Re: [OPE-L] marx's conception of labour (thanks, review, conclusion)

From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Sun Nov 19 2006 - 05:31:21 EST

Jurrian's last email reminded of something that we all neglect, namely to
look back and acknowledge the contributions made. Some comments from my point of

When I posted the abstract of my article I did not know that I was touching
a hot potato. I thank to Paul for his initial controbution very much. Thank to
 his critique and questions we have had a good discussion. From his
contributions  I learnt a lot. He challenged me to think further and in particular to
think  historically and dialectically. Thank to his challenge I have a more
accurate  understanding of Marx's conception of labour. I think his references
and in  particular his paper he referred to deserves to be read. I will do this
and get  back to him in due course.

Thinking further on Jerry's contribution made me (again) aware that the
concept of planing is not a rigorious concept.

Ian's contribution raised questions concerning the relationship of society,
consciousness and technique (technology), which we have not discussed yet.
But I think his points deserve to be followed.

I thank Howard for his contribution. He sort of reformulated our points  from
a distance, which we need to reflect. I am still not sure about the
parallellism between Marx and Peirce he sort of implied. But what he said about  sign
theory is important, however, it needs to be articulated in an appropriate
mirror theory. I will read his paper and get back to him.

I thank everybody (in particular to Paul) for this good and rich  discussion.

In solidarity, Dogan.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST