--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> The ball is round. No, it's orange. No, its rubber.
> No it's scorched.
> No, it's 3 inches in diameter. No, it's lying on the
> table. What an
> absurd view of Marx, Freud, Sartre. I don't know
> about the structuralists.
You seem to be describing the structuralist here. What Murdoch says about Marx, Freud and Sartre, and structuralism, is that they treat the realm of personal opinion, value, moral decision, as a realm of illusion (false consciousness, ideology, superego, inauthenticity, etc), inferior to abstract determinants like class, the unconscious, "authentic freedom" and language.
I dont think she's denying the insight of any of the writers mentioned, but stating that none of them does away with, or relieves us from, the murky realm of private moral struggle she believes (as a novelist perhaps) we all live in.
BobW
>
> Carrol
>
> Robert Wrubel wrote:
> >
> > --- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> > "It might help if I mention that I am currently
> > reading Robert Albritton, _Economics Transformed."
> >
> > Alright, then I'll admit I'm re-reading Iris
> Murdoch's
> > *Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals*, and very much
> > enjoying her wry comments on the second-class
> status
> > given to personality and individual consciousness
> in
> > Marx, Freud, Sartre and the structuralists.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert Wrubel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "At the level of fundamental theory agents are
> > > > merely_personifications of social relations."
> > > >
> > > > You mean "representatives" of social
> relations?
> > > What
> > > > is the point of talking about agents stripped
> of
> > > their
> > > > individual voice, their understanding, their
> moral
> > > > passion?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I didn't. I talked about fundamental theory.
> What
> > > you are talking about
> > > exists at an altogether different (and more
> > > concrete) level. And I did
> > > mean _personification_ NOT representative. It
> might
> > > help if I mention
> > > that I am currently reading Robert Albritton,
> > > _Economics Transformed_. I
> > > got excited about him first at a forum at
> Marxism
> > > 2006 in Amherst, then
> > > from an article in the HM forum on Arthur. I've
> just
> > > ordered his
> > > _Dialectics and Deconstruction in Political
> > > Economy_. He has worked out
> > > relationships between fundamental theory and
> > > historical actuality that
> > > I've been trying for some years to fumble out
> > > myself.
> > >
> > > Carrol
> > >
> > > > BobW
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael Perelman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People organize their thoughts by stories.
> > > > > Anecdotes about criminality and other
> > > > > > abuses helped to form those stories. The
> > > people
> > > > > who do theory CAN, but not
> > > > > > necessarily do help to give those stories
> > > > > coherence. Yet Carroll is correct
> > > > > > emphasized the importance of people on the
> > > ground
> > > > > doing person-to-person organizing,
> > > > > > even Karl Marx never did that kind of
> > > organizing
> > > > > that Carroll is emphasizing.
> > > > >
> > > > > The theory is, I think, of crucial
> importance to
> > > the
> > > > > people doing such
> > > > > organizing; one of their tasks is to
> simplify &
> > > > > paraphrase such theory
> > > > > to bring it into relationship with more
> concrete
> > > > > levels of
> > > > > understanding, and the more deeply they
> > > understand
> > > > > the fundamental
> > > > > theory the better prepared they will be to
> > > select
> > > > > from and/or simplify
> > > > > that theory in appropriate ways to fit
> > > particular
> > > > > situations or
> > > > > particular people in those situations.
> > > > >
> > > > > At the level of fundamental theory agents
> are
> > > > > _merely_ personifications
> > > > > of social relations. Dogmatism is the belief
> > > that
> > > > > without translation
> > > > > that theory can guide practice. What one
> might
> > > call
> > > > > reverse-dogmatism is
> > > > > the belief that unless the theory can guide
> > > > > practice it is bad theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carrol
> > > > >
> > > > > ___________________________________
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___________________________________
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > >
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>