boddhisatva foucault at
Thu Jan 19 21:43:31 MST 1995

		To Whom....,

	I would like the group's view of a modest proposal regarding the
"foundationalism" argument going on.  I would say that ideas posited are the
basis of the trouble here.  By posited I mean more than put forth, I mean put
forth as positive assertions - definitions, theories, theses.  I see the
trouble in dealing with this kind of idea unit in a marxist way (although the
specifics of the argument are somewhat impalpable for me - please educate).
I would therefore like to suggest that the identification of conflicts has a
natural superiority in this kind of discourse as it can be more easily, and
"scientifically" shown.  Since Marx's genius was the identification of
central conflict, it seems very reasonable to base Marxian dialogue on that,
rather than the forwarding of "positive" ideas,which then must be argued.  It
seems to me that the Marxist does best to suggest the most structurally
complete way of resolving clearly identified conflicts, rather than
forwarding concepts which require definition (those would seem to me to
necessarily  be positive assertions rather than reactions to negatives).

	Since I may be jumbling terms that have specific meanings in this
milieu, I'll conclude with a simplification.  I would say that I am looking
towards the difference between saying "This is the important dynamic in X
part of the social order, thus, logically a derivative of X should be the
solution" and saying "This inherent conflict can be identified by Y
unhappiness, and it would seem that integrating this function of Y would
ameliorate that difficulty, as suggested by this scenario".  The real
characteristic of the second approach is limiting the solution (necessarily
some sort of theoretical model) to a conflict that is "scientifically"
identifiable.  This allows later discussion to return to the solid base of
identified conflicts at the very least.



More information about the Marxism mailing list