Actually I came to this article in a very peculiar way, being interested in Davydov (a psychologist and pedagogist) through Engestrom.
I found it here where one can download it and I have put some comments here
It is a dialogue taking place between Soviet philosophers (Davydov is among them) on March 1983 and it starts with Bakhurst's (who is a visitor) reaction to an expounding by Ilyenkov (a russian philosopher) on a statement by Marx : "the human essense...in its reality is the ensemble of social relations". Bakhurst starts by claiming that the way Ilyenkov presents the human beings either is obvioulsy wrong or it is trivial.
I think that the dailogue is interesting for the AIME community for different reasons.
First there is a strong similarity (to my eyes) between Marx thesis and the way "monads" are perceived in the article "‘The whole is always smaller than its parts’ – a digital test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads" here . So the discussion there is an argument that can also "leak" towards the article.
Second, it seems to me that the kind of constraints, the kind of knots they try to solve, might be handled in an interesting way if seen through AIME. ( If I may make fun by using concepts fron Soviet Psychology I could say that the AIME logos is a "neutral" tool (second stimulus) , that is added to the contradictions they try to resolve (first stimulus) and allows for progress in the sense expressed by the (Vygotskian) notion of double stimulation)
It also made me search for David Bakhurst's work (which I should know but I did not)
I fell on this
which seems to me quite relevant to concerns that are important in AIME.
There is one more point I want to make:
It has to do with a feeling I have of the limited penetration that a project like AIME (to understand moderns and to reset modernity) has to non-Europeans.
Russians are not Europeans. Many other people too engage in philosophy around the world. But
"Can non-Europeans think?" http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013114142638797542.html
Although there is a lot of intellectual commotion going on around the Globe it looks as if moderns in reseting themselves do not have much interest for the input of semi-moderns (or perhaps better: they so not have much interest for the agency of the semi-moderns, since they do consider what ehy say but mainly assimilated by their own intellectuals). I understand that in AIME the others are not only humans but also the soil or the glaciers or microbes of some type. But again one can also think of Chi or the meridians of Eastern medicine or other entities defined in all kinds of different contexts.
It seems to me that Western Europeans (+ americans?) feel quite confident that they can do the job themselves. They will first decide what is good for them and then they will anounce it to the rest of the world. Anyway they think that they can collect whatever is valuable intellectually around the Globe and they can integrate it to their new image themselves.
But "Reseting" is a problem with many solutions. And diplomacy would be much better if concerns of the others are taken care of in the making of the Reseting rather than after it has solidified.
One lesson I think is that Reseting modernity needs much more funding if it is to consider the "others" (funding having to do with travelling and workshops and translations and penetration to different audiences). It is sad that Europe cannot do this, because Europe does not headstart with a "manifest destiny" to split "us from them" (the way Anglosaxons for all their idealism have). This also demands a "fighting spirit" (the backbone of virtue) that seems to be more the trait of anglosaxons than continentals.
I found it here where one can download it and I have put some comments here
It is a dialogue taking place between Soviet philosophers (Davydov is among them) on March 1983 and it starts with Bakhurst's (who is a visitor) reaction to an expounding by Ilyenkov (a russian philosopher) on a statement by Marx : "the human essense...in its reality is the ensemble of social relations". Bakhurst starts by claiming that the way Ilyenkov presents the human beings either is obvioulsy wrong or it is trivial.
I think that the dailogue is interesting for the AIME community for different reasons.
First there is a strong similarity (to my eyes) between Marx thesis and the way "monads" are perceived in the article "‘The whole is always smaller than its parts’ – a digital test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads" here . So the discussion there is an argument that can also "leak" towards the article.
Second, it seems to me that the kind of constraints, the kind of knots they try to solve, might be handled in an interesting way if seen through AIME. ( If I may make fun by using concepts fron Soviet Psychology I could say that the AIME logos is a "neutral" tool (second stimulus) , that is added to the contradictions they try to resolve (first stimulus) and allows for progress in the sense expressed by the (Vygotskian) notion of double stimulation)
It also made me search for David Bakhurst's work (which I should know but I did not)
I fell on this
which seems to me quite relevant to concerns that are important in AIME.
There is one more point I want to make:
It has to do with a feeling I have of the limited penetration that a project like AIME (to understand moderns and to reset modernity) has to non-Europeans.
Russians are not Europeans. Many other people too engage in philosophy around the world. But
"Can non-Europeans think?" http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013114142638797542.html
Although there is a lot of intellectual commotion going on around the Globe it looks as if moderns in reseting themselves do not have much interest for the input of semi-moderns (or perhaps better: they so not have much interest for the agency of the semi-moderns, since they do consider what ehy say but mainly assimilated by their own intellectuals). I understand that in AIME the others are not only humans but also the soil or the glaciers or microbes of some type. But again one can also think of Chi or the meridians of Eastern medicine or other entities defined in all kinds of different contexts.
It seems to me that Western Europeans (+ americans?) feel quite confident that they can do the job themselves. They will first decide what is good for them and then they will anounce it to the rest of the world. Anyway they think that they can collect whatever is valuable intellectually around the Globe and they can integrate it to their new image themselves.
But "Reseting" is a problem with many solutions. And diplomacy would be much better if concerns of the others are taken care of in the making of the Reseting rather than after it has solidified.
One lesson I think is that Reseting modernity needs much more funding if it is to consider the "others" (funding having to do with travelling and workshops and translations and penetration to different audiences). It is sad that Europe cannot do this, because Europe does not headstart with a "manifest destiny" to split "us from them" (the way Anglosaxons for all their idealism have). This also demands a "fighting spirit" (the backbone of virtue) that seems to be more the trait of anglosaxons than continentals.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου