[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Where is thinking

Perhaps if I try to blend things together a bit. The 'relative' idea was not necessarily new or old (depending on how you look at it). What Einstein did was show within what might be termed a modern view of space-time what some of the consequences were. In a certain sense, at least now, that isn't necessarily hard to do, but it is non-trivial to do it justice (without, perhaps, a bit of tensor algebra). So, Einstein, more broadly, as an individual, in a sense, marked a certain focal locale in 'culture,' and simultaneously was a product of culture. Hmm, seems resonate a bit with a variety of Hegel to me (smile).
Heidegger alludes to this type of happening in his Origin of the Work of Art.
There is an interesting way in which Michael's physicist friend was right about 'simple' within physics. See, for example, Jacob Klein's Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra. 

Ed Wall

On Apr 22, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:


Michael G,
I think your friend was misleading you about Einstein's theory of relativity. The point he made was made by Copernicus around 400 years ago (and I am sure Islamic, Chinese, Greek philosophers before him). Einstein's idea was simple but this was not it.
Michael R is also quite correct I believe in the point he makes about the centuries of culture embodied in a symbol, and most importantly, the social practices of using a symbol or tool, too. But going back to your conversation at the bar, I agree that the basic idea of Special Relativity is simple. And what is more it is given my Marx in Theses on Feuerbach, especially No. 8:
"All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice."
All Einstein did was, instead of regarding time and space as metaphysical entities existing independently of human practice, he closely examined the practice of measuring time and distance. That's all.
Hegel had somewhat the same idea when he claimed that our concept of nature could be derived from our concept of space, in turn based on the social practices upon which our concept of space is based - for which of course he was ridiculed. Every knew that Kant was right and that the properties of space and time could be deduced by Pure Reason. 

Andy



Michael Glassman wrote:

Michael and whoever else is interested,
I was sitting in a bar during Graduate School with a bunch of friends who happened to be physicists. I was talking about my social science research and they started laughing at me saying if I had to be so complex I was probably hiding something because the best ideas are really simple. I asked "Oh yeah, where are ideas simple in physics." And that was the first time I heard that Einstein's theory of relativity was really pretty elegant and straight foward. I said "So explain it to me.' But they said I wasn't worth it. One of those physcists became a very close friend. Years later I was sitting in a car with my son and this friend. A car next to use moved and my sone was startled thinking we were moving. My friend said that is because we actually were moving, that all bodies were always in motion,at we were just all moving at different speeds. We just didn't realize it at the moment because sense of movement was based in relative terms. Legend has it that's pret
ty close to what Einstein initially scribbled down - of course then we worked out the formulas. What becomes more complex is what you do with the theory. Maybe I'm wrong about this - wouldn't be the first time. But honestly Michael this was just a throwaway at the end of a paragraph - not really worth pulling out that much I think - hmmmmmm
I'm also interested that you decided to make the judgment that the conversation isn't going anywhere. I actually think Andy's point that often times we use ideas that have gone through multiple revisions very well taken. I can really understand his frusration. Some people might be interested, some people not - but to judge the value of what is being discussed - I don't know. 
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
Sent: Wed 4/22/2009 1:40 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking
Hi Michael, Andy,
I don't think this can lead anywhere. I don't think Michael that the statement highlighted in red makes much sense. Did you mean, "THe theory of relativity can be stated in a few lines?" Since when? Did Einstein state it in a few lines? Wouldn't it then point to a few thousand years of cultural history on which it depends? Moreover, I suspect it took more than a few lines to state it first, like J. C. Maxwell, who took an entire book to work out what now is shown in 4 simple equations. But in each of the signs that are probably 5,000 years of human experience and voices recorded. . .. 
Michael
On 22-Apr-09, at 7:41 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
Andy,
I'm a little uncomfortable with this five page thing. Okay, you don't think it's important, but I don't think length has much to do with it. Plato's allegory of the Cave was only a few pages if I remember correctly and yet it it in many ways one of the primary ways of discussing Plato's ideas and eventually became the basis for idealism. Short does not equate with unimportant and long does not equate with important. The theory of relativity is only a few lines. 
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden
Sent: Wed 4/22/2009 10:34 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking
Ha, ha, ha! And imagine, if those 5 pages of his first book
have proved to be so rich, just imagine the wealth to be
uncovered in the remaining 99.9% of his corpus!
:)    Bloom away!
Andy
Martin Packer wrote:

Let 1,000 Hegels bloom!

Martin


On 4/21/09 7:28 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:


Let 1,000 flowers bloom. And may every flower cross
pollinate with every other flower! No problem. But that does
not mean that there is no problem with the Hegel that Marx
and Lenin read being cast into the skip parked out the back
of the library, or with the meaning of terms being jumbled
up into meaninglessness. ("Being determines consciousness"
said Marx, but if Being is personal identity formation, does
Being still determine consciousness? For example)

It is my very mission to facilitate interaction between
divergent currents of thinking, most specifically
Hegelianism, Marxism and CHAT, and I am more than happy to
appropriate French philosophy along with the way.

But this wave of master-servant (NB "servant" not "slave"
which was an insertion of Kojeve's) mythology is actually
destroying, burying and eradicating Hegel's legacy. Kojeve
and Sartre were brilliant writers whose contribution I
value. I even see Sartre as a precurser of my own work. But
why dump Hegel? Isn't it worth considering that one passage
in his early work which in its whole structure and tenor
though not content, is very untypical of Hegel, if taken out
of context, could lead to misunderstanding? even if that
misunderstanding is itself an interesting insight?

Andy

Martin Packer wrote:

Andy,

I don't see the mixing of Hegelian and existentialist concepts as
problematic. Existentialism started with Kierkegaard, right? He was writing a kind of anti-Hegelianism, in which rather than there being a logic that guarantees the movement of spirit, there are moments in which a leap is necessary. He wrote of a "leap of faith" but (just as with Hegel) a secular reading is possible. These are the moments when humans must choose, without 
guarantees, without certainty, without transparent rationality.

So existentialism has always had ties to Hegel. The existential-
Marxists, it
seems to me, were rediscovering in Marx what Michael just mentioned, a place for agency on the level of the individual. That has been a valuable counterpoint to those readings that find in Marx, like Hegel, only an anonymous movement to the historical process in which no genuine choices are 
available.

Martin


On 4/21/09 10:28 AM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:


I'm actually quite fond of Sartre, Martin, and I appreciate
his efforts in "Critique of Dialectical Reason" to make
something like an activity reading of Hegel. It is the
eclectic mixing up of Existentialist concepts with Marxist
or Hegelian concepts that I object to. What does "Being"
mean? It depends doesn't it, whether you are reading Hegel,
Engels or Heidegger. I can't cope with mixing up these
sources indiscriminately.

There may be differences between French and German Marxism,
but I think we are here talking about post-WW2 Marxism, yes?
and the particular experiences of Algeria, 1968, Berlin, the
PCF, etc., and Kojeve. And there is no doubt that the legacy
of the French Revolution still figures hugely in France.

But I really think this has little to do with a reading by
Marx or French Marxists of the master-servant narrative at
any time earlier than 1933.

For a start, the Phenomenology had not even been translated
into French until 1939. So a knowledge of the master-servant
narrative was kept to a pretty small group in France. A few
professional philosophers like Koyre and Hyppolite.

When I started up the Hegel-by-HyperText website in 1999, it
intrigued me that I got mail from two quite distinct groups
of people. One of these groups I just could not understand
what they were talking about. After a while I realised that
these were people who had read Kojeve or were reading Hegel
in the wake of Kojeve. This is a completely different
philosopher than the one I learnt as a Marxist, reading
Marxists texts and then moving on from Marx, Lenin and
Lukacs to study Hegel's Logic. This other group only knew
these 2% of Hegel's first book. The other group usually knew
only the Logic and Philosophy of Right, the books that Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Lukacs & Co. commented on.

Why not read my book Martin? Much easier to read than the
Phenomenology!

Andy

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
 From Erythrós Press and Media <http://www.erythrospress.com/>.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
<winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
From Erythrós Press and Media <http://www.erythrospress.com/>.

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca




_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca