From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Sat Nov 18 2006 - 10:02:55 EST
Hi Rakesh, I think I understand your point, and I would say yes. Maybe we can think of the way a wall holds up a ceiling. In the original construction there is first the wall and then the ceiling, but after that they exist together. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] marx's conception of labour > > Hi Paul and Dogen, > > > > Paul, I don't think anything about the 'building the house in the head' > > story compromises the dialectic of theory and practice that you suggest in > > the way you suggest. First, Dogen is quite right that the whole purpose > > of the introduction Marx provides is to discuss the labor process at a > > level of abstraction common to all forms of labor. Second, what > > characterizes the causal structures of nature we are is intentional > > activity. That's Marx's point. Intentionality is a projection into the > > future. > > Howard, > Can we accept your point and still insist that in practice there is no > easy way to separate instructions from the process of carrying them out, > to distinguish plan from execution. This is true of artistic production > which Enrico Coen analogizes to the making of organisms. > > Rakesh > > > About the same time Marx was working out this analysis, the > > American philosopher Charles Pearce was beginning to think systematically > > about how we use signs. The representations we make of the house in our > > head are signs of what it will be. They guide and discipline the labor > > process and our thinking about it. But there is nothing in Marx's > > analysis to suggest that the sign we form to guide practice functions as a > > mechanical template imposed on a person's labor the way a robot might be > > programmed or without regard to class relations and the other points you > > mention. > > > > A couple of points on the broader questions raised by this thread. All > > things in process, including social relations, reflect a trajectory of > > movement and change. They therefore point forward to an end or a goal. > > If we want to refer to the process taken as a whole, then we are going to > > have to use signs that capture its telos. But this is a simple matter of > > reference to a process, an essential feature of science, not of some > > inevitable Hegelian or other idealist unfolding of spirit. Causal > > explanation in social life (and no doubt of many natural phenomena as > > well) requires a broader conception of cause than we've become familiar > > with in science since the Renaissance -- traditional science has tended to > > narrow the conception of cause to efficient cause only. That was not > > Marx's 'come from' and to understand explanation it's worth having a look > > again at Aristotle. > > > > The same point holds for the question of form, which relates to the > > ontological question Dogen raised. I've argued that Marx's analysis of > > social forms can be thought of much the way Aristotle thought that the > > things of the world were composites of matter and form. For Marx the > > social relations of labor can be thought of as composites of labor and > > form. Recognizing this not only puts an important emphasis on the forms > > of the labor process, but also makes it possible to see the way Marx's > > analyses foreshadowed today's sophisticated scientific realism. > > Scientists search for the causal structures of the world and Marx > > identifies causal structures of labor and form. I've discussed these > > issues in "Why Is This Labor Value: The Commodity Form of Labor as a > > Social Kind." 'Social Kind' here is used the way we think of water as a > > natural kind. The essay will be published in Pearce and Frauley, eds., > > Critical Realism and the Social Sciences: Heterodox Elaborations, by the > > University of Toronto Press. If anyone is interested in the argument, I > > can send a copy. > > > > Howard > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Paul Cockshott > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:47 PM > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] marx's conception of labour > > > > > > I think, Dogan, that the possibility of our building a house in our head > > before we build it in reality is an idealist hangover in Marx. His > > section on the architect and the bee has for 30 years struck me as one > > of the least satisfactory in the whole of Das Kapital. > > > > > > > > > > > > One can have a general intention to build a house, but nobody builds it > > in their head, least of all an architect. An architect builds it on > > paper before building labourers build it out of bricks. The whole of > > marx's analysis there abstracts from class relations, from the division > > of mental and manual labour, and from the interaction between mental > > processes and the material tools of mental labour - in the architects > > case, rulers pencils, paper etc. > > > > > > > > For a detailed elaboration of this critique see > > > > > > > > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/infoworkmeaning.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way I have been reading Dogan's book on Smith, have only got > > through first third so far, but it opens up an entire new window on > > Smith for me. I had never paid much attention to his Theory of Moral > > Sentiments before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > > > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Dogan Goecmen > > Sent: 16 November 2006 15:05 > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] marx's conception of labour > > > > > > > > It refers to the projected aims of the concret work to be done. To build > > a house it must have been built in our heads and so on. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Dogan > > > > > > > > > > > > In einer eMail vom 16.11.2006 15:00:36 Westeuropäische Normalzeit > > schreibt Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: > > > > > I present first the general aspects of Marx's concept of labour: > > > ontological, teleological and sociological. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dogan: > > > > > > > > What is the teleological aspect of Marx's concept of labour? > > > > > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST