These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
But what you comment on re the reading of Hegel is quite correct. In his very early manuscripts Hegel talks about how the universal is constructed. This is two things at once: (1) the construction of a material culture (land, domestic animals, tools, words, ...) and (2) the acquisition of concepts by individuals who use them. EG he said "the tool is the norm of labour" (f Engestrom who has tools /and/ norms!) and "Word - the tool of reason"
After about 1805 he stops talking like this. But it is implicit in his idea of Spirit, which dates from 1805. Also, Herder was teaching at Jena until he died in 1808, and Hegel would have known about this from Herder, but he never gave Herder any credit.
Andy Tony Whitson wrote:
This being my semester teaching undergraduates, I have not had time for following this list.I did catch this post from Andy, though, which for me is quite exciting and provocative.Andy: > How do you read Hegel? What do you make of Spirit? and so on. My answer is"Activity." Read this way Hegel makes perfect sense.Me: If the _formation_ of Geist be understood as the the formation of semiosically _in*formed_ activity, this (it seems to me) goes a long way toward a synlexic framing of not only Marx and Hegel, but also Peirce, Mead, LSV, and activity theory. Am I taking this too far?I am making my first toddler steps toward reading Freire in the Portuguese (well, at least "reading" it side-by-side with the English). While I intend to be alert to differences among the discourses, what I am seeing at the outset is a Freirean discourse clearly informed by Hegel, but also strikingly compatible with my own Peircean proclivities.What do you think? On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Andy Blunden wrote:Well, it's tasty enough for me.I long ago decided I had to read Marx via Hegel, since Marx was not inclined to spell out philosophical positions. How do you read Hegel? What do you make of Spirit? and so on. My answer is "Activity." Read this way Hegel makes perfect sense.Andy (Thanks for my new word for the week, Denise) Denise Newnham wrote:Sounds like a Dakari :) hope it just as good Denise -----Original Message-----From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] OnBehalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: mercredi 20 octobre 2010 07:22 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Pragmatism's AdvantageVery interesting Larry. For people who don't know Vygotsky &c. I describe my own philosophy as "Hegelian-Marxism with a pragmatist twist" - the pragmatist twist being Vygotsky &c. People from "the other two approaches" I think get some idea of where we're coming from that way.andy
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca