[lbo-talk] Professor Lisa at Tortilla Flats

Ted Winslow egwinslow at rogers.com
Sun Apr 9 18:55:42 PDT 2006


Joanna wrote:


> People can recognize the good stuff if they are exposed to it.
> People say that they know what they like; but it's truer to say
> that they like what they know. I would say 99% of the problem is
> lack of exposure. Our modern mass-market world is touted to be a
> rich one, but from the point of view of anything that serves as a
> foundation for art, it is far more impovrished than the natural world.

I've posted this passage from Marx before:

"On the other hand, let us look at the question in its subjective aspect: only music can awaken the musical sense in man and the most beautiful music has no sense for the unmusical ear, because my object can only be the confirmation of one of my essential powers — i.e., can only be for me insofar as my essential power exists for me as a subjective attribute (this is because the sense of an object for me extends only as far as my sense extends, only has sense for a sense that corresponds to that object). In the same way, and for the same reasons, the senses of social man are different from those of non- social man. Only through the objectively unfolded wealth of human nature can the wealth of subjective human sensitivity — a musical ear, an eye for the beauty of form, in short, senses capable of human gratification — be either cultivated or created. For not only the five senses, but also the so-called spiritual senses, the practical senses (will, love, etc.), in a word, the human sense, the humanity of the senses — all these come into being only through the existence of their objects, through humanized nature. The cultivation of the five senses is the work of all previous history. Sense which is a prisoner of crude practical need has only a restricted sense. For a man who is starving, the human form of food does not exist, only its abstract form exists; it could just as well be present in its crudest form, and it would be hard to say how this way of eating differs from that of animals. The man who is burdened with worries and needs has no sense for the finest of plays; the dealer in minerals sees only the commercial value, and not the beauty and peculiar nature of the minerals; he lacks a mineralogical sense; thus the objectification of the human essence, in a theoretical as well as a practical respect, is necessary both in order to make man's senses human and to create an appropriate human sense for the whole of the wealth of humanity and of nature." <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/ 3rd.htm>

As the passage itself indicates, this underpins Marx's claims about the true nature of "wealth" and "poverty":

"It will be seen how in place of the wealth and poverty of political economy come the rich human being and the rich human need. The rich human being is simultaneously the human being in need of a totality of human manifestations of life – the man in whom his own realisation exists as an inner necessity, as need. Not only wealth, but likewise the poverty of man – under the assumption of socialism – receives in equal measure a human and therefore social significance." <http:// www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm>

Ted



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list