Jerry Monaco wrote:
> On 6/11/06, Ted Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com> wrote:
>> Unless you're through the looking glass, you can't define "pure
>> indeterminateness" of the "Ego" elaborated as
>>
>> the Ego "as such has no limitation or a content which is immediately
>> extant through nature but is indifferent towards any and every
>> determinateness"
>>
>> as
>>
>> the Ego has limitation and a content which is immediately extant
>> through nature and is not indifferent towards any and every
>> determinateness,
>
> Your contradiction is simply a matter of your own definitions and
> nothing else. You don't define "determinateness" in any way that
> matches the world and you don't define indeterminateness in any way
> that matches the world. You don't define Ego in anyway the matches
> the what we know in the world.
You neglect to mention that what you're quoting was responding to your claim that Hegel's (not my) idea of "pure indeterminateness" of the Ego "can be defined in any way you or I wish to make it consistent with physical theories, biological theories or historical theories". As is obvious, it can't. It was on this mistaken basis that you claimed that "what Hegel said and what Marx said at various times ... does not effect at all Marx's (partially failed but interesting) attempt to create a theoretical model through which we can understand history and society."
> If you are simply doing exegesis
> of what Hegel said and what Marx said at various times then my point
> is that it does not effect at all Marx's (partially failed but
> interesting) attempt to create a theoretical model through which we
> can understand history and society. It doesn't because the
> philosophical notions of "pure indeterminedness" and
> "self-determination" can be defined in any way you or I wish to make
> it consistent with physical theories, biological theories or
> historical theories.
Ted