[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

But a new born has none of the capacities, etc., which make us human 
other than DNA. It is interaction with carers in a social situation 
which makes them human and a particular kind of human. And that surely, 
is where the interest lies for us (despite the contemporary fashion to 
ascribe everything to DNA).

... and yes of course, the subject-object relation is a complex one, as 
Lubomir indicates, for example. It is equally unsatisfactory to say 
simply that the object is a construction of the subject (meaning an 
individual person). Hegel's solution was to begin from a concept such as 
"formation of consciousness" a.k.a. "social formation" or Vygotsky's 
"social situation" or "perezhivanie" which is undifferentiated 
subject-and-object, and trace the differentiating-out of subject and 
object from there.

Andy

Huw Lloyd wrote:
> > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > ... which comes first? or do we need a new concept which avoids
> > this duplication of the world.
> >
> >     
>
> I would say it quite obvious which comes first for the new-born.
>
> ... The object is the subject's construction, and from my incomplete reading
> could be distributed across various things.  The object is only objective
> in that is has objective qualities to it.  The distinctness of things to us
> is their social object quality.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>