[Xmca-l] Re: The Inimitability of Grammar
Joseph Gilbert
joeg4us@roadrunner.com
Mon Apr 7 16:57:00 PDT 2014
Check out Margaret Magnus' book, "A Dictionary of English Sound" and
her website, <www.trismegistos.com>. She shows that word sound is
related to the characteristics of the things to which words refer.
Joseph Gilbert
On Apr 7, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Martin John Packer wrote:
> I want to thank Rod for posting these links. Following them I came
> cross more: for example, this one caught my attention:
>
> Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., & Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism
> facilitates early verb learning. Cognition: International Journal
> of Cognitive Science, 109(1), 54-65.
>
> abstract
>
> Some words are sound-symbolic in that they involve a non-arbitrary
> relationship between sound and meaning. Here, we report that 25-
> month-old children are sensitive to cross-linguistically valid
> sound-symbolic matches in the domain of action and that this sound
> symbolism facilitates verb learning in young children. We
> constructed a set of novel sound-symbolic verbs whose sounds were
> judged to match certain actions better than others, as confirmed by
> adult Japanese- as well as English speakers, and by 2- and 3-year-
> old Japanese-speaking children. These sound-symbolic verbs,
> together with other novel non-sound-symbolic verbs, were used in a
> verb learning task with 3-year-old Japanese children. In line with
> the previous literature, 3-year-olds could not generalize the
> meaning of novel non-sound-symbolic verbs on the basis of the
> sameness of action. However, 3-year-olds could correctly generalize
> the meaning of novel sound-symbolic verbs. These results suggest
> that iconic scaffolding by means of sound symbolism plays an
> important role in early verb learning.
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> Since the time of Saussure, the arbitrary relationship between the
> sound of a word and its meaning has been held as an important
> principle of language (e.g., de Saus- sure, 1916/1983; Newmeyer,
> 1993). In mainstream linguistics, sound symbolism, in which the
> sound and meaning of words are systematically related, is
> considered to be a marginal phenomenon in language. For example,
> Newmeyer (1993) says that ‘‘the number of pictorial, imitative, or
> onomatopoetic non-derived words in any language is vanishingly
> small (p. 758)”.
>
> Such a statement, however, turns out to be too strong when one
> looks beyond Indo-European languages. Many languages of the world
> have a large grammatically defined word class in which sound
> symbolism is clear. ...
>
> Martin
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-
> Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> There has been a considerable amount of work done on cross-
>> cultural patterns in sound symbolism and on cross-modal
>> associations (e.g. between certain vowel sounds and visually
>> perceived size differences). It is not surprising that we perceive
>> the differences in 'mouth shape' between 'large' sounds and 'teeny
>> weeny' ones and associate this with words which reference
>> amplitude (brightness and smoothness as well as size).
>>
>> Some examples:
>>
>> Bremner, A, Caparos, S, Davidoff, J, de Fockert, J, Linnell, K and
>> Spence, C (2013) "Bouba" and "Kiki" in Namibia? A remote culture
>> make similar shape-sound matches, but different shape-taste
>> matches to Westerners. Cognition 126 (2) 165-172. http://
>> www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027712002077
>>
>>
>> Davis, R (2011) The fitness of names to drawings. A cross-
>> cultural study in Tanganyika.
>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.
>> 2044-8295.1961.tb00788.x/abstract
>>
>> Taylor, I. And Taylor, M.(1965) Another look at phonetic
>> symbolism.Psychological Bulletin, Vol 64(6), Dec 1965, 413-427.
>> http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/64/6/413/
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Rod
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-
>> bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd
>> Sent: 04 April 2014 15:26
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Inimitability of Grammar
>>
>> Joseph,
>>
>>> From scanning your occasionally posts over the last six years, as
>>> far
>>> as I
>> can see the principal problem you are having stems from holding
>> your interest as a belief rather than an object of inquiry. You
>> are not admitting for any thorough logic in your interest, which
>> is why are you are continually faced with "academic" rejection.
>>
>> Have you, for example, studied some of the bio-mechanics of the
>> ear, such as how movements in the air matter become translated
>> into nerve pulses?
>> Have you studied how word utterances influence the nervous
>> structure of behaviour? Have you studied the social processes in
>> the establishment of norms and how these influence meaning of sounds?
>>
>> If you undertake such disciplined study and demonstrate the logic
>> of your interest, then I would predict you'll get more favourable
>> responses -- from the scientific perspective, you'd start to be
>> useful and relevant.
>>
>> Best,
>> Huw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 April 2014 02:55, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear David,
>>> I was not expecting you to agree with me, but rather hoping that
>>> you'll would grasp what I was explaining and respond in some
>>> relevant
>>> fashion. It seems either you do not understand or do not want to
>>> understand my offering. I admit, I am disappointed and frustrated
>>> with
>>> this long-time situation. For me, it is not about blaming or, heaven
>>> forbid, insulting anyone, it's simply about attempting to share a
>>> discovery. I assumed, long ago, that those in the academic world
>>> would
>>> be the most likely to understand what I had found. But it eventually
>>> became evident to me that the very ones who, I had assumed it
>>> would be
>>> the most fruitful to share my work with, are the most resistant
>>> to new
>>> ideas that relate to their turf. I have yet to receive a cogent or
>>> even minimally relevant response from any person in the world of
>>> academia, except for one Margaret Magnus. She was denied
>>> consideration
>>> of her doctorate thesis by Chomsky's linguistics department at MIT.
>>> She persisted and received her doctor of philosophy degree from
>>> Trondheim University. It seems that because her findings ran counter
>>> to the doctrine of many current linguists (that there is no
>>> relationship between the sounds of words and their meanings), that
>>> even though her method of proof of her assertion was scientifically
>>> sound, the established order would not even consider her work on its
>>> merit. She is the only one of those in academia who responded
>>> intelligently to what I shared with her. She posted my writings
>>> on her
>>> website, "Magical Letter Page" and also put it on the web so that
>>> when one searches for "Joseph Gilbert sound symbolism" my writing
>>> comes up.
>>> I was saying that, after seeing many examples of academic
>>> writings on the subject of phonosemiotics, I have found almost none
>>> that make any sense and/or offer any solid assertions. It is obvious
>>> to me that the sounds we make with our voices express what's
>>> going on
>>> with us. The ability to vocalize evolved because the ability to
>>> communicate was an advantage.
>>> So, what was being communicated by vocal utterances? Whatever it was
>>> still persists in all spoken-word languages. Ultimately, after
>>> all our
>>> thinking, we are left with the sounds of our words and with the
>>> persistent uncertainty of the final meaning of any of the many
>>> things
>>> we may talk about. We can gain an abstract understanding, with
>>> words,
>>> of how things work, but with all our reasoning we still cannot
>>> come to
>>> any conclusion as to what any of it means to us. It is the sounds
>>> themselves of our words, that serve to inform us of how we are
>>> affected by that which makes up our world. Although this informing
>>> takes place subliminally, it is all we have to go on in our quest
>>> for
>>> a sense of meaning. That is the magic of
>>> language: How we spell/pronounce our words is what creates the spell
>>> of the our language. This is very primal and quite simple, but has
>>> far-reaching ramifications. The spoken word is the driver of
>>> human affairs.
>>> I come from a partly Jewish background and have much
>>> appreciation for who the Jewish people are and the role they play
>>> in earthly affairs.
>>> It's all about asking the relevant questions and not taking
>>> any wooden nickels.
>>>
>>> Joseph C. Gilbert
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, of course, I sent out the results of the experiment without
>>>> any explanation because I believe that people should think for
>>>> themselves.
>>>> But Mike is right--I am mildly insulted when I receive exhortations
>>>> to be relevant, be useful, and think for myself by agreeing with
>>>> the
>>>> person insulting me.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I shouldn't be. The truth is that I have been thinking for
>>>> myself for so long that I actually bore myself while still managing
>>>> to baffle the reviewers of prominent journals. And it is true that
>>>> sometimes--yea, often--I would rather think the way that Vygotsky
>>>> did, particularly since the way he thought seems more useful and
>>>> relevant to my work than the way that I do.
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to think the way that Hannah Arendt did. One of
>>>> the interesting remarks she makes in support of the Kantian idea
>>>> that evil is always superficial and only moral good is genuinely
>>>> profound is that Eichman had not mastered the grammar of the German
>>>> language, and he speaks it rather the way that Arendt herself
>>>> speaks
>>>> English, even though Eichmann is a native speaker of German. What
>>>> Arendt means that rather than consciously and deliberately master
>>>> the intricate system of German articles and case endings and
>>>> genders, Eichmann takes a shortcut--he simply memorizes phrases and
>>>> uses them whole, the way we do when we are speaking or trying to
>>>> write a very complex foreign language (in my case, Russian).
>>>>
>>>> At first I thought this was merely the hauteur of a very educated
>>>> German Jew, the star pupil of Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers,
>>>> confronted with an unsuccessful peripatetic oil salesman who failed
>>>> to complete a high school education and used the extermination of
>>>> the Jews as a way of advancing a lackluster career. But Margaret
>>>> Von
>>>> Trotta, who in the course of making the film "Hanna Arendt" also
>>>> subjected herself to thousands of hours of Eichmann testimony,
>>>> makes
>>>> exactly the same remark. As a consequence of a lack of conscious
>>>> awareness of the way the German language works and a reliance on
>>>> memorized phrases, Eichmann's language is necessarily thoughtless
>>>> and cliche ridden.
>>>>
>>>> Von Trotta's example is this. The judge asks Eichmann if the "Final
>>>> Solution" would have unrolled differently had their been "civic
>>>> responsibility", the judge is very clearly interested in whether
>>>> people like Eichmann, who essentially bear no ill will whatsoever
>>>> towards Jews and are simply doing a job that is somewhat more
>>>> lucrative and promising than selling oil, would want to change
>>>> their
>>>> job if they were confronted with the kind of civic resistance that
>>>> the "Final Solution" encountered in, say, Denmark or Serbia or
>>>> Bulgaria (where local populations actively resisted the attempt to
>>>> round up Jews).
>>>>
>>>> Eichmann makes no attempt to understand the question. He simply
>>>> says
>>>> had it benefited from sufficient hierarchical organization, it
>>>> would
>>>> undoubtedly have been more efficient and more efficiacious. But of
>>>> course the result is nonsense, because in this case "X" is
>>>> precisely
>>>> a form of resistance to hierarchical organization. Eichmann does
>>>> not
>>>> speak German; instead, German speaks him.
>>>>
>>>> Bateson remarks that the reason why keeping a room tidy requires
>>>> work, but it just gets untidy by itself is simple entropy; there
>>>> are
>>>> many more ways of being untidy than there are of being tidy (and
>>>> when he says this, what he is really showing us--almost
>>>> perfectly--is the big difference between the way we mediate reality
>>>> and the way reality, objectively, really is). In the same way,
>>>> being
>>>> grammatical requires work, because there are infinitely many
>>>> ways of
>>>> being ungrammatical and relatively fewer ways of being grammatical.
>>>> We can, of course, save work by replacing one psychological
>>>> function
>>>> (grammaticality) with another (memory), but when we do this run up
>>>> against Arendt's biggest problem.
>>>>
>>>> Arendt is shocked that Eichmann uses Kant to justify his actions
>>>> and
>>>> even gives a reasonably good, though no doubt memorized, version of
>>>> the Categorical Imperative. She concludes that there are simply
>>>> very
>>>> many ways of being evil, and relatively few of being good. The only
>>>> reliable method of telling the difference is to think and speak for
>>>> yourself. Paradoxically, or perhaps not so, this is something we do
>>>> not do well unless we actually listen to others and respond to them
>>>> in sentences that cannot be readily Googled.
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> simply want to advance their career, So the I want people to
>>>> think
>>>> for themselves. B
>>>>
>>>> On 4 April 2014 01:35, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I believe David is commenting on Joseph's exhortation that we
>>>>> spend
>>>>> our time more usefully, Michael.
>>>>>
>>>>> hangin' out in southern california.
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Michael <mlevykh@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what exactly does your "little experiment" mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therapist, Affective Speech Remediation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Psycho-Educational Consultant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Voice Teacher, Vocal Coach
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.autisticvancouver.com/> www.autisticvancouver.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 604.322.1019
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sharpening the Ear for Better Communication
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and Socially Appropriate Behaviour
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David
>>>>>> Kellogg
>>>>>> Sent: April-02-14 11:48 PM
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic
>>>>>> interactionism
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just tried a little experiment. I googled "Think for yourself!"
>>>>>> "Be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> relevant!" and "Be useful!" to see how many times someone has
>>>>>> had,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> more or less, these exact sentiments in these exact words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's what I found:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Be useful!" 4,030,020 matches in .32 seconds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Be relevant!" 607,000,000 in 0.26 seconds. (Much easier to
>>>>>> find.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Think for yourself!" 717 million mentions in only .040 seconds!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3 April 2014 11:24, Lois Holzman
>>>>>> <lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to know more about you. I appreciate your comment on
>>>>>>> the
>>> current
>>>>>> "conversational thread."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lois
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lois Holzman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term
>>>>>>> Psychotherapy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Social Media
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blogs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Websites
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All Stars Project
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Gilbert
>>>>>>> <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> May I suggest that you-all emphasize your own questioning and
>>> thinking
>>>>>> rather than mainly referring to great innovators and thinkers of
>>>>>> the
>>> past.
>>>>>> By concentrating on what has already been said by recognized
>>> authorities,
>>>>>> one stays mired in the past. It is natural for intelligent,
>>>>>> conscious beings to have their own wonderings/questions. What are
>>>>>> yours? Do you wish to remake the world in any way? Would you like
>>>>>> to have a peaceful planet
>>> for
>>>>>> your grandchildren? What needs to be done in order to achieve
>>>>>> that? How about a new perception, an updated world-view, based
>>>>>> upon our best
>>> current
>>>>>> knowledge of human nature? Just as many Christians look backward
>>>>>> to
>>> Jesus
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> chart their course, academicians in this current corporate state
>>>>>> tend
>>> to
>>>>>> remain stuck in the already accepted arguments and premises
>>>>>> established long ago. Please break free and really accomplish
>>>>>> something useful with your wealth of knowledge rather than mostly
>>>>>> engaging in "small talk" among
>>> your
>>>>>> cohorts in an isolated i
>>>>>>
>>>>>> vory tower. We (humanity) need all the help we can get. It seems
>>>>>> you should be able to do more than split hairs among yourselves
>>>>>> while the real
>>> needs
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the world go unaddressed. Get back to the basics and build from
>>>>>> there, using what you really believe to be true as your
>>>>>> navigational instruments.
>>> Think
>>>>>> for yourselves! Be original! Be relevant! Be useful!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joseph Gilbert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 8:27 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seems like you nailed it, Robert, (and Benjamin read it
>>>>>>>>> there?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The lesson I take away from this is that we are all "so-called
>>>>>> thinkers"
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> virtue of the fact that our consciousness is mediated through
>>> culture.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> imagined present never precisely matches the encountered
>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In so far as there is an antidote to this characteristic of
>>>>>>>>> humans,
>>> so
>>>>>> far
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as I can figure out, it is develop cultural practices that
>>>>>>>>> might be
>>>>>> called
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "critical" in that they diverge from the common imaginary
>>>>>>>>> worlds.
>>>>>> Having
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> criticized, the preferred next step would be to test out your
>>> imagined
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> world in practice in order to discover its flaws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do others conclude?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Robert Lake
>>>>>> <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See highlighted phrase below :-).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Marx-Engels Correspondence 1893
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Engels to Franz Mehring Abstract
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Source: *Marx and Engels Correspondence*;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Publisher: International Publishers (1968);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First Published: *Gestamtausgabe*;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Translated: Donna Torr;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Transcribed: Sally
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ryan<
>>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/volunteers/biographies/sryan.htm
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2000;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HTML Markup: Sally Ryan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> London, July 14, 1893
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today is my first opportunity to thank you for the *Lessing
>>>>>>>>>> Legend*
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> were kind enough to send me. I did not want to reply with a
>>>>>>>>>> bare
>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> acknowledgment of receipt of the book but intended at the
>>>>>>>>>> same
>>> time to
>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you something about it, about its contents. Hence the delay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I shall begin at the end -- the appendix on historical
>>> materialism, in
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you have described the main things excellently and for any
>>>>>> unprejudiced
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> person convincingly. If I find anything to object to it is
>>>>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> attribute more credit to me than I deserve, even if I
>>>>>>>>>> count in
>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> which I might possibly have found out for myself - in time -
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>> which
>>>>>> Marx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> with his more rapid *coup d'oeil* (grasp) and wider vision
>>> discovered
>>>>>> much
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more quickly. When one has the good fortune to work for forty
>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> man like Marx, one does not usually get the recognition one
>>>>>>>>>> thinks
>>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> deserves during his lifetime. Then if the greater man dies,
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>> lesser
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> easily gets overrated, and this seems to me to be just my
>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>> present;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> history will set all this right in the end and by that time
>>>>>>>>>> one
>>> will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> safely round the corner and know nothing more about anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise there is only one other point lacking, which,
>>>>>>>>>> however,
>>> Marx
>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> which
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and
>>>>>>>>>> *were
>>> bound
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lay*,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the main emphasis, in the first place, on the *derivation* of
>>>>>> political,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions
>>>>>>>>>> arising
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so
>>> doing we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> neglected the formal side -- the ways and means by which
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>> notions,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> etc., come about -- for the sake of the content. This has
>>>>>>>>>> given our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings, of
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Barth is a striking example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker
>>>>>> consciously,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> indeed, but with a false consciousness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Martin John Packer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia attributes the phase to Engels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2014, at 8:13 PM, Douglas Williams
>>>>>>>>>>> <djwdoc@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The term false consciousness is from Walter Benjamin in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1930
>>>>>> review
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Siegfried Kracauer's Die Angestellten, drawing from Marx.
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>> idea in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Marx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is described in terms of alienation and estrangement from
>>>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>> objects
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> activity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/
>>> labour.ht
>>> m
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 5:14 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic
>>> interactionism
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, so far as I know, the term "false consciousness" was
>>> invented
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> feminists in the 1970s and was never used by Marx, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>> think
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> concept is consistent with his ideas, as expressed in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Theses
>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feuerbach which you quoted, for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... In the first place, it should be noted that Marx, like
>>> Spinoza
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freud, believed that most of what men consciously think is
>>> "false"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness, is ideology and rationalization; that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> mainsprings
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of man's actions are unconscious to him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ________________________________
>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://
>> www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>>
>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If
>> you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or
>> other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and
>> you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in
>> error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from
>> your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While
>> we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility
>> for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their
>> attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility
>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or
>> its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
>> accompanied by an official order form.
>>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list