Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:41:00 -0000


Carrol
That makes a bitmore sense, thanks
Jamie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox-AT-ilstu.edu>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR


> Probably all my brief posts should have "Footnote" or "Tangential
> Observation" added in front of the Subject. In this case, the footnote
> (or digression or parenthetical remark) focused on the sources of that
> attempt ("attempt to describe reality"). That is, I don't believe Marx's
> 'marxist' thought _began_ with wanting understanding for the sake of
> change. I believe, rather, that he found himself in the midst of trying
> to bring about change, and in a 'first stage' reflection on that effort
> note that it had brought about a fuller understanding of the reality he
> was trying to change, _part_ of that fuller understanding being the
> recognition of how even that greater knowledge (stemming from practice)
> was unequal to the practice that generated it.
>
> Take it as a casual observation rather than a major response to the core
> of your post or this thred in general. It is not wholly unconnected to
> the last line on spirituality. Quite frankly, I think that when men &
> women find themselves actively engaged in a mass movement of some
> substance, they tend (even if they are deeply religious in their general
> theory) to tacitly let the question of "spirituality" drop by the
> wayside; when the going gets rough and solidarity becomes a forlorn idea
> rather than a living practice, the urge for spirituality revives.
>
> Humans were pretty smart & pretty cooperative for several 10s of
> millenia before they developed language. And most religions over the
> millenia have been pretty mechanical affairs. I don't see much desire or
> need for "spirituality" in Homer, nor in most Athenians of the 5th
> century.
>
> Carrol
>
> jamie morgan wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure how your coments relate to what I sdaid - which was that
Marx's
> > interest was in capitalism as a mode of production - one that was not to
be
> > found outside Europe and the US at the time - and that many Marxist
inspired
> > movements outside this context have been problematic
> >
>
> In reference to:
>
> Jamie Morgan: Marxism was an attempt to describe reality in order to
> transform it - it was a description of an industrialised society at a
> particular time and place - are you surprised that it did not fit the
> two thirds world for which it was simply not designed, or is this itself
> a rhetorical device?
>
> Cox: I think this is off just a bit. Marxism was first of all the
> recognition
> that until one was _already_ engaged in changing reality one could not
> explain it. While the Eleventh Thesis doubtless contains a pragmatic
> element (get busy just don't sit there) it is better used, I believe, as
> a summary of marxist epistemology.
>
> Spirituality seems to me to be merely spoilt solidarity. - Carrol
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---