Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 20:07:56 -0400 To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: ppatt-AT-tiac.net (Patrick Patterson) Subject: Gorz Rekesh, I am afraid that I have to insist on the formulation: Husserlian attack on the mathematization of the life-world (correcting the spelling of course, which is irrelevant in any case!). Writing about modern forms of work Gorz states that "...the tangible substance of the world has been abolished. Work as a physical activity had been abolished. All that is left is a purely intelectual or rather mental activity. This is the ultimate, the absolute triumph of what Husserl defined as 'mathematizated nature': reality as we perceive it has been stripped of all its tangible qualities, the lived experience of the original thought has been switched off. ...during their day's (or night's) work they have imposed upon themselves that self-denial which consists in repressing their sensory existence: existing as pure intellect, eliminating and suppressing all living contacts with the life world in and through their bodies, as so many potential disruptions of the function they must fulfil." As a counter example Gorz insists on the fact that the world is ours and we belong to it-are part of it-through our bodies." Critique... pp. 84-85 What is the ultimate substance of the ends which you refer to: "he does examine critically both how action comes to be guided by calculating technique according to technical rules and the resultant loss of self-reflexiveness and normative judgement about ultimate ends." Is this guided by intellectual reflection which weighs the different options and considers the one that is most... I have to insist on the primordial character of our physical bodily relation with the world.It is true that Gorz accepts the legitimacy of existing forms of work-something which I think is an open question. What he rejects is their claim to organize our lives! Instead it is the "realm of freedom" that should fuction as the organizating principle of the "realm of necessity" in a perfectly orthodox Marxist manner. ] Regarding your criticisms of Gorz: I don't really know what Gorz's views are on child rearing. It would certainly appear that he is rather traditional in this matter. I am more informed by the world of Chodorow (who I believe teaches at UC Berkeley) and Bulbus. Chodorow provides a persuasive arguement for linking up instrumental rationality with the failure of men's participation in the raising of children, especially in the case of boys who after all are the main subject of existing relations of domination. I certianly did not mean in any way to imply that women should be forced to exclusively carry the 'burden' of maintaining our relation with the life-world. I would consider this one form of making labor life's prime want to use Marx's phrase from the Critique of the Gotha Program. The other problems you raise are related to the issue of commodification of the individual.If civilization would just reverse the relation between free time and necessary time all these problems would be solved! By the way I have a lot more to say about the importance of Gorz who is sadly neglected by the what passes for the left in this country. Patrick Patterson Ipswich, MA ppatt-AT-tiac.net --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005