> On 6/12/06, Ted Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com> wrote:
>> 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,
>>
>> 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."
>
>
> You answer nothing Ted. Hegel's notion of "pure indeterminateness" is
> neither consistent or inconsistent with Marx's view of history, no
> matter what Marx said in 1844. "Pure indeterminateness" can be
> defined in any way you or I wish because simply because it is too
> abstract to have any definition at all.
Right Jerry. "Pure indeterminateness" of the ego defined, as Hegel defines it, as the ego "as such, has no limitation or a content which is immediately extant through nature but is indifferent towards any and ever determinateness" is consistent with "pure indeterminateness" of the ego defined as the ego as such, has limitation and a content which is immediately extant through nature and is not indifferent towards any and every determinateness.
My mistake.
Ted