Jurriaan Bendien (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:46:17 +0100
>I wonder how one can critically sift and assimilate historical facts,
trends in accordance with "dialectical principles"?
I meant to say "present material according to dialectical principles".
>We ask a methodology because we are ignorant of the reality but Uno must
be a genus because he knows even with no method what to sift and what to
assimilate from the very start?
Uno tried to build on Marx's own work. His idea is that the pure theory is
a basis for sifting and assimilating more historical material.
We ask a methodology, how can we sift significant elements from the very
starting point. But Uno does not tell anything about it. His method is
therefore a bull-shit according to Lee's thesis.
I'll be happy to consider your argument, but as I have said I do not read
Japanese so I cannot check a lot of the Unoist literature. I do not know
what actual guidelines Uno gives for concretising the pure theory.
>How and why do we know essential elements from the very beginning? If we
know, we do not need any methodology, do we?
Marx suggests the need for both a method of investigation and a method of
>Of course, Uno must be better than Weber because he was born late. He
studied in Germany Weber as well as a little Marxian literature. He
imitated Marx but followed Weber. Because he studied both, he must be
I would not necessarily agree with that logic. That would mean that
scholars who studied Marx after Marx died must be better than Marx, but
unfortunately that is not generally the case either.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:30 EST