From: "Russell Pearson" <r.pearson-AT-clara.net>
Subject: Re: M-TH: being determines consciousness ?
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:49:05 -0000


Ralph writes:

> At 04:52 PM 2/24/98 +0000, Russ Pearson wrote:
> >To be sure the context was different to say the least, but this is
exactly
> >where this thread is leading. The question of the determination of
> >consciousness by being cannot be reduced to some sort of originary
purity
> >grounded in either primate behaviour or language. 
> 
> And how was this part of our discussion?

Just Carrol's points- but I'm not going to labour them.
 
> >What we are looking at is
> >a concept that _radically_ undermines the quest for such originary
> >foundations. 
> 
> Except for Rob's reference to Habermas on the self-reflective character
of
> language, I don't recall this being a part of the discussion.

Except...some except... 

> >Unless there's a resort to some Heideggerian blood and soil
> >(which wouldn't bloody surprise me), for Marx at least, being replaces
the
> >biological with the social, that is to say the historical. 
 
> Very sloppy.  Marx never replaces the biological with the
social/historical,
> never denies the physical and biological basis of existence.  (Nazi
> biologism, by the way is a purely idealist abstraction, it's not really
> materialist.)

Fair point.

Of course he does show that what are thought to be timeless
> social institutions embedded in the very nature of existence are
historical
> products.  Both Marx and the stratified materialist ontology of Engels
> distinguish the natural from the social even as they relate them. 

Yep, I'd go along with that.

 >Clearly
> the human capacity for language is genetic: there is nothing
controversial
> about this as far as Marx goes.  My rhetorical questions are to suggest
that
> philosophical speculation is inadequate when there's scientific research
> comprising a whole range of disciplines to be done.  I don't give a shit
> what Habermas or Derriduh have to say about language, because they don't
> know anything.

In my experience of this sphere the two areas get muddied beyond
recognition. 
On the theorists, Habermas I find far too dry to stick with, as for
Derrida, I've a bit more time for him than you have, but I'm not going to
defend the sod.
 
> >All this talk of
> >evolutionary behaviour patterns and originary language is just a back
door
> >route to reintroducing Human Nature.
> 
> This is not even part of the discussion or the agenda, until you brought
it
> up. BTW, there's nothing wrong with the concept of "human nature" from a
> Marxian standpoint.  Must we go through this again?

I think that there is. But No. 

> >With Ralph's floor-mop threats aside (and the last time I mentioned the
> >Deconstructer Ralph blew a gasket), I thought that Derrida had done
enough
> >on this particular topic to put it to bed for good. But that's enough
mixed
> >metaphorical thinking for one day.
> 
> More than enough to ruin my day. 

Glad I had some impact.

 >What makes Derriduh an authority on this
> or any other topic that he could put anything to bed?  What does
ungrounded
> philosophical speculative masturbation prove about anything?
> 
> I thought you were a smart guy.  The drivel you wrote in this post is
> beneath you.  You're writing like some dumbass literature professor, the
> lowest form of human cognitive life.

I love you too. 

And on Carrol's comment
>Ralph, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on Timpanaro.

The last time Timpanaro came up in conversation was when a not so dumbassed
lit professor of mine described him as too reductionist. (He consequently
went into crisis when he realised that post-structuralism was just too
negative to achive anything political and subsequently adopted US liberal
theory, which I expect prooves your point). I've never got around to
checking Timpanaro out- is he really worth it?

Russ



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---