xmca] Subject and Self

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Wed Dec 19 2007 - 15:09:52 PST

Eric, Engstom's triangle is a great step towads what I am proposing, but
there are certain subtle but important distinctions.
And a subject is not a Gestalt or context, though as parts of Hegel's
philosophy, they are intimately connected concepts.
At 08:19 AM 19/12/2007 -0600, you wrote:

>Andy you write:
>3. "What do I mean by "subject"? I definitively do *not* mean it in the
>Kantian sense as an individual "agent" or "self", a sense which is most
>common amongst CHAT theorists even though the origins of CHAT are in Marx
>and Hegel, and not Kant. I use the word "subject" in a sense consistent
>with Marx's use, though Marx does not tend to use the word "subject" very
>often or with precision; he says "personages" occasionally that is all, and
>I use the word "subject" is a sense derived from Hegel, but by means of a
>"pragmatic interpretation" of Hegel, i.e., from the point of view of CHAT,
>so it is not quite Hegelian either, but closest to Hegel. In other words I
>use it in a way no-one else does. So I do not mean "self" or "individual"
>or "person" when I say subject. But nor do I mean the "subject position" of
>structuralism, and nor do I mean the idea of "collective subject" which is
>either an anachronism or a confused conception, since if being a subject
>entails consciousness and will or moral responsibility, then obviously only
>human individuals can be conscious, have a will or be morally responsible,
>or for that matter, have rights."
>Would it be fair to state that when your subject is being studied it is
>Engstrom's triangle? That it is the gestalt of the context?
>xmca mailing list

  Andy Blunden : tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

xmca mailing list
Received on Wed Dec 19 15:11 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 07 2008 - 10:13:50 PST