From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 09:19:48 EST
Re: (OPE-L) logical order and historical orderHoward and others: previously I wrote -- [NB: in a post responding to Rakesh, dated 2/11, I mentioned "Vorstellung". Note that in the "Introduction" to the _Grundrisse_ where Marx explains what is wrong with the starting point of the population he writes that "this would be a chaotic conception [Vorstellung] of the whole .... "(Nicolaus translation, p. 100). There is also a reference to "Vorstellung" in the _Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' (Cambridge, CUP, 1970, p. 69). In the latter context, it is written as part of a critique of Hegel's concept of the state: for Hegel "the state is a mere representation [eine blosse Vorstellung]" (emphasis in original, JL).] Also: there are also (at least) a couple of places in the "Marginal Notes on Wagner" where "Vostellung" is written: 1) "But this linguistic designation simply expresses as an image [Vorstellung] what repeated confirmation has made an experience, namely that certain external things serve to satisfy the needs of men already living [language makes this a necessary presupposition]". 2) "If one calls this situation, the fact that men do not treat such things practically as means towards the satisfaction of their needs but also designate them in their imaginations [Vorstellung] and later in language ...." (_Theoretical Practice_, Issue 5, Spring 1972, p 46 for both quotes). Commentary: in Hegel, "Vorstellung" is a form of "ordinary thinking" which is a mere mental picture which lacks necessity and universality. What is wrong with "the population" as the starting point in a systematic dialectical presentation is that while it represents "ordinary thinking" or "common sense", the necessary determinations of the subject matter (the CMP) can not be grasped using that as a point of departure. Yet, from the standpoint of "ordinary thinking" what starting point for comprehending social organization makes more "common sense" than do begin with people? In a similar way, from the point of "ordinary thinking" what makes more "common sense" when attempting to grasp a historically constituted subject than to follow the historical sequence of the development of that subject? The reason, therefore, why the logical ordering is different from the historical ordering is that if we were to follow the latter "common sense" approach we could not grasp the essential nature of the subject since that requires abstraction rather than a mere progression of mental pictures. Nonetheless, there are times in Marx's presentation when the progression of logical categories seems to mirror the progression of historical forms. As I asserted before, which Howard took exception to, this is "OK" but not essential for Marx's reconstruction of the subject matter in thought. After all, there are times when what is presented through the process of abstraction happens to be the same as what "ordinary thought" and "common sense" tell us, but it is not essential. This is also important because there are realities of the CMP which simply do not make "common sense" and can not be grasped through ordinary thinking: indeed, there are 'results' which are sometimes the reverse of what 'common sense' tells us. E.g. 'common sense' tells us that through the process of exchanging equivalents, there is no exploitation. Yet, Marx's theory penetrated beyond the surface appearance to reveal the inner nature of the relation that violates ordinary thinking. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 21 2004 - 00:00:02 EST