[lbo-talk] Caudwell on on language's inability to reflect the...

[Arthur Maisel]

I understand your point (and substantially agree) but was merely trying---I
hoped humorously---to point out that it is possible to define terms such
that what they label doesn't exist but that the definition could be what
was at fault. Heidegger's willful interpretation of the ex in exsistere (to
stand *out*, according to him---that is, to stand apart) is a good example
of what you are talking about. Still, "non-existence" seems too strong for
something that if not "apart" is still "salient" (that is, according to the
more proper derivation, standing forth). In a picture, one element can seem
to be in front of other elements, even though they all are equally aspects
of the same two-dimensional surface. You would say, rightly, that what I
just described is an illusion. But some illusions are inescapable, such as
the well-known visual one in which no matter how firmly you tell yourself
that you are looking at concentric circles, you see a spiral.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


> Wherever and whenever one finds oneself one is already enmeshed in an
> ensemble of social relations. The 'individual,' existing prior to an
> independently of  such and ensemble, does not exist. Pur another way: "I"
> do
> not have a history; I _am_ my history.
>
> The "individual" enters 'modern' literature with Lycidas & Paradise  Lost.
> Both 'narrator' and 'reader' of both texts enter as from nowhere, compelled
> freely to form a relationship that did not exist before.
>
> One cannot understand commodity production without out grasping the
> non-existence of the individual.
>
> Carrol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Arthur Maisel
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 9:24 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Caudwell on on language's inability to reflect
> the...
>
> Pardon? Who am I speaking to? Sorry---you seem to be breaking up.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> > This discussion seems to assume the existence of the individual. That is
> a
> > false assumption.
> >
> > Carrol
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:
> lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > On Behalf Of Arthur Maisel
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 9:11 AM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Caudwell on on language's inability to reflect
> > the...
> >
> > I knew there was something specious about the molecular argument (all new
> > molecules = all new person), but I only just thought of a good analogy.
> > Every four years we get a new President; every two and eighteen,
> > respectively, we can have an entirely new House and Senate. Anyone here
> > want to say that we would have an entirely new government once those
> sweeps
> > were completed?
> >
> > Of course the government analogy is actually much fuzzier than the
> > molecular person argument, because when you get a new molecule of some
> > amino acid in your liver, it is presumably identical to the old one,
> > whereas a new senator is only substantially the same---given the
> tolerances
> > of the system---but naturally not identical.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Charles Brown <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:29 AM, James Heartfield <james at heartfield.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In the 1970s Caudwell's work was in print with Lawrence and Wishart,
> > and
> > > was by default the first port of call for anyone interested in Marxism
> > and
> > > art. I spied a copy of his Art and Illusion on the shelves of the
> > fantastic
> > > poet Tony Harrison when he was being interviewed on the TV.
> > >
> > > ^^^^^^^^
> > > CB: I have a copy of the Lawrence and Wishart edition right here.
> > >
> > > ^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, Charles makes the argument that we are not the same people we
> > > were. This same argument was made by the reactionary Joseph Barker,
> > > defending slavery and himself against charges of inconsistency, as
> > recorded
> > > by a contemporary, the Chartist Adams:
> > > >
> > > > At one meeting, Barker was challenged from the audience, a letter in
> > his
> > > name of some years earlier, against slavery was produced. Was he the
> > Joseph
> > > Barker who had written it? 'No,' was the astonishing reply. 'It is, as
> > > everybody knows, a physiological fact that the particles of the human
> > frame
> > > are all changed in the course of every seven years. More than seven
> years
> > > have elapsed since that letter was written; therefore I am not the
> Joseph
> > > Barker who wrote it!' W.E. Adams, Memoirs of a Social Atom, 1968, p 400
> > >
> > > ^^^^^^
> > >
> > > CB: Good point, James , although in this case, don't have to go to the
> > > molecular level. Evidently, Joseph Barker had changed in that he had
> > > changed his opinion on slavery.  He had turned into his opposite.
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > > 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
>