From: "Jukka Laari" <jlaari-AT-dodo.jyu.fi> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:57:52 EET+200 Subject: M-TH: non-identity? Well, Justin and Ralph, why have I impression that you didn't paid attention to what I wrote and you yourself wrote? And where you left your sense of historicity? James H noticed it, though we disagree what's worthy and what's not. So, guys, slow down a bit, for awhile. I wasn't saying a thing about objectivity of knowledge, the point concerned *possibility*. Slightly different, I've understood. Besides, I was quiet about 'a priori' nature of transcendentalism - tried to hint that nastyness of history have produced a situation where we can say more about 'transcendental' than 200 years ago. Mo' better... Ralph also insists that thought cannot be identical with nature. Perhaps not an individual thought with a thing (actually, who would deny this?), but what about mind? In spinozistic terms: 'mind' is just an idea of 'body'. Deny this and you're in mysticism. And if mind is something else or more than just a body then from where it comes from? Heavens? No, I still find Spinoza's outlines the most economic and most reasonable to build on. Justin knows that ontological non-identity leads into problems. Or so it seems. Though the point is not about the 'accuracy' of representation. That would lead into eternal questioning. Rather it's about the possibility of it. Non-identity comes with language and concepts. Of course, if you collapse mind and thinking into language you will get real postmodern stance - endless discourses on difference, without any conceptual basic differences... Yours, Jukka L --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005