Marx, Leo The machine in the garden
![]() |
Transition notes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Note that I am not primarily concerned here with the postmodern strictures about the psyche being fully constituted by the language used to talk about it, nor even with the social psychological strictures about the impact of socialiazation on the self. I am interested rather on the consequentiality of imagination on future action, and this is a fully social problem that arises only after externalization of imagination, whatever the source of the original experience.
Specifically, for America in a more immediate fashion than for Europe:
"the machine in the garden," | |
nature vs. industry, | |
"ecology" (in the narrow sense as used in the media) vs. further industrial development. |
Note how familiar some of the dichotomies, fears, and apologies are: the machine (steam engines, electricity, computers) threatens the "natural" character of interaction but it is inevitable and we must all live with it (Jefferson). For the machine is fun and its manifestation, while acknowledged as possibly detestable, are in fact "beautiful" in a new esthetics.
The question remains, "to what extent," or "in what ways" are imaginative processes constitutive of (a word that I am trying to distinguish from "determine") future action. They are action themselves but are they "purely talk"?
The role of language in science
Some questions in the context of this lesson
If you want to respond to these you can do so by posting comments through the page for this lesson on StudyPlace |
---|