[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Thu Jul 27 20:41:03 PDT 2017
Well it surprises me, David, that you support the idea of
thought as an attribute of God. We learn something new every
day. I am well aware that Spinoza still has many admirers
but you are the first one I have met who goes so far as to
see thought as an attribute of God, let alone combine this
with Vygotsky's cultural psychology!
I accept that my interpretation of Hegel's Geist as activity
is not universally shared, but most Hegelians who try to
move out of the closed circle of the hermeneutics of old
philosophical texts make just this interpretation; but it is
generally implicit rather than declared up front, and not
thought through.
But you misunderstand my interpretation: actions and
projects are units of activity. "Projects" is not another
name for "activity" and certainly not another name for Geist
(to make sense of anything I write it is important not to
conflate mass and count nouns). And although A N Leontyev
deserves some credit for the symmetries between his Activity
Theory and Hegel (so also does Engestrom), but I think it
more likely that the Leontyev-Hegel relation was mediated by
Vygotsky and Marx, and Leontyev introduced both novel
improvements and unfortunate misunderstandings in his
appropriation.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 28/07/2017 7:26 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> Actually, Andy, there are people who defend Spinoza's formulation of a
> single substance with two modes. Halliday is one. I am another.
>
> Consider the way in which you read Hegel. You don't actually use the term
> for an explanatory principle which he chose, namely "Geist" or "Spirit".
> Sometimes you use Leontiev's term, "Activity", and sometimes you use your
> own, much more Spinozan, term: "project".
>
> Spinoza actually TELLS us how to read his explanatory principle "Deus Sive
> Natura", or "God, that is to say, Nature". So the is one substance, and we
> can call it "Nature". Culture has to be understood as an emergent part of
> that nature.
>
> The two modes are matter, of course, and a form of organization of that
> matter, a kind of countercurrent to entropy, we can call "meaning". Meaning
> matter that has been organized in some way to stand for something that is
> not itself. Nature is one substance, with two modes: matter, that is
> subject to the laws of thermodynamics (laws which do indeed distinguish
> between past and future, just as Peter does), and meaning, which is matter
> that has granted itself temporary surcease from them.
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
> PS: I always thought that the great advantage of "project" over "activity"
> was that it demystifies how this temporary surcease might work among
> humans. To understand Spinoza's idea of "God"as a semiotic version of
> "Nature" all we really have to do is to ask ourselves what "projects" might
> look like among non-human, non-sentient, and non-living entities: colonies,
> ecologies, and systems.
>
> dk
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Following Wolff Michael’s lead concerning Mead and Schultz and how
>> *because* and determinism slips in through a posteriori accounts.
>>
>> I am including Vincent Colapietro’s voice as he discusses C. S. Peirce as
>> an exemplary person who saw himself as fulfilling a *role* in an emerging
>> historical *drama*.
>>
>> In paragraph # 11 Vincent describes the way Peirce himself *imaginally*
>> pursued his life project. Vincent is clarifying the meaning of *historical
>> consciousness* as meaning *historical imagination*.
>>
>> 11 Regarding this, he [Peirce] was anything but a spectator. He was
>> self-consciously an agent who took himself to be responsible, in some
>> measure, for the development of a practice. Accordingly, a dramatic sense
>> of his intellectual obligations animated and guided his orientation toward
>> the past and also his involvement in the disputes of his own day, not least
>> of all, the dispute between the progeny of the scholastic realists and the
>> offspring of the Renaissance humanists. In brief, his understanding of the
>> past fostered a consciousness of his role in a drama. More than anything
>> else, this is what I mean by historical consciousness as distinct from
>> historical knowledge. This is a distinction, not a dichotomy or dualism.
>> Peirce was convinced that the reality of the past was, to some extent,
>> discoverable. He was unquestionably a realist, not a skeptic or what is
>> commonly called a constructivist. But he was also a pragmatist. Whatever
>> reality (including the reality of the past) means must be spelled out in
>> terms of habits of conduct bearing upon the future. Part of the difficulty
>> is giving equal weight to both the realist and pragmatist facets of his
>> thought, another part showing how they are anything but incompatible.
>>
>> Vincent’s article describes Peirce’s work as an example that was
>> exemplary on the way to creating a paradigm shift [emerging framework]
>> that guides further inquiry within historical imagination.
>>
>> Vincent also adds this insight:
>>
>> “While Descartes drew a sharp distinction between intellect and
>> imagination, Peirce returned to the scholastic position [human intelligence
>> is rooted in and depends on our imaginative capacities]. The Poet Alfred
>> Tennyson wrote ‘maybe wildest dreams / Are but the needful preludes of the
>> truth’ to which Peirce responds:
>> ‘ I doubt the word *maybe*? Wildest dreams [or fancies] *are* the first
>> steps toward scientific investigation.’ [Peirce 1966: 233]
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>>
>> From: Wolff-Michael Roth
>> Sent: July 27, 2017 10:48 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re:Отв: Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
>>
>> The first part of Peter's statement '*Past* is determined..." is pretty
>> well how Mead describes the duration we call present.
>>
>> The second part is not. Peter writes, "there exists opportunities to sway
>> the forces..." Mead emphasizes *emergence*, which means, there is a
>> fundamental unpredictability at work. Schütz (1932) distinguishes
>> *because*-motives
>> and *in-order-to-*motives, and describes how determination slips in through
>> a posteriori accounts (because), which does not exist when we orient toward
>> the future. Lucy Suchman takes this up in her two views on plans, which
>> orient for but do not determine situated action.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------
>> Applied Cognitive Science
>> MacLaurin Building A567
>> University of Victoria
>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>>
>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:29 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> That seems right to me, Peter, in my vast ignorance of the original texts
>>> being discussed.
>>>
>>> Your characterization seems to me of a kind with the intuition in the
>>> epigram to the lchcautobiogrphy:
>>>
>>> “All experience is an arch wherethrough gleams
>>> that untravelled world whose margin fades
>>> forever and forever when I move. _Tennyson
>>> Might freewill be the name of the experience of an organism living in a
>>> loosely coupled, non-linear, dynamic system? Of course it is a
>> constrained
>>> world.... it is a living system.. but constraint and determinism are not
>>> synonyms and the conditional in "conditional reflexes" refers to
>> historical
>>> contingency in the life of the organism..... and hence "choice" ( i
>> think
>>> that i think).
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] <
>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear friends,
>>>>
>>>> I am certainly no expert in this area, but I think it might be helpful
>> to
>>>> this discussion to point out the difference between determinism and
>>>> pre-determinism. The *past* is determined, but the *future* is not. In
>>> the
>>>> future (or the next moment), there exist opportunities to sway the
>> forces
>>>> that are in play, to bend them to our will.
>>>>
>>>> If this conception is correct, then the problem of free will (aimed at
>>> the
>>>> future) becomes one of discovering how activities with signs make use
>> of
>>>> conditional reflexes (determination) to forge a different path forward
>>> than
>>>> the one that might otherwise have occurred in the absence of sign use.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> If everything is determined, then all that a human being can do is
>>>>> whatever is necessary, and if they are enlightened, be aware of that.
>>> In
>>>> a
>>>>> determined world free will is impossible because there is no choice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At the time Spinoza was making a comeback in Germany around the
>> 1790s,
>>>>> there was a lot of debate about the seeming impossibility of free
>> will
>>>>> (which is of course still a total mystery to the neuroscientists,
>> which
>>>> is
>>>>> probably what is behind people like Damasio's liking for Spinoza.) In
>>> my
>>>>> opinion, Fichte made the decisive breakthrough in saying that a
>> person
>>>>> becomes free when they were *recognised* as a free being by another
>>> free
>>>>> being, and called upon to exercise their freedom, by exercising
>>> restraint
>>>>> and recognising the rights of others (the child development people
>> will
>>>>> relate to this). Hegel associated the emergence of free will with the
>>>>> formation of states in which citizens had rights; without the basic
>>>>> freedoms enjoyed by citizens of a state, we are reduced to the animal
>>>>> condition. Nothing to do with the structure of the brain or quantum
>>>>> mechanics as John Searle suggests, it's just social relations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you take the problem seriously - how can flesh obedient to the
>> laws
>>> of
>>>>> physics, chemistry and biology, have free will - it is a tough
>> problem
>>> to
>>>>> solve.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__home.mir
>>>>> a.net_-7Eandy&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc
>>>>> 2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yW
>>>>> SMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA_lU&s=kDRs5AA6bAPvKr4UH
>>>>> G_2qyHJRMr97f8whenHHseziGg&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>>>> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.brill.com_products_book_origins-
>>>>> 2Dcollective-2Ddecision-2Dmaking&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJ
>>>>> Qh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0EC
>>>>> mPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1a
>>>>> oA_lU&s=G44x-CoqWItWoEukYgCD-6oh7Rt-3QnUioSOV9-RLPI&e=
>>>>> On 28/07/2017 1:16 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Andy, I was thinking more *why would determinism imply the
>>>>>> absence of free will* ... In any case, thanks for the link; I too am
>>>> just a
>>>>>> student, only that with quite more left to read yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>> *Sent:* 27 July 2017 15:16
>>>>>> *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is true, Alfredo, that the absence of free will (as everywhere
>>>> outside
>>>>>> of human life) does not imply determinism. But Spinoza held both
>>>> positions.
>>>>>> It is a long time since I studied Spinoza and I don't have notes
>> from
>>>> that
>>>>>> time, so I can't source my own recollections on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it thusly:
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__plato.s
>>>>>> tanford.edu_entries_spinoza-2Dmodal_&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh
>>>>>> 2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmP
>>>>>> Hilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA
>>>>>> _lU&s=rSGhtQHeOjRw3595HeZIfmyBC98jJkHTjPIm3w7QM68&e=
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__home.mir
>>>>>> a.net_-7Eandy&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc
>>>>>> 2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yW
>>>>>> SMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA_lU&s=kDRs5AA6bAPvKr4UH
>>>>>> G_2qyHJRMr97f8whenHHseziGg&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>>>>> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.brill.com_products_book_origins-
>>>>>> 2Dcollective-2Ddecision-2Dmaking&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJ
>>>>>> Qh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0EC
>>>>>> mPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1a
>>>>>> oA_lU&s=G44x-CoqWItWoEukYgCD-6oh7Rt-3QnUioSOV9-RLPI&e=
>>>>>> On 27/07/2017 10:58 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, Vygotsky's interest in Spinoza was sustained, though I doubt
>> he
>>>>>>> agreed that this was 'thinly disguised dualism.' It does not sound
>>> like
>>>>>>> that when he writes that '[Spinoza is] the antithesis to
>> parallelism
>>>> and,
>>>>>>> consequently to the dualism of Descartes' (English collected works,
>>>> vol. 6,
>>>>>>> p. 122).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case, I know of no one arguing these days to try to
>> wholesale
>>>>>>> 'apply' Spinoza's ontology to psychology either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not sure how you are using the notion *determinist* or why
>>>>>>> determinism would be involved in ruling out *free will*.
>>> Understanding
>>>> this
>>>>>>> would greatly help me see your points.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
>>> edu
>>>>>>> on behalf of Andy Blunden<ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>> Sent: 27 July 2017 14:39
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alfredo, there is indeed clear textual evidence that
>>>>>>> Vygotsky maintained an intense interest in Spinoza. My guess
>>>>>>> is that it was Spinoza's place in the history of philosophy
>>>>>>> as the first person to attempt to overcome Descartes'
>>>>>>> dualism by building a monist, material philosophy, based on
>>>>>>> Descartes' "geometric" method, which held Vygotsky's
>>>>>>> interest and respect. This effort, for which Spinoza was
>>>>>>> persecuted, inspired many philosophers despite Spinoza being
>>>>>>> banned across Europe for more than a century.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I see no evidence that Vygotsky entertained for a
>>>>>>> moment Spinoza's "solution", viz., a single substance,
>>>>>>> a.k.a., God or Nature, or anything else you want to call it,
>>>>>>> with infinitely many attributes, one being extension and
>>>>>>> another being thought and the infinitely many others being
>>>>>>> God knows what. I see plenty of evidence that Vygotsky
>>>>>>> followed the idealist Hegel in conceiving of that one
>>>>>>> substance as Activity - for Hegel under the name of "Spirit."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a free-thinking philosopher, Spinoza's works are full of
>>>>>>> insightful aphorisms and so on. His basic project (a monist
>>>>>>> materialism) is right. But his solution is hopeless and I
>>>>>>> have not met a single soul who has usefully appropriated
>>>>>>> this substance with infinite attributes. Apart from its
>>>>>>> mysticism, it is (as Vygotsky notes) *determinist* and rules
>>>>>>> out free will, and is a thinly disguised dualism: one
>>>>>>> substance with two attributes instead of two substances. Any
>>>>>>> attempt to deploy Spinozan ontology in experimental
>>>>>>> Psychology is a charade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the 21st century, Spinoza is no longer a dead dog, but he
>>>>>>> is a dead end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__home.mir
>>>>>>> a.net_-7Eandy&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc
>>>>>>> 2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yW
>>>>>>> SMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA_lU&s=kDRs5AA6bAPvKr4UH
>>>>>>> G_2qyHJRMr97f8whenHHseziGg&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>>>>>> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.brill.com_products_book_origins-
>>>>>>> 2Dcollective-2Ddecision-2Dmaking&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJ
>>>>>>> Qh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0EC
>>>>>>> mPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1a
>>>>>>> oA_lU&s=G44x-CoqWItWoEukYgCD-6oh7Rt-3QnUioSOV9-RLPI&e=
>>>>>>> On 27/07/2017 8:29 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a very interesting text, written in brilliant prose. I very much
>>>>>>>> appreciate your observations that 'the psychophysical (and not the
>>>>>>>> psychophysiological) ... poses a REAL task akin to that which
>> arose
>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> course of the evolution of living and mobile beings', and that
>>>> 'intelligent
>>>>>>>> action ... is itself ... congruent with the real corporeal form of
>>>> some
>>>>>>>> other body'. These propositions interest me a lot. Indeed, and led
>>> by
>>>> W-M
>>>>>>>> Roth, we did last year co-author a book where we entertained such
>>>>>>>> propositions with respect to educational psychology (front matter
>>>> attached,
>>>>>>>> link here: ).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like you, in that book, we are critical to Vygotsky's ways of
>>> writing
>>>>>>>> about signs, specially in the works you cite. Yet, upon reading
>> your
>>>>>>>> article, on the whole, I wondered whether your characterisation
>> was
>>>> fair to
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's actual legacy. You describe Vygotsky's position as
>> this:
>>>>>>>> 'an unfree, essentially mechanical puppet acquires freedom through
>>>>>>>> overcoming natural determination (the SR reaction, the mechanical
>>>>>>>> triggering of a response by an external stimulus) in the act of
>>>> mediation
>>>>>>>> by a cultural sign'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that Vygotsky clearly uses the term 'sign' in many
>> instances
>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the conventional sense you refer to. But this way of writing
>> sharply
>>>>>>>> contrasts with other important tenets and arguments in his legacy.
>>>> When I
>>>>>>>> read Vygotsky's characterisations of the 'word' in Thinking and
>>>> Speech, for
>>>>>>>> example, I do not think he 'understands the word unambiguously as
>> an
>>>>>>>> arbitrary, conventional sign', as you suggest in your article (p.
>>>> 40). In
>>>>>>>> chapter 7, and paraphrasing Feuerbach, he writes that 'the word
>> is
>>>> what
>>>>>>>> ... is absolutely impossible for one person but possible for two.
>>> The
>>>> word
>>>>>>>> is the most direct manifestation of the historical nature of human
>>>>>>>> consciousness' (English Vol. 1, p. 285). To me, that suggests a
>> very
>>>>>>>> different view of words as signs than simply conventional,
>> arbitrary
>>>> (as if
>>>>>>>> unconstrained and magic) means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other places, he also writes that, 'Freedom, as the opposite of
>>>>>>>> nature, cannot find a place in [Spinoza's system]. Freedom may be
>>>> only an
>>>>>>>> element of that nature, not an opposite to natural necessity but
>>> only
>>>> one
>>>>>>>> of the forms of this necessity' (English Collected works, vol. 6,
>> p.
>>>> 172).
>>>>>>>> Coming from someone who would also write that any higher
>>> psychological
>>>>>>>> function was first a societal relation (and what is action if not
>> a
>>>>>>>> societal relation?), how could he believe that the solution to the
>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> of freedom was arbitrariness, being as he was committed to
>>>>>>>> social-historical necessity, to human needs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In our book, we try to address these kind of contradictions by
>>>>>>>> imagining what a Vygotskyan (educational) psychology would be if
>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>>>>> would have indeed pursued the Spinozist quest he did not finish. I
>>>> think
>>>>>>>> there may be more common ground between Vygotsky and Ilyenkov than
>>>> your
>>>>>>>> article allows, but this is surely not very much explored in
>>>> mainstream
>>>>>>>> uptakes. I am only a student on these matters, and I can not know
>> in
>>>>>>>> advance how far we will come with this integrative program, but it
>>>> seems to
>>>>>>>> me that neither discarding semiotics for the primacy of action,
>> nor
>>>>>>>> discarding action for the primacy of semiotics are promising
>> paths.
>>>>>>>> In the hope to sustain productive dialogue,
>>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
>>>> edu>
>>>>>>>> on behalf of Alexandre Sourmava<avramus@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Sent: 26 July 2017 00:27
>>>>>>>> To:ablunden@mira.net; Larry Purss; eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity
>>>>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Отв: Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi, Larry!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your attentionto the article.
>>>>>>>> Your retelling of the topic is quite correct.
>>>>>>>> However, I think it can be useful to add my little comment
>>> concerning
>>>>>>>> the topicunder discussion.
>>>>>>>> Bernstein’s position is substantially spinozian and thereby
>>>>>>>> antisemiotic.
>>>>>>>> Evidently, he bluntly contradicts to Vygotsky’sattempts to use
>>>>>>>> arbitrary sign as a magic key designed to solve the problem of
>>> freedom
>>>>>>>> (independence from mechanical causality).
>>>>>>>> Thus Vygotsky insisted that
>>>>>>>> ”Looking from the very broad philosophical perspective the whole
>>> realm
>>>>>>>> ofhistory, culture, and language is the realm of arbitrariness. So
>>> the
>>>>>>>> method ofconditional reflex acquires a very broad meaning of a
>>>>>>>> natural-historical methodconcerning human, of a tie that binds
>>>> history and
>>>>>>>> evolution together.”
>>>>>>>> («В самом широком философском смысле этого терминавесь мир
>> истории,
>>>>>>>> культуры, языка — это царство условности. В этом смысле
>>> методусловных
>>>>>>>> рефлексов приобретает широчайшее значение
>>>> методаприродно-исторического в
>>>>>>>> применении к человеку, узла, который связывает историюи эволюцию»
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ВыготскийЛ. С. Психологическая наука в СССР. В кн.: «Общественные
>>>> науки
>>>>>>>> в СССР(1917-1927 гг.)». М., 1928, с. 30.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There exists a prejudice that so called “Cultural-historical
>> theory”
>>>>>>>> withits arbitrary signs is a sophisticated antithesis to coarse
>>>> Pavlov’s
>>>>>>>> mechanicalapproach. Alas, that is far from reality. In fact, these
>>> two
>>>>>>>> theories are identical.That is the reason why Nicolai Bernstein
>> who
>>>> was
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky’s good friend had neverreferred to his ideas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sasha Surmava
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> вторник, 25 июля 2017 4:29 Andy Blunden<ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>> писал(а):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a slightly different context. The original meaning
>>>>>>>> of "paradigm," before the popularisation of Thomas Kuhn's
>>>>>>>> work, was a "founding exemplar."
>>>>>>>> "Exemplar" presumably has the same etymology as "example."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea of "an example" as being one of numerous instances
>>>>>>>> of a process is a different concept, the opposite really.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__home.mir
>>>>>>>> a.net_-7Eandy&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc
>>>>>>>> 2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yW
>>>>>>>> SMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA_lU&s=kDRs5AA6bAPvKr4UH
>>>>>>>> G_2qyHJRMr97f8whenHHseziGg&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>>>>>>> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.brill.com_products_book_origins-
>>>>>>>> 2Dcollective-2Ddecision-2Dmaking&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJ
>>>>>>>> Qh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0EC
>>>>>>>> mPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1a
>>>>>>>> oA_lU&s=G44x-CoqWItWoEukYgCD-6oh7Rt-3QnUioSOV9-RLPI&e=
>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2017 2:01 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>> I will reference where I got the notion of linking
>>>>>>>>> [example] and [framework]. If this becomes interesting
>>>>>>>>> will open another thread.
>>>>>>>>> From David L. Marshall titled : "Historical and
>>>>>>>>> Philosophical Stances: Max Harold Fisch, a Paradigm for
>>>>>>>>> Intellectual Historians" -2009-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PAGE 270:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Max Fisch constitutes an alternative to any intellectual
>>>>>>>>> historical method insisting that practiontioners remain
>>>>>>>>> agnostics about the value of the ideas they study. It is
>>>>>>>>> the chief contention of this essay that he is a 'paradigm'
>>>>>>>>> for intellectual historians, a paradigm in the original
>>>>>>>>> Greek sense of an *example* and in the DERIVED
>>>>>>>>> contemporary sense of a *framework* within which the
>>>>>>>>> community of research can proceed. Indeed it is just such
>>>>>>>>> *doubling* of the philological object qua example into a
>>>>>>>>> carapace for ongoing action and thought that Fisch
>>>>>>>>> explored in a variety of ways during his half century of
>>>>>>>>> creative intellectual work. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy, not sure if this is adequate context, but the
>>>>>>>>> relationality of [example : framework] through the concept
>>>>>>>>> *paradigm* seemed generative??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "actions" or "an action" ... no extra word is needed.
>>>>>>>>> Extra words like "singular," "individual" or "single"
>>>>>>>>> only confuse the matter. "Examples" is too vague.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cannot make sense of the rest of your message at all,
>>>>>>>>> Larry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__home.mir
>>>>>>>>> a.net_-7Eandy&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc
>>>>>>>>> 2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yW
>>>>>>>>> SMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA_lU&s=kDRs5AA6bAPvKr4UH
>>>>>>>>> G_2qyHJRMr97f8whenHHseziGg&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoin
>>>>>>>>> t.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__home.mira.net_-257Eandy&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>>>>>>>> aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxy
>>>>>>>>> N3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zA
>>>>>>>>> U37zePea1aoA_lU&s=KGvfCRWmTxjssBuITnfPM7l1T9qgeNoWHbH6u5oCFpI&e=
>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bril
>>>>>>>>> l.com_products_book_origins-2Dcollective-2Ddecision-
>>>>>>>>> 2Dmaking&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW
>>>>>>>>> 8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZV
>>>>>>>>> vFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA_lU&s=G44x-CoqWItWoEukYgCD-
>>>>>>>>> 6oh7Rt-3QnUioSOV9-RLPI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoin
>>>>>>>>> t.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.brill.com_products_book_
>>>>>>>>> origins-2Dcollective-2Ddecision-2Dmaking&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEv
>>>>>>>>> EJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0
>>>>>>>>> ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea
>>>>>>>>> 1aoA_lU&s=G44x-CoqWItWoEukYgCD-6oh7Rt-3QnUioSOV9-RLPI&e= >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2017 12:17 AM, Lplarry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Following your lead it may be preferable to say
>>>>>>>>>> single (individual) to indicate the uniqueness of
>>>>>>>>>> variable social actions. This doubling (by
>>>>>>>>>> including both terms) may crystallize the intended
>>>>>>>>>> meaning as you mention.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andy is this vein can we also include the term
>>>>>>>>>> (examples)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then the moving TRANS forming from single
>>>>>>>>>> (individual) social acts towards (practices) would
>>>>>>>>>> indicate the movement from examples to exemplary
>>>>>>>>>> actions and further movement (historicity) toward
>>>>>>>>>> (framework) practices.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (framework) practices being another doubling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So moving (transforming) from single social examples
>>>>>>>>>> through exemplary social examples crystallizing in
>>>>>>>>>> social framework practices.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this reasonable?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or not
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From: *Andy Blunden<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *July 24, 2017 6:57 AM
>>>>>>>>>> *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc: *Alexander Surmava<mailto:monada@netvox.ru>
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Larry, when you say "Action IS individual," did you
>>>>>>>>>> mention
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to say that *actions* - the individual units of
>>>>>>>>>> *action* are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> individual? In which can it is of course a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But *action* is irreducibly *social*, and so is every
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "individual" action. Or better, so is every
>>>>>>>>>> "singular" action.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A lot of relevant differences are coded in the English
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> language by the use of the count-noun or mass noun
>>>>>>>>>> form, but
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on the whole the set of words (action, actions,
>>>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> activities) and the set of words (practice,
>>>>>>>>>> practices) have
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no systematic difference running across all
>>>>>>>>>> disciplines and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> schools of thought. For us CHATters, "activities" are
>>>>>>>>>> practices.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you read Hegel and Marx, there is an added issue: the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> German words for action (Handlung) and activity
>>>>>>>>>> (Tatigkeit)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are more or less inverted for Hegel, and he doesn't use
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aktivitat at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__home.mir
>>>>>>>>>> a.net_-7Eandy&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc
>>>>>>>>>> 2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yW
>>>>>>>>>> SMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA_lU&s=kDRs5AA6bAPvKr4UH
>>>>>>>>>> G_2qyHJRMr97f8whenHHseziGg&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoin
>>>>>>>>>> t.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__home.mira.net_-257Eandy&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>>>>>>>>> aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxy
>>>>>>>>>> N3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zA
>>>>>>>>>> U37zePea1aoA_lU&s=KGvfCRWmTxjssBuITnfPM7l1T9qgeN
>> oWHbH6u5oCFpI&e=
>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>> com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bril
>>>>>>>>>> l.com_products_book_origins-2Dcollective-2Ddecision-
>>>>>>>>>> 2Dmaking&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW
>>>>>>>>>> 8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZV
>>>>>>>>>> vFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea1aoA_lU&s=G44x-CoqWItWoEukYgCD-
>>>>>>>>>> 6oh7Rt-3QnUioSOV9-RLPI&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoin
>>>>>>>>>> t.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.brill.com_products_book_
>>>>>>>>>> origins-2Dcollective-2Ddecision-2Dmaking&d=DwIDaQ&c=aqMfXOEv
>>>>>>>>>> EJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0
>>>>>>>>>> ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=9yWSMfZVvFB4Onmfd0mAPmxn38zAU37zePea
>>>>>>>>>> 1aoA_lU&s=G44x-CoqWItWoEukYgCD-6oh7Rt-3QnUioSOV9-RLPI&e= >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2017 11:42 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Alexander, Mike,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks for the article.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Moving to page 51 I noticed that when referencing
>>>>>>>>>> Bernstein he contrasted (action) with (practice) and
>>>>>>>>>> did not REPEAT (identity) the thesis about the role
>>>>>>>>>> of practice in knowing).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Two formulas:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > • Knowing THROUGH ‘action’
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > • Verification of knowing THROUGH ‘practice’
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > These two formulas closely RESEMBLE each other but
>>>>>>>>>> do not co-incide
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Action IS individual
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Practice IS a social category.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Sociohistorical (practice) in the final analysis is
>>>>>>>>>> nothing other than the SUM total of the actions of
>>>>>>>>>> individual who are separate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Individual action is LIKE a single experiment.
>>>>>>>>>> They are alike in that both individual action & a
>>>>>>>>>> single experiment are poorly suited to the role of :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > A philosophical criterion of (truth).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > I do not have the background to intelligently
>>>>>>>>>> comment, but did register this theme as provocative
>>>>>>>>>> FOR further thought and wording.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > And for generating intelligent commentary
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > From: Ivan Uemlianin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Sent: July 20, 2017 11:17 AM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Cc: Alexander Surmava
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Yes very interesting thank you! (Ilyenkov fan)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Ivan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > festina lente
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> On 20 Jul 2017, at 18:00, mike cole
>>>>>>>>>> <mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> This article might prove of interest to those who
>>>>>>>>>> have been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> LSV's sources in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> marx and spinoza.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> mike
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <Ilyenkov_and_the_Revolution_in_Psycholog.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
>>>> Director,
>>>> Office of Institutional Research
>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>> Fordham University
>>>> Thebaud Hall-202
>>>> Bronx, NY 10458
>>>>
>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243
>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817
>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>
>>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list