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
One of my frequent scourings of SF used bookstores in the 1970's
produced this set of volumes, still sitting on my bookshelves. I am
glad to see it available on line. I hadn't looked at the Lichtheim
article before, or at least, don't remember it making any impression
on me. It covers a
I am responding to a 6/22/2005 post from Victor, which I quote from.
The quote below is a good example of where I think Victor gets Ilyenkov
wrong 180 degrees. In the general section of Ilyenkov's 1977 essay The
Concept of the Ideal that Victor quotes from, I believe Ilyenkov is making
just
___
At 07:32 PM 6/26/2005 +0200, Oudeyis (Victor) wrote:
- 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: Sunday, June 26, 2005 12:40
Victor,
I have read your response carefully. I think I am getting a handle on our
differing approaches. They seem to emerge in the way we understand issues
such as:
a) where is ideality located?
b) where is value is located?
c) what is the essence of ideality?
d) what is the essence of
might help others
study and understand it.
- Steve
selections from Evald Ilyenkov The Concept of the Ideal (1977),
annotations by Steve Gabosch (SG):
___
66 - 69 Ideality in Use-Value and Exchange Value SG
*[66. SG. Ideality in the form
errors in bourgeois social science.
- Steve
At 01:02 PM 6/16/2005 -0400, Ralph wrote:
This is the key. How would you compare Ilyenkov's view to that of
Sohn-Rethel, or to Popper's 3-worlds theory?
At 07:16 PM 6/15/2005 -0700, Steve Gabosch wrote:
..
As I see it, the key
Hi Victor,
Interestingly, footnote one in a paper by Lantolf and Thorne that is
getting discussed on the xmca list - the paper is at
http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/JuneJuly05/LantolfThorne2005.pdfIntroduction,
in Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development -
CB said:
However, analogizing to chemistry and biology, biology does not reduce to
chemistry. Human psychology does not reduce to individual physiological
psychology.
Absolutely. On the first point, yes, biology cannot be reduced to
chemistry. On the second point, I also completely agree:
Victor,
Thanks for the refresher course on Rosenburg, which becomes a history of
the Nazi party from 1921. It is always good to be reminded of what
happened in Germany.
Your comments on Dubrovsky are very interesting, as is your analysis of
Bakhurst. I also read your descriptions of
just testing, please ignore
___
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
On CB's first comment on SOCIO-history, I certainly completely agree, and
think Ilyenkov would, too.
On CB's second comment, about the subject matter of Marxist psychology, I
think it is true that a dialectical materialist psychology must begin with
sociology and social psychology, and the
I continue to enjoy this thread, but will be gone for some days and it will
probably be a little while after that before I can reengage. I will think
about the position Charles and Ralph have taken on the relationship of the
brain to the origins of humanity. I think Engels' argument about how
This particular discussion has moved in a different direction from
investigating dialectics per se, and could be considered in part to be
about the labor theory of the origins of humanity. In a way, we having
been using the terms production and labor synonymously in our recent
dialogues. But
Charles, your logic below unsuccessfully explains the relationship between
human biology and human society. You merely repeat something no one
disputes. All animals reproduce, just as they all breathe, and would die
without doing so. But only humans produce - and probably would not even
:04 PM 6/1/2005 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
Steve Gabosch
Charles, in that quote from German Ideology below, ME refer to producing
their *means* of subsistence, as in means of production, not the
subsistence itself, as in gathered berries or hunted game, which as you
point out humans did
between humans and animals.
- Steve
At 04:11 PM 5/31/2005 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
Steve Gabosch quotes:
Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or
anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves
from animals as soon as they begin
developed by Hegel and given a material natural interpretation by
Marx and Engels obviates all necessity to make broad ontological statements
about the world in order to realize the objects of theory.
with Regards,
Oudeyis
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gabosch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism
At 02:42 AM 2/26/2005 -0500, you wrote:
At 06:01 PM 2/25/2005 -0800, Steve Gabosch wrote:
Yes, that would be an interesting discussion to read. Where does one get
SWP internal bulletins from the 1940's?
In New York, the best place is Tamiment Library at NYU, where I did a
great deal of research
I see John Somerville wrote a number of books on Marxism. I don't think
Novack ever mentioned him, and I do not remember ever hearing of him
elsewhere or running across his work. A superficial scan of the article on
line didn't impress me as contributing to any particular ongoing debate
What a delightful article, Ralph! Thanks!
~ Steve
At 09:00 AM 2/25/2005 -0500, you wrote:
W.T. Harris, the most influential of the St. Louis Hegelians, is
determined to be the decisive influence on the organization of the Dewey
Decimal Classification system:
Hegel's Philosophy as Basis for
Yes, that would be an interesting discussion to read. Where does one get
SWP internal bulletins from the 1940's?
I notice, Ralph, the occasional disparaging remark about Engels and the one
below about Novack. I think I can make a case that while one may disagree
with their views, their
OK, here is one reference I owe. This is a page from the web site of Keith
Sawyer with lots of urls to papers he has written. His whole website is
interesting. His papers on emergence are relevant to our current
discussion on the topic. His paper entitled Emergence in Psychology:
Lessons
Thanks for your response, Ralph.
A little internet googling reveals that this concept had an interesting
journey via library science in the 1950's - as a way of conceptualizing
how reality is constructed - and was considered by some as a possible
replacement to the Dewey Decimal system.
Yes,
CB: Hello Steve, Seems to me emergence theory is very much the type of thing
that Engels works on dialectics anticipates. No doubt the works of Soviet
scientists and philosophers are a treasure trove of work in this area that
is as yet only partly touched by Western Marxists.
Hi, Charles. Yes,
Charles wrote:
Yes, this concept of levels of organization or integration really gets at
emergence. For example, biology cannot be _reduced_ to chemistry. There are
emergent or qualitatively new aspects to biology that cannot be explained by
chemistry principles alone.
Emergent levels of
, and she made clothing. She had it all, she did it all. She
was only beginning to realize her potential when she died shortly after
her 35th birthday. How it pains me to write these lines.
At 01:28 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Steve Gabosch wrote:
I took a peek at some of the posts on Engels
of Ralph's admiring comments and the handful of her posts that I
looked at, I wonder what Lisa would think about this line of argument about
dialectics, what questions she would ask, what evidence she would demand to
back up such concepts and claims
Best,
- Steve Gabosch
At 12:15 PM 2/19
OK. I took longer look at Ralph's website - what a project! I look
forward to browsing it more.
Thanks, Jim.
- Steve
At 04:34 PM 1/19/04 -0500, you wrote:
Actually it was Ralph Dumain's discussion of Ilyenkov which
I forwarded to this list.
Jim Farmelant
Hi Victor,
I have been lurking on Marxism-Thaxis now for a few weeks. Jim's
discussion of Evald Ilyenkov's Philosophy Revisited got my attention,
too. Hi, Jim! Thanks for your post on that book, you are always expanding
my horizons, as does Victor.
On another discussion list last summer, I
30 matches
Mail list logo
