The instrument and the language I A reader of these "things as passing" has come to awaken in me an old debate. I say former, for it is approaching the half century, which for me is almost back upon my own sunrise to Marxist readings. It is true that something had read it in El Salvador, but since I did this by pushing the heart into the darkness of secrecy, fearing stalking and tracking any enthusiasm, zeal and enthusiasm to lead my staff in the dark, then the meaning seemed reflected in letters Mace absolute and unquestionable truth. Those were anything but first readings, readings. There was more hope for magic, unspeakable power that would allow me to erase forever the social misery that surrounded me. There was nobody who could really get me into the pure light that my mind did not fall into a new religion. For those who surrounded me in those times, had also fallen into the same spell, victims of our gross ignorance, these texts became sacred.
However soon I was faced with another world I opened a discord, to the controversy, to interpretations. For many it may be that the thing is even unprecedented, but in Moscow, to my fellow Salvadorans easily learned to repeat the conformist and dogmatic amens I knew, by contrast and by temperament, not everything written was absolute truth. Friends from other countries with less conformity interpreted the texts of Lenin and were allowed to contradict what the press expressing the PR of the CPSU (Communist Party Politburo of the Soviet Union).
El ambiente era animado en la Universidad “Patricio Lumumba”, tanto en las prolongadas tardes de la calle Kabelnaya, como en las noches sin sueño de la calle Storozhevaya, me fui metiendo al resbaladizo terreno del pensar por mi cuenta.
Fue en esos momentos, en el albor de mis estudios, cuando lo primero era despojarme de las ideas preconcebidas sobre el lenguaje, cuando iba aprendiendo que para que algo sea cierto es menester aportar la prueba y me came to realize, in linguistics, which was the "unity of opposites" and that science does not obey the dictates of the "ideology" theory of the sign, first and sausssureana theory of language later. Now I am committing an anachronism, since this "unity" he learned in the practice and then not yet called that. This came later, some time later. Those years were of intense reading, I read several novels at a time, several trials at the same time, approaching me with bulimia to anything that could rescue the pit of my ignorance.
A must read
was at this time of learning I had a must-read for those who longed to "become" scientific materialism, it is a pamphlet which has been in the world one sentence, "work made man." The booklet is called, "The Role of Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man", the author is F. Engels. The phrase may appear in multiple manuals and "Marxist" but in the booklet is that of aphorism that way and somehow the friend of K. Marx expressed more cautiously, opened his reflections with: " The work is the source of all wealth, experts say in Political Economy. It is, in fact, at the same nature, a supplier of the materials it converts into wealth. But the work is much more than that. Is the basic and fundamental of all human life. And it is to an extent that, to some extent, we must say that labor created man himself . "
As you can see is not the same, but as in the catechism came repeating in aphoristic form: "work made man", the entire contents of the prospectus, the whole argument Engelsian, wisdom, and his insights have been deleting and forgetting. So I kept myself face to face with a kind of postulate of "Marxism." This cartoon has been indisposed me forever. I wanted to discuss my doubts, discuss them, but nobody has stopped listen to my questions. For many there was or there is nothing to discuss, others have thought that I wish more legs always tell the cat and the phrase is sufficiently transparent, there is nothing to discuss.
remember now one of the last times I tried to discuss this with someone, was in Paris with two friends in El Salvador, in the war years, when our propaganda activity and fundraising, it was called "external front." One of them is now a professor at National University and the other, I think, also teaches. The first is a sociologist and the second language was still an apprentice. Both were sharp and even surprised that I would like to mix them in dangerous and absurd heterodoxies. Duo told me in that there was nothing to remove, or add to that scientific postulate. Had begun to tell these friends that Engels could not return to work the demiurge, that reasoning was much more than work, perhaps the language could be considered as another important factor, as another crucial moment in the famous "transit of ape to man. " Engels himself in his brochure says that "men in training came to a point that had need to say something to each other." And then adds: "First work, then with his articulate speech, were the two major stimuli under whose influence the monkey's brain was gradually transformed in the human brain."
Recovecos, shortcuts and deslisaderos
Now I can tell my tour this issue. The route has been tortuous, with twists and turns, shortcuts, deslisaderos, uphill and unexpected encounters. I will try to present a brief summary of it, crossing out a few things, the importance of strictly personal and now judge the omit other because they can distract from the main road, the core of the thing.
Although this may seem far from the topic, my first reaction was language, mixed with another of ethics, ethics, accuracy. The first is that the sentence as it is repeated "The work created man," ignores a constant reflection of Engels in his unfinished booklet is an ancient process, then wanting to express these thousands and thousands of years for a while verbal in Castilian rather reflects a momentary act, closed, perfect, is simply inadequate. The time it brings the translation is perfect, an open time that action has no limits in the past, which extends far discursive. To overturn the sentence at the time and skip "to some extent" that puts even slightly, one flat to the claim, is misrepresenting something, somehow making a mistake is the exact meaning has been transgressed. When someone gives you an idea, honest quote properly, without amendments, or verbal shortcuts.
Another point which I have communed with many of our "Marxist" is forgetting that is produced by to postulate or dogma the distorted phrase attributed to Engels, this oversight is to overlook or ignore without more, the fundamental fact, which Engels insists that it is an ancient process and in which there is a qualitative transformation, a transmutation leaves off and something else appears. But in the pre-Marxist materialist simplicity of our "Marxists", the statement attributed to Engels opposes and overrides the sentence of theology: "God created man." This similarity may be partly responsible for the ears that I found. "The work created man" was the reply as materialistic religious idealism, but it was in the double sense of word reply: Reply and copy. Produced an illusion and a reflection spectrum, giving the illusion of a response to this secular, materialistic religious dogma while copying same error. This error, I repeat is not Engels but of those that produced the brief summary, Marx points out this error in the sixth thesis on Feuerbach, to which I referred to these "Things so fleeting."
But before the development of this thesis VI allows us to correct, we should revert to the story of my own efforts to understand the problem. It turns out that those years, although it insisted on the need to "learn" the Marxist philosophy, the materialist theory, was left aside of the classical texts themselves and "learned" in manuals Diamat Soviet abbreviation is Russian "dialectical materialism." That was almost a repeat uncorrected aberrations committed by Stalin interested. Many still cling to this way of thinking wrong. But this came to join other circumstance, that even comes close to the distortions of Communist Party of El Salvador and Shafik Handal on the way of the revolution. Misrepresentations that resulted in long discussions within the party and outside, as in the international communist movement that was also the subject of discord. This struggle "ideological" forced us to completely stop the vagaries of philosophizing. And what mattered then was to know which way we put us next to the revolution or reform.
All that mattered was action
This is aggravated also because MIR my Chilean friends, Uruguayans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Colombians, Bolivians, Peruvians quarreled about Regis Debray's book "Revolution in the Revolution" and our world is divided into two, those who were for the revolution those who were against it. That was the first time I understood that truth had nothing to do with how to growl, some of my friends took almost as catechism lampoon Debray, never accepted it, I found provided that the brochure promoted by the Cubans, was rather a pseudo-theoretical justification and a misunderstanding of the concept "foquista" of the Cuban revolution. And This came on top of an abusive interpretation, which continues today, the last thesis on Feuerbach, the famous eleventh thesis: "The philosophers have only interpreted world in various ways, but what is it transform. " Many have understood that the theory is superfluous, all that matters is action. This attitude has always been a wall.
Amidst all these discussions, peaceful means, through armed, pro-Cuba or pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese or pro-communism and many other Western alternative I had a great first meeting, a professor at the University, gave us a few hours of Logic, was a nearly optional course, some regulars attended, others pushed and yawning, the teacher took it all stoically and with a conceited smile ( as they say in Argentina). Once told us that besides the formal logic and its derivatives, there was a more interesting, more comprehensive and ultimately more entertaining and it was much more useful for interpreting scientific discovery: the dialectical logic. But we drove slowly by in the courses would not have time to give us even the basics. He promised a bibliography and help if someone s and asked for it. I dared to claim the literature and began my studies.
confess that I entered them very lame and no guide for the teacher disappeared. Yet I realized that in order to extract the logic of the texts that I recommended the teacher, needed more philosophical training, it was not only to read and take some notes. Despite these readings helped me to clarify some insights, some glimpses.
I dared to think that in the brochure Engels could not be very accurate at all, because the specific knowledge we have now, with modern archeology, were unknown at the time, Engels taken as entirely true Darwin's fanciful description of the monkeys 'ancestors' and the lost continent, which Engels had used very much to the intelligence, but because of lack of information, much of his presentation was lame. This kept me in silence, this "apostasy" I could not even be worth more than an excommunication.
And at the same time, somewhere in my head, trotted forward to a concept that was rejected without its critics. This is the concept "man", what is meant when it is defined. That was not so clear to me, why replace it, how to replace it from the point of view of Marxist materialism?
Reflections on language
Somehow my thoughts came to the aid of language. In fact we speak of human language, but we can say it is too little, because it is an abstraction, generalizations that we can unite on a concept, but that does not really correspond to anything observable. The language as such is not a tangible reality, reality, what appears are the languages, given the historical languages. Also came to add the reflections on language and language potential in action. Then came discussions about "universal" language, the innate character or not, language as social interaction or as a package, node relationships, material existence in each individual y en todos los que hablan una lengua. Los temas se iban acumulando, la reflexión iba creciendo, no siempre me satisfacían las respuestas que me daban mis profesores. Tal vez sólo los soliloquios-conferencias de mi mejor profesor, Dimitri Evguenovich Mijalchi. Nunca falté a sus cursos, salvo realmente por fuerza mayor.
Recuerdo una de sus conferencias, en una de las que se dejaba ir a reflexionar en voz alta delante de nosotros. No le gustaba que perdiéramos el tiempo anotando, prefería que siguiéramos el hilo de su razonar. El tema era la propiedad o la ausencia de propiedad del simil entre the instrument and language. It had become very common to say that language was a tool for communication and thought. Regarding the latter, I mean the union of language and thought has been one of the problems that always accompanied me and was the subject of a long night talk that shared Mounin Georgre comnigo condescending.
Dmitri Evguenevich Mijalchi rejected the comparison, accepting that in some sense might be similarities, that both the instrument and language, were vehicles of the will of men that through them objectives were achieved, but the instrument is made with a specific purpose, can possibly be applied for various purposes or to be used properly in acts for which it was designed and manufactured. I also remember that in its passing our teacher, corrected, "the insturment and languages", instead of the singular plural changed several times and instead of language, repeated "specific language." I do not remember if this change from singular to plural was the subject of another course, but this detail was significant and had a deep thought behind that I had to squint.
The language does not stand between men and nature, between subject and object, as do the instruments. Language, languages, involving individuals and transmit information. You may like what Engels said in the brochure that said, "the head that planned the work was able to bind the hands of others to do the work planned for her," but the substance has not been transmuted human. The instrument, however, it becomes the object is applied, it follows the strict necessity of a match between the instrument and the object to be transforming. The instrument is in the middle, between subject and object, while the language but also in the middle appears to be not entirely true, since for the language functions necessary linguistic community, it is necessary that my partner understands me without this add no communication, language belongs to both, all, My statement is made in the other, but not in any other, but those others who share my same language. Both the tool and language, are mediators, but one it is full, while the other only in a sense, perhaps only figuratively.
Here we can see that we have been armed a knot, in which we mix many things, such as projects, things, people, language, objects, etc. Because the instrument before physically exist, is in the project, as conceived in the brain. Its previous form, ie before materialize in human acts, is in his thought-form, largely, in its verbal form. It is possible that this can admit the existence of non-verbal thinking, instrumental thinking, figures, etc. Are these modes of thought exist strictly separated? Is it possible to fully instrumental mode of thinking without the verbal? In any case it is in an overlap of factors, moments, brain, hand, the senses, consciousness, thinking, language (which is the material manifestation), the objects and all of nature.
But to undo this tangle there are several threads, some broken, others are hidden and some are so long that lasts a lifetime. The key however is that these interactions allow us to understand the mutual dependencies and parallel developments. Can an activity to produce a tool without a language? Project means the existence of mind, the instrument's potential. I must confess that in these scores that I am describing now that I write, I strive to play as it is happening in my searches were in my chaotic readings, also in talks.
