Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst (response to arrowlessness)
At 12:00 PM 7/5/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote: Steve, I really do not have enough time to devote to answering this message as it deserves. So please excuse the briefness of my responses. No problem at all. I am happy to let that response be the last major word on this discussion for now, which we can certainly return to when time permits. As for the final question asked, What say you comrade? I say, thank you for the stimulating discussion, we'll get back to these important and stimulating topics as time goes on. Below are some passages that stand out for me as excellent thinking and research points for me to work with. Victor suggests, asks, points out: * that I am ... arguing that all reflective thought is ideal ... * So what do you call reality? Ilyenkov is quite clear as to what he calls reality ... * What is virgin materiality? If by virgin materiality you mean that part of nature men have yet to have contacted ... * Sorry, but I'm afraid your argument that thought as a function of practice and thought as received social wisdom are both ideal are not acceptable to me or to Ilyenkov. * Your views that all reflective thought is ideal is much more consistent with the views of Lukacs, Adorno, Marcuse and Horkheimer and more recently of Habermas than with Ilyenkov ... * ... you've determined that all human consciousness is ideal ... * Wow! I wrote the previous paragraph before reading this one ... * ... you are confirming my description of your argument as more consistent with Critical Theory than with EVI's Marxist-Leninism. * The identification of scientific theory as an integral part of the ideal is an invention of Lukacs that was expanded by his Critical Theorist epigones. * At no point does Ilyenkov describe scientific work as ideal. * What say you comrade? Oudeyis I say: thanks again, - Steve end ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst (response toarrowlessness)
Steve, Enjoyed it immensely. Also helped considerably in finalizing (if that's possible) the concepts I've been working with. Must do it again some time. Regards, Oudeyis - Original Message - From: Steve Gabosch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and thethinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 13:36 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst (response toarrowlessness) At 12:00 PM 7/5/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote: Steve, I really do not have enough time to devote to answering this message as it deserves. So please excuse the briefness of my responses. No problem at all. I am happy to let that response be the last major word on this discussion for now, which we can certainly return to when time permits. As for the final question asked, What say you comrade? I say, thank you for the stimulating discussion, we'll get back to these important and stimulating topics as time goes on. Below are some passages that stand out for me as excellent thinking and research points for me to work with. Victor suggests, asks, points out: * that I am ... arguing that all reflective thought is ideal ... * So what do you call reality? Ilyenkov is quite clear as to what he calls reality ... * What is virgin materiality? If by virgin materiality you mean that part of nature men have yet to have contacted ... * Sorry, but I'm afraid your argument that thought as a function of practice and thought as received social wisdom are both ideal are not acceptable to me or to Ilyenkov. * Your views that all reflective thought is ideal is much more consistent with the views of Lukacs, Adorno, Marcuse and Horkheimer and more recently of Habermas than with Ilyenkov ... * ... you've determined that all human consciousness is ideal ... * Wow! I wrote the previous paragraph before reading this one ... * ... you are confirming my description of your argument as more consistent with Critical Theory than with EVI's Marxist-Leninism. * The identification of scientific theory as an integral part of the ideal is an invention of Lukacs that was expanded by his Critical Theorist epigones. * At no point does Ilyenkov describe scientific work as ideal. * What say you comrade? Oudeyis I say: thanks again, - Steve end ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] RE: New Cornell study suggests that mental
Please note that the theory isn't new, simply the Cornell study is. 'Cognitive sciences' are a cross-disciplinary mess, and not even a very enlightening mess. The reason why a computer model was used as that they have consistently tried to use their understanding of how a computer works to model human cognition and language control--in order to get, among other things, computers to act more like humans! The reasoning is quite circular, a 'pragmatic' vicious circle. Still, the misuse of models in this field goes back to the structuralists. Besides degrading Marxism, they came up with a discrete binary way of analyzing just about anything. Take for example language and the sound systems of languages. The basic structuralist concept is called the phoneme. This is supposed to be a unit of phonology that psychologically or sociologically controls language processing and acquisition (unquestioningly inherited into fields like language teaching). The structuralists weren't strong on psychology but preferred 'social systems' as controllers, since their mental models were basically behaviourist. All Chomsky did early on was psychologize the structuralist concepts like phonemes. This led uninterestingly enough to theoretical phonology being concerned with controlling sub-lexical units divorced ENTIRELY from considerations of actual speech, articulation, phonetics, etc (something even the structuralists didn't do). Which makes good sense if you want a phonology for a computer, but not a human who can speak a language with a mouth, vocal cords, glottis, nose, lungs, etc (in fact, the human vocal tract is a convergence of our upper digestive and respiratory tracts). Charles Jannuzi Univ. of Fukui, Japan ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
