These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
I don't quite understand Amando.
There are 1,0001 definitions of "dialectics" all of which probably have
merit. I think you are making the point about the importance of teh
participants' point of view, rather than external judgments, is that right?
But of course the question is: does this or any other definition of
dialectics make sense from *no* point of view, i.e., in the object itself?
Andy
At 08:13 AM 12/09/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Andy: It's a little late for answer but I think that dialectics is to
>consider that both moments: agency, creativity and adaptation are present
>always simultaneously and you cannot from outside of the relationship with
>the world establish which part is adaptive and which part is creative.
>That depends on the individual consciousness. Excuse my english this morning
>Armando
>
>GRU:
>Servicio de correo UCLV.
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Sep 12 06:07 PDT 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT