Kelley wrote:
>
> At 09:59 AM 7/27/01 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> >CB: Carrol was pointing to a bourgeois something , and I commented on
> >Carrol's comment on that bourgeois something.
>
> yeah, carrol was telling ken that his conceptualization of
> subjectivity/intersubjectivity/objectivity was bourgeois. you jumped in to
> concur and elaborate. the marxist against ken the wayward theorist.
>
What I said (and I used no labels) was:
****
Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>
> Would you agree that we can differentiate between an internal state of
> affairs (subjective), a social state of affairs (intersubjective) and an
> external state of affairs (objective)?
Tentatively, I would reject the first of these: no "internal state of affairs" exists independently of a social state of affairs. Chronologically, shared social states preceded self-consciousness by a million or more years. We _are_ our social relations, and those relations are prior to any internal state of affairs. *****
Since then I believe Justin has criticized from another angle the concept of an "internal state of affairs." And Ken, by claiming to remember an incident from the age of two, has thrown even more doubt on the legitimacy of referring to such an internal state. If Ken thinks he remembers anything from the age of two, then I _know_ that at least in this respect I know more about Ken's alleged internal state than he does.
If an internal state of affairs does not exist independently of social relations, why is it even useful as an analytic abstraction?
Carrol