[Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance

[Huw Lloyd]

Hi Robert,

It depends by what you specifically mean by unconscious, however I'd say
there is much about activity which is unconscious.  Typically, our goals
are consciously available whilst our motives are not -- they remain on the
periphery.  Similarly, orientations are unconscious but the means to react
within those orientations are consciously available.  Hence I disagree with
my scan of Fromm's text.

Best,
Huw

On 26 November 2014 at 15:23, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> How does Eric Fromm's thinking on the dialectic of subconsciousness/
> consciousness set with you?
> Not a trick question just Lake being consciously curious.
> RL
> consciousness
> <
> http://www.erich-fromm-online.de/index.php/en/glossary/Erich-Fromm-Glossary-2/C/consciousness-140/
> >
>
> Consciousness is the mental activity in our state of being preoccupied with
> external reality-with acting. The unconscious is the mental experience in a
> state of existence in which we have shut off communications with the outer
> world are no longer preoccupied with action but with our self-experience.
> The unconscious is an experience related to a special mode of life – that
> of non-activity; and the characteristics of the unconscious follow from the
> nature of this mode of existence. The qualities of consciousness, on the
> other hand, are determined by the nature of action and by the survival
> function of the waking state of existence. ― (Fromm,1951a: The Forgotten
> Language. An Introduction to the Understanding of Dreams, Fairy Tales and
> Myths, New York (Rinehart and Co.) 1951, p. 29.)
>
> Our consciousness is all those human experiences of which our particular
> society permits us to be aware. Usually, aside from very small individual
> differences, we are aware only of that which our language, our logic, and
> the taboos of our societies permit us to be aware. There is, you might say,
> something like a „social filter,“ and only those experiences that can pass
> through that social filter are the things we are aware of; they are our
> consciousness. ― And what is our unconscious? Our unconscious is humanity.
> Our unconscious is the universal man. Our unconscious is all that is human
> – the good and the bad – all that exists in everybody, minus that small
> sector which is conscious, which represents the experience, thinking,
> feeling of the culture that we are thrown into rather accidentally. Our
> unconscious is the total man. ― (1992m [1962]: A New Humanism as a
> Condition for the One World, in: E. Fromm, On Being Human, New York
> (Continuum) 1994, pp. 77f.)
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>
> > Yes, of course he uses those words. But he never applies them to
> > consciousness. Consciousness, for LSV, is a phenomenon, not an
> appearance.
> > Consciousness is an objective process. This is LSV's argument, and I
> don't
> > see how one can reasonably disagree with it. Consciousness is an
> objective
> > process, just as life is an objective process. *In* consciousness various
> > experiences are given, some of them illusory (like Muller-Lyer), others
> not.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2014, at 9:49 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Martin, the word "illusion" appears three times, as I recall,  in that
> > paragraph. "Appearance" is a synonym for "illusion" and that appears 4
> > times, so he uses the terms 7 times in all, in that one paragraph.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >
> > >
> > > Martin John Packer wrote:
> > >> Andy, I don't see anything here that suggests that LSV viewed
> > consciousness as an illusion. If you are drawing our attention to the
> > phrase "It does not exist in reality," this refers to the apparent
> > difference between the lengths of two lines in the Muller-Lyer illusion.
> > >>
> > >> Martin
> > >>
> > >> On Nov 26, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> In physics we try to eliminate the subjective factor from what we
> > perceive as an object. In psychology, when we study perception it is
> again
> > required to separate perception as such, as it is, from how it seems to
> me.
> > Who will study what has been eliminated both times, this /*appearance*/?
> > >>>
> > >>> But the problem of appearance is an apparent problem. After all, in
> > science we want to learn about the /*real*/ and not the /*apparent*/
> cause
> > of appearance. This means that we must take the phenomena as they exist
> > independently from me. The appearance itself is an /*illusion*/ (in
> > Titchener’s basic example: Muller-Lyer’s lines are physically equal,
> > psychologically one of them is longer). This is the difference between
> the
> > viewpoints of physics and psychology. It /*does not exist in reality*/,
> but
> > results from two non-coincidences of two really existing processes. If I
> > would know the physical nature of the two lines and the objective laws of
> > the eye, as they are in themselves, I would get the explanation of the
> > appearance, of the illusion as a result. The study of the subjective
> factor
> > in the knowledge of this illusion is a subject of logic and the
> historical
> > theory of knowledge: just like being, the subjective is the result of two
> > processes which are objective in themselve
> > >>>
> > >> s. The mind is not always a subject. In introspection it is split into
> > object and subject. The question is whether in introspection phenomenon
> and
> > being coincide. One has only to apply the epistemological formula of
> > materialism, given by Lenin (a similar one can be found in Plekhanov) for
> > the /*psychological subject-object*/, in order to see what is the matter:
> > >>
> > >>> the only ‘property’ of matter connected with philosophical
> materialism
> > is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside of our
> > consciousness ... Epistemologically the concept of matter means nothing
> > other than objective reality, existing independently from human
> > consciousness and reflected by it. [Lenin, Materialism and
> > Empirio-Criticism <
> >
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five2.htm#bkV14P260F01
> > >]
> > >>>
> > >>> Elsewhere Lenin says that this is, essentially, the principle of
> > /*realism*/, but that he avoids this word, because it has been captured
> by
> > inconsistent thinkers.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm#p1371
> > >>>
> > >>> Andy
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> *Andy Blunden*
> > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Martin John Packer wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Where does LSV say that consciousness is an illusion, Andy?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Martin
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Nov 26, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> No, no! And we are close to agreement here!
> > >>>>> LSV says that consciousness is an illusion, and science does not
> > study illusions, but that this illusion arises from the "noncoincidence"
> of
> > two objective, material processes, physiology and behaviour, both of
> which
> > can be studied by science (just as light rays and the things reflected by
> > light rays can), therefore we can study scientifically how these
> illusions
> > arise and how they mediate human activity! This is called psychology. I
> > completely agree with Vygotsky. Don't you?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Andy
> > >>>>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> > >>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Martin John Packer wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Andy, LSV argues in Crisis that a science does not, cannot, study
> > illusions. Science studies what actually exists, and in doing so seeks to
> > *explain* how illusions occur. Science studies the real candle and the
> real
> > mirror, in order to *explain* how an image of a candle appears in the
> > mirror.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> By saying that consciousness is an illusion, you appear to be
> > suggesting that it cannot be studied scientifically. Or perhaps you find
> > some flaw with LSV's argument?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Martin
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Nov 26, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Huw, don't misunderstand me. By saying "consciousness is an
> > illusion" I am saying something very positive about it. It is an illusion
> > which proves more or less adequate for guiding my activity, just as for
> > example, my rear vision mirror is adequate for guiding my driving,
> because
> > I am "educated" about mirrors. It is useful I think to frankly say that
> > consciousness is an illusion - an illusion with survival value for
> humans -
> > because it opens a point of agreement between the positivists and the
> > psychologists. We both can say "consciousness is an illusion." OK, let's
> > discuss that.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> But consciousness differs from a material process like
> > stimuli-response, that is, an unmediated relation between an organism and
> > its environment, between physiology and behaviour. This is what the
> > neuroscientist typically overlooks. We say "yes, the mediating element is
> > just an illusion, which is why you can't find it, but hey! it's a very
> > useful illusion." :)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Andy
> > >>>>>>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> > >>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I would concur with Andy that 'mysterious' is not useful, but
> I'd
> > say
> > >>>>>>>> Andy's use of 'illusion' has this problem too, because any such
> > illusions
> > >>>>>>>> are materially manifested.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> *Robert Lake  Ed.D.*Associate Professor
> Social Foundations of Education
> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> Georgia Southern University
> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
> P. O. Box 8144
> Phone: (912) 478-0355
> Fax: (912) 478-5382
> Statesboro, GA  30460
>