[Xmca-l] Re: Intellect and consciousness

[mike cole]

By ALL MEANS lets discuss Rolf's paper as a priority! A reading of Kozulin
seems like a nice summer activity.
mike




On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On 23 May 2014 16:43, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have in fact been reading Alex's book, Larry.
>>
>> I recommend strongly his chapters on Tool and Symbol and Language and
>> Thought.
>>
>> Especially the former I found to be unusually well presented in ways that
>> helped me.
>>
>> The future that Alex was pointing towards looks a good deal like what
>> became the concerns of the Comm department here at UCSD - a combination of
>> humanities, social sciences, and arts with mediation as its central
>> organizing concept.
>>
>> If some group of xmca-ites would like to jointly read a chapter or two, I
>> would be glad to join in.
>>
>> mike​
>>
>>
> Yes, count me in.  I think we should do Rolf Steier's paper justice first,
> though, which I haven't even downloaded yet.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I want to thank everyone for their reflections on consciousness and
>> > intellect.
>> > Mike commented,
>> > Well, myself I am following Larry's lead and reading Alex's book on
>> > Vygotsky so that i can understand the context in which he brought this
>> > topic up, and in the context of his general interpretation of core
>> > Vygotskian concepts.
>> >
>> > I re-read Alex last comment in the epilogue of his book *Vygotsky's
>> > Psychology* which gives his understanding of why he wrote this book.
>> Alex
>> > reads Vygotsky's legacy as having moved through 3 stages.
>> > In the 1920's and 1930's the focus was on SOCIAL mediation to help
>> create
>> > the *new man*.
>> > In the 1960's Vygotsky was re-discovered in the West as a response to
>> > Piaget's quasi-naturalistic theory of development.
>> >
>> > In 1990, when the book was written Kozulin suggest a new plane opened.
>> Here
>> > is Kozulin's understanding of this third phase of Vygotsky's legacy.
>> [page
>> > 278]
>> >
>> > "The third plane of Vygotsky's theory, the contours of which are only
>> just
>> > emerging, presupposes both the re-evaluation of its origins and its
>> > projection into the future of psychology. What in the 1920's appeared
>> to be
>> > a rather straight forward thesis of SOCIAL mediation, and in the 1960's
>> as
>> > a necessary correction to the overly individualistic approaches of
>> Western
>> > psychology, nowadays appears as a new problem emerging from the
>> realization
>> > that social and cultural mediatory mechanisms do not coincide.
>> Vygotsky's
>> > analysis of the crisis in psychology, earlier perceived as a critique of
>> > psychology's past, is now recognized as an inquiry into the fundamental
>> > mechanism of psychology's divergent development. The origins and
>> context of
>> > Vygotsky's theory are now being seen in a new light.; in the place of
>> > comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes the context of
>> > PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS AND THE THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION.  In
>> an
>> > even broader sense, what once looked like Vygotsky's contribution TO
>> > psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least beyond
>> > traditional psychology and into the sphere of the human studies BASED on
>> > the humanities, rather than the scientific model."
>> >
>> > Mike, how others *respond* to Kozulin's vision that a new plane based on
>> > the humanities is a re-visioning that goes too far BEYOND Vygotsky or if
>> > they acknowledge this third plane as a valid emerging of a hermeneutical
>> > response is an open question.
>> > Thought Kozulin's epilogue may generate more reflections and responses
>> on
>> > his perspective of the relation of [intellect] and [consciousness]
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "A" paradigmatic exemplar will do, Mike.
>> > > Vygotsky worked hard on the emotions, but my reading of his work on
>> the
>> > > emotions is that he did not bring his methodological work to a
>> > > conclusive outcome, but I think nonetheless, writers of our time have
>> > > been able to write Vygotskyan studies of the emotions, thanks to the
>> > > fact that Vygotsky gave us an exemplar with study of the intellect. I
>> > > take Vygotsky's work on the development of the personality through
>> > > perezhivanija as *another* exermplar he left us.
>> > >
>> > > Andy
>> > >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > *Andy Blunden*
>> > > http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > mike cole wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Well, myself I am following Larry's lead and reading Alex's book on
>> > >> Vygotsky so that i can understand the context in which he brought
>> this
>> > >> topic up, and in the context of his general interpretation of core
>> > >> Vygotskian concepts.
>> > >>
>> > >> I would prefer 2 or three potential paradigmatic exemplars of
>> > >> consciousness before I decided that one was THE paradigmatic
>> exemplar,
>> > >> especially when that examplar is intellect. Also at the end of T&L is
>> > >> Spinoza and emotion.
>> > >>
>> > >> mike
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>> <mailto:
>> > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>     David, there is terminology, categorical distinctions, and the
>> > >>     content of the science.
>> > >>     Almost self-evidently, Thinking and Speech broke off at the
>> > >>     threshold of the content of the science, and regretably, being a
>> > >>     pioneer meant that his terminology was also unstable and
>> > >>     rudimentary. My claim was that T&S was decisive in relaiton to
>> the
>> > >>     categorical distinctions underlying the science, despite the
>> > >>     terminological mess.
>> > >>
>> > >>     I read Vygotsky as a Marxist, rather than as a linguist or a
>> > >>     Phenomenologist or a teacher, all of which are I am sure
>> > >>     legitimate standpoints for reading Vygotsky. But I think there is
>> > >>     some basis for taking it that Vygotsky is using "consciousness"
>> in
>> > >>     line with Marxist terminology at the time indicating the entire
>> > >>     class of phenomena encompassed by a general psychology, perhaps
>> > >>     similar to what you mean by "general consciousness"?
>> > >>     As to the distinction between "dialogical consciousness" and
>> > >>     "intellect", if we are restricting "dialogic consciousnes"
>> > >>     typologically to language use, then I think that that is too
>> > >>     unstable and problematic for a categorical distinction. If on the
>> > >>     other than we were to widen the meaning of "dialogical" to
>> > >>     sign-use, then I would identify it with intellect. The spoken
>> word
>> > >>     is the *archetype* of sign-use, but not the only instance of
>> > sign-use.
>> > >>
>> > >>     I remain of the view that T&S, and in particular thes closing
>> > >>     lines, specify that he has devoted the book to a study of the
>> > >>     *intellect* (the special) as a paradigmatic exemplar for
>> > >>     psychological research into human *consciousness* (as a whole).
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>     Andy
>> > >>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> ------------
>> > >>     *Andy Blunden*
>> > >>     http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>