From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Jan 1 12:46:53 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 05:46:53 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: Happy new year to all, especially to all us happy pigs born in a pig year. Yes, "absurd" is too strong: it is possible to construct a context in which "I think" isn't a grammatical metaphor for "may", "should", or "it is possible". But of course the whole post was a semantic metaphor for James' statement that you cannot study language objectively and use it at the same time. And semantics is the weak point of Saussure. The problem is that there isn't anything "arbitraire" or conventional about semantics: to say that semantics is arbitrary is essentially to say that thinking is arbitrary: that there is no rational reason why we think of time as tense and entity as number. It's not just that we can't think any other way; it's that we have to grow crops and teach children in real time, and we have to gather food and cook it in real numbers. Language is arbitrary (i.e. "subjective") at only one point: phonetics. But even with phonetics (paradoxically the easiest to measure objectively) you have to deal with the fact that humans make a finite number of sounds, and only a small subset of these are maximally distinguishable at a distance. That's why (another paradox) at the very time that Saussure was developing a purely idealist, subjectivist study of language, teachers were creating the international phonetic alphabet we still use today. It's a menu, and menus suggest some element of choice. But choices can be constrained, and contraints are always motivated. Having twelve months and three hundred and sixty five days a year only seems "arbitrary" when you are not a farmer.If you were born in the pig year (as I was) this is a particularly auspicious year, particularly if you are completing your fifth complete cycle of twelve years (as I am). But the reason why five cycles of twelve years is considered particularly auspicious is no more arbitrary than the choice of the pig to name the year: it's a likespan of sixty years, which in Confucian times was considered just about ideal. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives Show all authors https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 2:45 PM Rein Raud wrote: > Happy New Year, David, > > Why do you say that (a) is absurd? Let us assume that this is what a > scholar tells herself after a long internal thought-chain, weighing the > pros and cons of a certain argument about how to study the human body, > finally arriving at an unexpected conclusion, perhaps persuaded by someone > else?s work. And at this point she says to herself ?Hey, come on, I don't > really think we can study the human body objectively, do I?? > > ?Thinking something? (endorsing a particular claim) and ?thinking? > (entertaining certain mental processes) are not the same thing, even though > conflated in the English word ?think?. But in the first case you can > substitute it with some synonyms (?reckon?, for example), while in others > you cannot. You ask ?can you write "I don't think" without thinking?? but > you probably wouldn?t ask ?can you write "I don't reckon" without > reckoning?? > > Best wishes for 2019 to the whole community, > > Rein > > ********************************************** > Rein Raud > Professor of Asian and Cultural Studies, Tallinn University > Uus-Sadama 5, Tallinn 10120 Estonia > www.reinraud.com > > > ?Meaning in Action: Outline of an Integral Theory of Culture?(Polity 2016) > > ?Practices of Selfhood? (with Zygmunt Bauman, Polity 2015) > > > > > > > On 1 Jan 2019, at 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: > > Suppose I say something like this: > > "I don't think we can study the human body objectively because we are > already users of bodies when studying them, i.e. we must remain insiders of > our bodies in order to study them, plus the fact that we have the will to > embodiment, so to speak." > > I might be comfortable with a statement like this if I read through it > quickly and I don't think about it for too long, provided I am in good > health and don't require a doctor (If I fall seriously ill and I go to a > doctor, and receive a statement like this, I will probably want a second > opinion). > > But alas, I am arrested by the first three words. What does it mean to say > "I don't think"? Can you write "I don't think" without thinking? Is this an > instance of aphophasis, like "not to mention"? > > Because I do study language--and study it objectively--I know that "i > don't think" is an interpersonal metaphor: it's a modal, a statement of > probability, like the expression "cannot" (which is also a contradiction, > when you think about it, because there isn't any such thing as negative > probability). > > This is easy to prove. You just add a tag: > > a) "I don't think we can study the human body objectively, do I?" > b) "I don't think we can study the human body objectively, can we?" > > It should be obvious that a) is absurd, and b) is what is meant. But isn't > that an objective test? Or do you just mean that the phenomena of language > don't appear under a microscope? > > > > > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > alternatives > Show all authors > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma wrote: > >> Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: >> >> I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a >> posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately or >> voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the >> context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of >> default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. >> >> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which >> post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have >> existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their >> ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example >> the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind >> those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended >> and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object >> of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, >> i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to >> denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes >> was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. >> >> It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. There's >> more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a concept >> (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the system of >> signification is not concerned with language but linguistics within which >> language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become valid. From >> Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised collective >> norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible with that >> norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that involves an >> individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code quite >> liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects (different >> to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical structure of >> Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with Mandarin (the >> official language or predominant dialect). >> >> By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because we >> are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain >> insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have >> the will to meaning, so to speak. >> >> James >> *_______________________________________________________* >> >> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Getting to your first topic, now, James ... >>> >>> I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday interactions, to >>> "default" to the Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to say, signs as >>> pointing to objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted from >>> historical development. The structural view always gives us certain >>> insights which can be invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in >>> making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with himself on one side >>> and condemned half a century of his followers in Structuralism to a >>> one-sided view of the world ... which made the poststructuralists look like >>> geniuses of course, when they stepped outside this cage >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: >>> >>> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, >>> linking with some of your comments: >>> >>> >>> First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean linguistics >>> (semiology); however, I don't think I "strangely leap from Peirce's >>> semiotics to Saussure's semiology". When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on >>> signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind. As I see it, >>> Saussurean semiology is foundational to all language studies, such as the >>> evolution of language in terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing. >>> Speaking more broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach >>> to language have relevance for CHAT. Above all, *a priori *hermeneutic >>> methodology can benefit further development of semiotic methodology within >>> CHAT, helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean >>> exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. the tripartite of >>> thought as semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action. For >>> example, how sign action might be implicated in culture and consciousness. >>> >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190102/55412ef3/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 1 14:51:32 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:51:32 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: It is clearly wrong to say that we can't study language objectively because we exist and think in it - in speech and writing, language is objective and actual, so we can also observe it. But to study language objectively, from "outside," requires the student to acquire a certain distance from it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving that, even writing too, I guess, and anyone who learns a second language has a point from which to view their first language. Thus we can learn that "Je ne sais pas" is not necessarily a double negative. But is the interviewer who asks an artist to explain their painting failing to stand outside language to see that there is something else. Like the psychologists who ask subjects questions and take the answer to be what the person "really" thought. It's the old problem of Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond experience which (in my opinion) Hegel so thoroughly debunked Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 2/01/2019 7:46 am, David Kellogg wrote: > Happy new year to all, especially to all us happy pigs > born in a pig year. > > Yes, "absurd" is too strong: it is possible to construct a > context in which "I think" isn't a grammatical metaphor > for "may", "should", or "it is possible". But of course > the whole post was a semantic metaphor for James' > statement that you cannot study language objectively and > use it at the same time. > > And semantics is the weak point of Saussure. The problem > is that there isn't anything "arbitraire" or conventional > about semantics: to say that semantics is arbitrary is > essentially to say that thinking is arbitrary: that there > is no rational reason why we think of time as tense and > entity as number. It's not just that we can't think any > other way; it's that we have to grow crops and teach > children in real time, and we have to?gather food and cook > it in real numbers. > > Language is arbitrary (i.e. "subjective") at only one > point:?phonetics. But even with phonetics (paradoxically > the easiest to measure objectively) you have to deal with > the fact that humans make a?finite number of sounds, and > ?only a small subset of these?are maximally > distinguishable at a distance. That's why (another > paradox) at the very time that Saussure was developing a > purely idealist, subjectivist study of language, teachers > were creating the international phonetic alphabet we still > use today. It's a menu, and menus suggest some element of > choice. But choices can be constrained, and contraints are > always?motivated. > > Having twelve months and three hundred and sixty five days > a year only seems "arbitrary" when you are not a farmer.If > you were born in the pig year (as I was) this is a > particularly auspicious year, particularly if you are > completing your fifth complete cycle of twelve years (as I > am). But the reason why five cycles of twelve years is > considered particularly auspicious is no more?arbitrary > than the choice of the pig to name the year: it's a > likespan of sixty years, which in Confucian times was > considered just about ideal. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in /Language and Literature/, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > alternatives > Show all authors > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 2:45 PM Rein Raud > wrote: > > Happy New Year, David, > > Why do you say that (a) is absurd? Let us assume that > this is what a scholar tells herself after a long > internal thought-chain, weighing the pros and cons of > a certain argument about how to study the human body, > finally arriving at an unexpected conclusion, perhaps > persuaded by someone else?s work. And at this point > she says to herself ?Hey, come on, I don't really > think we can study the human body objectively, do I?? > > ?Thinking something? (endorsing a particular claim) > and ?thinking? (entertaining certain mental processes) > are not the same thing, even though conflated in the > English word ?think?. But in the first case you can > substitute it with some synonyms (?reckon?, for > example), while in others you cannot. You ask ?can you > write "I don't think" without thinking?? but you > probably wouldn?t ask ?can you write "I don't reckon" > without reckoning?? > > Best wishes for 2019 to the whole community, > > Rein > > ********************************************** > Rein Raud > Professor of Asian and Cultural Studies,?Tallinn > University > Uus-Sadama 5, Tallinn 10120 Estonia > www.reinraud.com > > > ?Meaning in Action: Outline of an Integral?Theory of > Culture?(Polity 2016) > > ?Practices of Selfhood? (with Zygmunt?Bauman, Polity > 2015) > > > > > > >> On 1 Jan 2019, at 07:29, David Kellogg >> > >> wrote: >> >> Suppose I say something like this: >> >> "I don't think we can study the human body >> objectively because we are already users of bodies >> when studying them, i.e. we must remain insiders of >> our bodies?in order to study them, plus the fact that >> we have the will to embodiment, so to speak." >> >> I might be comfortable with a statement like this if >> I read through it quickly and I don't think about it >> for too long, provided I am in good health and don't >> require a doctor (If I fall seriously?ill and I go to >> a doctor, and receive a statement like this, I will >> probably want a second opinion). >> >> But alas,?I am arrested by the first three words. >> What does it mean to say "I don't think"? Can you >> write "I don't think" without thinking??Is this an >> instance of aphophasis, like "not to mention"? >> >> Because ?I do study language--and study it >> objectively--I know that "i don't think" is an >> interpersonal metaphor: it's a modal, a statement of >> probability, like the expression "cannot" (which is >> also a contradiction, when you think about it, >> because there isn't any such thing as?negative >> probability). >> >> This is easy to prove. You just add a tag: >> >> a) "I don't think we can study the human body >> objectively, do I?" >> b) "I don't think we can study the human body >> objectively, can we?" >> >> It should be obvious that a) is absurd, and b) is >> what is meant. But isn't that an objective test? Or >> do you just mean that the phenomena of language don't >> appear under a microscope? >> >> >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New in /Language and Literature/, co-authored with >> Fang Li: >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> alternatives >> Show all authors >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma >> > >> wrote: >> >> Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your >> message: >> >> I think "default", as a state of the human mind, >> is intuitive and /a posteriori/ rather than of >> something we get hung up on deliberately or >> voluntarily. This state of mind is also >> multifaceted, depending on the context in which >> we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be?a >> prototype of default that is somehow intrinsic, >> but I'm not sure about that. >> >> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly >> influential, without which post-Saussurean >> thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't >> have existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists >> could have worked out their ideas without the >> inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for >> example the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I >> think would suffice (never mind those Francophone >> geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson >> extended and modified Saussure's signs, using >> communicative functions as the object of >> linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules >> of a given language, i.e. /langue/ in Saussure's >> terms). He replaced langue with "code" to denote >> the goal-directedness of communicative functions. >> Each of the codes was thus associated with its >> own langue as a larger system. >> >> It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not >> simply dualistic. There's more to it, e.g. the >> system of signification bridging between a >> concept (signified) and a sound image >> (signifier). Strictly speaking, the system of >> signification is not concerned with language but >> linguistics within which language lends itself >> to?scrutiny?and related concepts?become valid. >> From Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more >> than a normalised collective norm; it contains >> personal meanings not necessarily compatible with >> that norm. Saussure would say this norm is the >> /parole/ that involves an individual's preference >> and creativity. I find Jakobson's code quite >> liberating - it helps?explain the workings of >> Chinese dialects (different to dialects within >> the British English), e.g. the grammatical >> structure of Shanghainese, which is in many >> aspects at variance with Mandarin (the official >> language or predominant dialect). >> >> By the way, I don't think we can study a language >> objectively because we are already users of that >> language when studying it, i.e. we must remain >> insiders of that language in order to study it, >> plus the fact that we have the will to meaning, >> so to speak. >> >> James >> */_______________________________________________________/* >> >> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> / >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden >> > >> wrote: >> >> Getting to your first topic, now, James ... >> >> I think it is inescapable for any of us, in >> everyday interactions, to "default" to the >> Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to >> say, signs as pointing to objects, in a >> structure of differences, abstracted from >> historical development. The structural view >> always gives us certain insights which can be >> invisible otherwise. But like a lot of >> things, in making this point, Saussure set up >> this dichotomy with himself on one side and >> condemned half a century of his followers in >> Structuralism to a one-sided view of the >> world ... which made the poststructuralists >> look like geniuses of course, when they >> stepped outside this cage >> >> What do you? think? >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: >>> >>> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to >>> make a few brief?points, linking with some >>> of your comments: >>> >>> >>> First, I have a default sense of signs based >>> on Saussurean linguistics (semiology); >>> however, I don't think I "strangely leap >>> from Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's >>> semiology". When I read Peirce and Vygotsky >>> on signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery >>> present in my mind.? As I see it, Saussurean >>> semiology is foundational to all language >>> studies, such as the evolution of language >>> in terms of e.g. semantic drift and >>> narrowing.? Speaking more broadly, in my >>> view, both synchronic and diachronic >>> approach to language?have relevance for >>> CHAT.? Above all, /a priori /hermeneutic >>> methodology can benefit further development >>> of semiotic methodology within CHAT, helping >>> us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the >>> key Peircean exponent, referred to as "the >>> most essential point", i.e. the tripartite >>> of thought as semiosis, namely >>> sign-interpretation or sign action.? For >>> example, how sign action might be implicated >>> in culture and consciousness. >>> >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190102/38716780/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Wed Jan 2 09:01:11 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:01:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Saussure vs Peirce In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: Andy, this sounds rather unwise - I'm afraid your line of argument is not entirely tenable. I'll get back to you again when I have more time. James *_______________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar * *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:54, Andy Blunden wrote: > It is clearly wrong to say that we can't study language objectively > because we exist and think in it - in speech and writing, language is > objective and actual, so we can also observe it. But to study language > objectively, from "outside," requires the student to acquire a certain > distance from it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving that, even > writing too, I guess, and anyone who learns a second language has a point > from which to view their first language. Thus we can learn that "Je ne sais > pas" is not necessarily a double negative. But is the interviewer who asks > an artist to explain their painting failing to stand outside language to > see that there is something else. Like the psychologists who ask subjects > questions and take the answer to be what the person "really" thought. It's > the old problem of Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond experience > which (in my opinion) Hegel so thoroughly debunked > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 2/01/2019 7:46 am, David Kellogg wrote: > > Happy new year to all, especially to all us happy pigs born in a pig year. > > Yes, "absurd" is too strong: it is possible to construct a context in > which "I think" isn't a grammatical metaphor for "may", "should", or "it is > possible". But of course the whole post was a semantic metaphor for James' > statement that you cannot study language objectively and use it at the same > time. > > And semantics is the weak point of Saussure. The problem is that there > isn't anything "arbitraire" or conventional about semantics: to say that > semantics is arbitrary is essentially to say that thinking is arbitrary: > that there is no rational reason why we think of time as tense and entity > as number. It's not just that we can't think any other way; it's that we > have to grow crops and teach children in real time, and we have to gather > food and cook it in real numbers. > > Language is arbitrary (i.e. "subjective") at only one point: phonetics. > But even with phonetics (paradoxically the easiest to measure objectively) > you have to deal with the fact that humans make a finite number of sounds, > and only a small subset of these are maximally distinguishable at a > distance. That's why (another paradox) at the very time that Saussure was > developing a purely idealist, subjectivist study of language, teachers were > creating the international phonetic alphabet we still use today. It's a > menu, and menus suggest some element of choice. But choices can be > constrained, and contraints are always motivated. > > Having twelve months and three hundred and sixty five days a year only > seems "arbitrary" when you are not a farmer.If you were born in the pig > year (as I was) this is a particularly auspicious year, particularly if you > are completing your fifth complete cycle of twelve years (as I am). But the > reason why five cycles of twelve years is considered particularly > auspicious is no more arbitrary than the choice of the pig to name the > year: it's a likespan of sixty years, which in Confucian times was > considered just about ideal. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > alternatives > Show all authors > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 2:45 PM Rein Raud wrote: > >> Happy New Year, David, >> >> Why do you say that (a) is absurd? Let us assume that this is what a >> scholar tells herself after a long internal thought-chain, weighing the >> pros and cons of a certain argument about how to study the human body, >> finally arriving at an unexpected conclusion, perhaps persuaded by someone >> else?s work. And at this point she says to herself ?Hey, come on, I don't >> really think we can study the human body objectively, do I?? >> >> ?Thinking something? (endorsing a particular claim) and ?thinking? >> (entertaining certain mental processes) are not the same thing, even though >> conflated in the English word ?think?. But in the first case you can >> substitute it with some synonyms (?reckon?, for example), while in others >> you cannot. You ask ?can you write "I don't think" without thinking?? but >> you probably wouldn?t ask ?can you write "I don't reckon" without >> reckoning?? >> >> Best wishes for 2019 to the whole community, >> >> Rein >> >> ********************************************** >> Rein Raud >> Professor of Asian and Cultural Studies, Tallinn University >> Uus-Sadama 5, Tallinn 10120 Estonia >> www.reinraud.com >> >> >> ?Meaning in Action: Outline of an Integral Theory of Culture?(Polity 2016) >> >> ?Practices of Selfhood? (with Zygmunt Bauman, Polity 2015) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1 Jan 2019, at 07:29, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> Suppose I say something like this: >> >> "I don't think we can study the human body objectively because we are >> already users of bodies when studying them, i.e. we must remain insiders of >> our bodies in order to study them, plus the fact that we have the will to >> embodiment, so to speak." >> >> I might be comfortable with a statement like this if I read through it >> quickly and I don't think about it for too long, provided I am in good >> health and don't require a doctor (If I fall seriously ill and I go to a >> doctor, and receive a statement like this, I will probably want a second >> opinion). >> >> But alas, I am arrested by the first three words. What does it mean to >> say "I don't think"? Can you write "I don't think" without thinking? Is >> this an instance of aphophasis, like "not to mention"? >> >> Because I do study language--and study it objectively--I know that "i >> don't think" is an interpersonal metaphor: it's a modal, a statement of >> probability, like the expression "cannot" (which is also a contradiction, >> when you think about it, because there isn't any such thing as negative >> probability). >> >> This is easy to prove. You just add a tag: >> >> a) "I don't think we can study the human body objectively, do I?" >> b) "I don't think we can study the human body objectively, can we?" >> >> It should be obvious that a) is absurd, and b) is what is meant. But >> isn't that an objective test? Or do you just mean that the phenomena of >> language don't appear under a microscope? >> >> >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> alternatives >> Show all authors >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma wrote: >> >>> Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: >>> >>> I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a >>> posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately or >>> voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the >>> context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of >>> default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. >>> >>> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which >>> post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have >>> existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their >>> ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example >>> the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind >>> those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended >>> and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object >>> of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, >>> i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to >>> denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes >>> was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. >>> >>> It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. >>> There's more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a >>> concept (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the >>> system of signification is not concerned with language but linguistics >>> within which language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become >>> valid. From Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised >>> collective norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible >>> with that norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that >>> involves an individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code >>> quite liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects >>> (different to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical >>> structure of Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with >>> Mandarin (the official language or predominant dialect). >>> >>> By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because we >>> are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain >>> insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have >>> the will to meaning, so to speak. >>> >>> James >>> *_______________________________________________________* >>> >>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>> * >>> >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 03:03, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> Getting to your first topic, now, James ... >>>> >>>> I think it is inescapable for any of us, in everyday interactions, to >>>> "default" to the Saussurian way of seeing things, that is to say, signs as >>>> pointing to objects, in a structure of differences, abstracted from >>>> historical development. The structural view always gives us certain >>>> insights which can be invisible otherwise. But like a lot of things, in >>>> making this point, Saussure set up this dichotomy with himself on one side >>>> and condemned half a century of his followers in Structuralism to a >>>> one-sided view of the world ... which made the poststructuralists look like >>>> geniuses of course, when they stepped outside this cage >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few brief points, >>>> linking with some of your comments: >>>> >>>> >>>> First, I have a default sense of signs based on Saussurean linguistics >>>> (semiology); however, I don't think I "strangely leap from Peirce's >>>> semiotics to Saussure's semiology". When I read Peirce and Vygotsky on >>>> signs, I often have a Saussurean imagery present in my mind. As I see it, >>>> Saussurean semiology is foundational to all language studies, such as the >>>> evolution of language in terms of e.g. semantic drift and narrowing. >>>> Speaking more broadly, in my view, both synchronic and diachronic approach >>>> to language have relevance for CHAT. Above all, *a priori *hermeneutic >>>> methodology can benefit further development of semiotic methodology within >>>> CHAT, helping us to come to grips with what Max Fisch, the key Peircean >>>> exponent, referred to as "the most essential point", i.e. the tripartite of >>>> thought as semiosis, namely sign-interpretation or sign action. For >>>> example, how sign action might be implicated in culture and consciousness. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190102/9c0b9d68/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jan 4 09:16:48 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 09:16:48 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant Professor of Childhood Development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those who like little kid and the East Bay :-) Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Christina Chin-Newman Date: Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:36 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant Professor of Childhood Development To: We are seeking to hire an Assistant Professor of Childhood Development, specializing in language development and cognition. Please share this information with any suitable candidates who may be interested, and feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Christina Chin-Newman, Ph.D. Search Committee Chair Professor, Human Development & Women's Studies CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST BAY FACULTY EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FULL TIME-TENURE TRACK DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT & WOMEN?S STUDIES The Department of Human Development & Women's Studies at California State University, East Bay promotes the interdisciplinary study of human development over the life course. Each year, the department serves an ethnically and economically diverse group of over 500 Human Development majors in the beautiful San Francisco Bay Area. Our successful tenure-track candidate will teach courses in child development, child language development, and cognitive development, mostly offered in completely online settings. In addition, the successful candidate may be required to teach other child development courses, as well as foundational courses in human development, and any other courses that may be required by the Department. The candidate will also serve in the role of online innovation liaison for the department. In addition to fulfilling online responsibilities, the faculty member will be required to physically come to campus and participate in student advising, and department and university service. Rank is Assistant Professor. Salary is dependent upon educational preparation and experience. The position starts in Fall 2019 and is subject to budgetary authorization. Ph.D. or earned equivalent at the time of appointment is required, in child development, childhood studies, or a related field that has prepared the candidate for the duties of the position. Preference will be given to the candidate with a record of accomplishment, including published scholarship and teaching experience in child language development and/or cognitive development. Applicants with a record of accomplishment, including research experience with children from developing nations, African American, Hispanic, Native American, and/or Asian American children are encouraged to apply. Candidates with successful teaching experience at the university level are preferred. The ideal candidate will be able to provide evidence of exceptional teaching skills (particularly in the online environment), an ongoing program of research, and experience working with diverse populations. Applicants who represent all types of diversity, including race/ethnicity, age, disability, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation are encouraged to apply. APPLICATION DEADLINE: Review of applications will begin February 1, 2019. Position will remain open until filled. Please submit a letter of application (which addresses the qualifications noted in the position announcement, including teaching, research, and experience working with diverse groups through teaching, research, mentoring, advising, and/or service), a complete and current vita, two sample syllabi, publication samples, a teaching statement, a research statement, a diversity statement, and the names and contact information of three references via Interfolio: https://apply.interfolio.com/58591 Applicants also need to have three confidential letters of recommendation submitted directly to Interfolio by the letter writers. For questions about the position or application, please contact Dr. Christina Chin-Newman, Childhood Development Search Committee Chair, Department of Human Development and Women?s Studies, California State University, East Bay, 25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, CA 94542. Phone 510-885-3076, email: christina.chin-newman@csueastbay.edu _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190104/0c9256cd/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Fri Jan 4 20:51:30 2019 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 10:21:30 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Article on Division of Labour Message-ID: Hi, following article is published in the journal FIRM published by ARMG Publishing, Sumy State University, Ukraine. Abstract and web link are given here bellow. Hope, you will find it interesting. I well-come comments and critics from you and that will help me to make my views more precise. Regards, Harshad Dave * * * * * * * * ** *Abstract* We discussed the ?Division of labour Part 1? at a length in previous issue (issue 3) of FIRM. Here we shall take up a discussion on very sensitive and vital part of this article. We learned from the previous discussion that process of division of labour simultaneously emerged with the classical coordination as one of its inseparable organs. The originally evolved process of division of labour was without unethical influence of human characteristics. Here we shall discuss how it got contaminated unethically. Parental yearns/sentiments towards their kids in developed social system and investing their resources unethically to protect their incompetent kids, the process of settlement of fresh generation as per their typical abilities and unethical practice there in as well as vital influencing parameters on the same, felt necessity of the time to maintain association with or among two or various habitations/societies, migration of people and knowledge they carried with them, also amalgamation of knowledge between two societies caused a grass root influence on the process of division of labour. I have peeped into the process of settlement of population of fresh generation. It is also discussed on reflections emerged from unethical practices in the process of division of labour and their impacts on the same. Nature and profile of division of labour in the social environment is discussed along with consequential effect of breach of preconditions on the process of division of labour. Lastly some joint conclusions on Part 1 and Part 2 are narrated. *Keywords:** exchange value, imaginary line, preconditions, typical abilities, barbaric abilities, natural abilities, gyp and classical coordination.* *JEL Classification:* A13, A14, B21, F43, F50, I24, O12, P16, P26, P48, Z1. *Cite as:* H. Dave. (2018). Elementary investigation on Division of Labour- Part 2. *Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 2*(4), 39-56. DOI: http://doi.org/10.21272/fmir.2(4).39-56.2018 Link: http://armgpublishing.sumdu.edu.ua/journals/fmir/volume-2-issue-4/article-5/ Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190105/6501a447/attachment.html From moises.esteban@udg.edu Mon Jan 7 09:19:53 2019 From: moises.esteban@udg.edu (Moises Esteban-Guitart) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:19:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Xmca-l] special issue on Digital Media and Learning Message-ID: <50604.193.125.59.99.1546881593.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> For those who are interested in Social Justice, Digital Media and Learning, a special issue on this is now available (open access): Digital media and learning: Emergent forms of participation and social transformation https://www.revistacomunicar.com/index.php?contenido=revista&numero=actual&idioma=en Aprendizaje y medios digitales: Formas emergentes de participaci?n y transformaci?n social https://www.revistacomunicar.com/index.php?contenido=revista&numero=actual&idioma=es moises From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Mon Jan 7 13:43:54 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:43:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: special issue on Digital Media and Learning In-Reply-To: <50604.193.125.59.99.1546881593.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> References: <50604.193.125.59.99.1546881593.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: <1546897434110.18924@ils.uio.no> Thanks for sharing, Mois?s! The special issue looks really nice, as does the bilingual journal! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Moises Esteban-Guitart Sent: 07 January 2019 18:19 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] special issue on Digital Media and Learning For those who are interested in Social Justice, Digital Media and Learning, a special issue on this is now available (open access): Digital media and learning: Emergent forms of participation and social transformation https://www.revistacomunicar.com/index.php?contenido=revista&numero=actual&idioma=en Aprendizaje y medios digitales: Formas emergentes de participaci?n y transformaci?n social https://www.revistacomunicar.com/index.php?contenido=revista&numero=actual&idioma=es moises From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Jan 7 19:45:24 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:45:24 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure Track Position - Narrative Inquiry, Language, and Mind @ Pratt Institute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Luka Lucic Date: Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:54 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure Track Position - Narrative Inquiry, Language, and Mind @ Pratt Institute To: *Assistant Professor - Narrative Inquiry, Language, and Mind* *Pratt Institute:* School of Liberal Arts and Sciences: Social Science and Cultural Studies *Description* The Department of Social Science and Cultural Studies in the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Pratt Institute invites applications for a full-time tenure-track faculty position, available starting in Fall 2019. The successful applicant will have expertise in the study of narrative, language, and mind, and will contribute to the department?s interest in theories of knowledge, rhetoric, cultural representation, critical social and political practice, and social science methodology. Applicants are invited to specify how their work engages with the areas indicated by including a brief statement in their application explaining how they interpret and/or employ the key concepts of narrative, language, and mind. Applicants with backgrounds in History, Psychology, Anthropology and/or Philosophy are particularly encouraged to apply, as are emerging scholars with expertise in methodologically rigorous narrative-based approaches to research. The Department offers Minors in Cultural Studies, Gender/Sexuality Studies, History, Philosophy, Psychology, Social Justice/Social Practice, Sustainability. Pratt Institute is an internationally recognized school of architecture, art, design, information science, and liberal arts and sciences, which includes programs in writing and critical and visual studies. Its strong programs in architecture, film/video, photography, digital arts and other areas of art and design draw students from diverse cultural and geographical backgrounds. The Department of Social Science and Cultural Studies contributes to the students' core education and also has its own major in Critical and Visual Studies. Located on Pratts' historic 25-acre campus in the culturally diverse neighborhood of Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, we are committed to building diversity in our curriculum and among our faculty, students and staff and seek applicants who can contribute to meeting these goals. *POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES:* - Teach six courses per year. - Contribute at least two courses per year to one or more of the Minors and/or the BA program in Critical and Visual Studies. - Develop curriculum in Social Science and Cultural Studies. - Advise students. - Serve on department, School and Institute committees. - Provide outreach to other departments in the Institute. - Pursue individual research projects (e.g. publish in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and present at professional conferences) - Perform all other related activities as required. - SALARY is competitive and commensurate with qualifications and experience *Qualifications* We require a Ph.D. in a core area of the social sciences, history, psychology or philosophy. Candidates must have at least one (preferably two) year's college level teaching experience in an institution other than the one in which the terminal degree was earned. Strong evidence of past, present and future scholarly engagement is essential. *Application Instructions* Please upload your: CV, Cover Letter, Three letters of Recommendation, and Research / Writing Statement. For best consideration, please apply by January 31, 2018. -- *Luka Luci?, PhD.* | Associate Professor | Associate Director, Global South Center *PRATT INSTITUTE* 200 Willoughby Avenue | DeKalb Hall 414 | Brooklyn, NY 11205 phone: 399-4599 | fax: | llucic@pratt.edu _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190107/b393102d/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jan 8 20:48:13 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 20:48:13 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure-track Position in Cognitive or Developmental Psychology at Ryerson University, Toronto Canada In-Reply-To: <1546999543028.23661@psych.ryerson.ca> References: <1546999543028.23661@psych.ryerson.ca> Message-ID: Another job mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Margaret Moulson Date: Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:21 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure-track Position in Cognitive or Developmental Psychology at Ryerson University, Toronto Canada To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org Dear colleagues, We are hiring in Cognitive or Developmental Psychology at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada. Please see link for details. https://hr.cf.ryerson.ca/ams/faculty/preview.cfm?posting_id=518660 Best, Meg Moulson, PhD Associate Professor Department of Psychology Ryerson University _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190108/f85898cb/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Tue Jan 8 23:46:31 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 07:46:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fw: Conference Announcement: Explorations in Ethnography, Language and Communication (EELC8) In-Reply-To: <1430ca4333244cdc854ecfcaf4aaf036@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> References: <1430ca4333244cdc854ecfcaf4aaf036@mail-ex02.exprod.uio.no> Message-ID: <1547019991191.949@ils.uio.no> A nice forum for those interested in issues at the intersection of anthropology, linguistics and communication, see below ________________________________ From: Joke Dewilde Sent: 09 January 2019 08:33 To: Alfredo Jornet Gil Subject: Conference Announcement: Explorations in Ethnography, Language and Communication (EELC8) We would like to announce the eighth biennial conference EELC8 - Explorations in Ethnography, Language and Communication, September 24-25, 2020, hosted by the University of Oslo, Norway. Further information and the call for participation will be sent out this spring. In the meantime, please save the dates! All the best, The EELC conference team Joke Dewilde Associate Professor of Multilingualism in Education, University of Oslo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190109/0d6aa446/attachment.html From julie.waddington@udg.edu Wed Jan 9 02:14:44 2019 From: julie.waddington@udg.edu (JULIE WADDINGTON) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 11:14:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: special issue on Digital Media and Learning In-Reply-To: <50604.193.125.59.99.1546881593.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> References: <50604.193.125.59.99.1546881593.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: <58677.83.40.182.13.1547028884.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Thanks for sharing Moises, Great to see important issues presented in an accessible way AND in an open-access format. Look forward to reading further... Julie > For those who are interested in Social Justice, Digital Media and > Learning, a special issue on this is now available (open access): > > Digital media and learning: Emergent forms of participation and social > transformation > https://www.revistacomunicar.com/index.php?contenido=revista&numero=actual&idioma=en > > Aprendizaje y medios digitales: Formas emergentes de participaci?n y > transformaci?n social > https://www.revistacomunicar.com/index.php?contenido=revista&numero=actual&idioma=es > > moises > > Dra. Julie Waddington Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia Universitat de Girona From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jan 9 07:06:24 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 07:06:24 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Open Rank Position In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another job Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Peverly, Stephen Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 3:54 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Open Rank Position To: Dear Colleagues--We have an open rank position in the School Psychology Program at Teachers College, Columbia University. Please see the description below and the link for additional details. Teachers College/Columbia University Programs in School Psychology Assistant (tenure-line) or Associate/Full Professor (tenured) Teachers College, Columbia University seeks applicants for a tenure track advanced assistant professor or tenured associate or full professor in our APA and NASP Accredited School Psychology Ph.D. and Ed.M. programs. Applications to be reviewed starting December 2018. The successful applicant will have a Ph.D. in School Psychology from an APA-Accredited program, one or more identified lines of research relevant to school psychology, a sustained record of scholarly publications in refereed journals, a record of extramural funding, experience as a faculty member in a School Psychology program (if at the associate or full level), and eligibility for licensure as a psychologist in New York. Research expertise is open. Professional experience in PK-12 schools is preferred. An explicit commitment to diversity and to advancing understanding and outcomes for underrepresented groups, and once tenured a willingness to rotate and assume the responsibilities of Director of Clinical Training (DCT) for the Ph.D. is also required. The incumbent is expected to teach two courses per semester (3 preparations). Located in the New York City, Teachers College is consistently ranked as one of the top schools of education in the nation in U.S. News. The School Psychology Ph.D. and Ed.M. programs utilize a scientist-practitioner model that places a high value on applied research and evidence-based clinical skill acquisition. Ph.D. graduates work in leadership roles in a range of research and clinical settings that serve children and youth. Ed.M. graduates work as school psychologists or enter doctoral programs in applied psychology. Clinical training occurs in a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary clinic, the Dean Hope Center for Educational and Psychological Services, as well as through practica in 10 partnership schools, and organized doctoral externships in the NYC metropolitan area. Many students obtain the ABA certificate and Licensed Behavior Analyst through our ABA program. Our program has close affiliations with NYC major medical centers, the Department of Education, and suburban schools. To apply, please submit the following: a) letter of intent that includes statement of current and future research plans, b) curriculum vitae, c), sample of three publications, d) three letters of recommendation, and e) formal course evaluations. All questions should be sent to Professor Stephen Peverly ( stp4@tc.Columbia.edu). 525 WEST 120TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10027-6696 ? (212) 678-3942 TEACHERS COLLEGE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Teachers College/Columbia University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. We seek to build a culturally diverse intellectual environment and welcome applications from men, women, minorities, veterans, and persons with disabilities. http://employment.tc.columbia.edu/cw/en-us/job/504007/open-rank-professor-programs-in-school-psychology -- Stephen T. Peverly, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and Education Director, Programs in School Psychology College Ombuds 212-678-3084 (phone) 212-678-4034 (fax) _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190109/ce4f1a93/attachment-0001.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Jan 9 10:28:50 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:28:50 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Postdoctoral Position in Cognitive Science of Values at Princeton In-Reply-To: <4A74EAD1-B112-4429-B57C-A72D7673F2D6@princeton.edu> References: <4A74EAD1-B112-4429-B57C-A72D7673F2D6@princeton.edu> Message-ID: A fine post doc mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Maureen Gill Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:07 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Postdoctoral Position in Cognitive Science of Values at Princeton To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org Dear Colleagues, Beginning in Fall 2019, I will have a postdoctoral research associate position open in my lab at Princeton University, sponsored by the University Center for Human Values and the Program in Cognitive Science. The application deadline is February 8, 2019. Please encourage any relevant students to apply! Philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science PhDs are all welcome, up to 3 years post-PhD. (And apologies if you?ve already received an announcement about this through another list.) Thank you! Best, Tania Lombrozo ? Tania Lombrozo Professor of Psychology Princeton University http://cognition.princeton.edu ? *Postdoctoral Research Associate Position in the Cognitive Science of Values* Click HERE for more information The Program in Cognitive Science, in collaboration with the University Center for Human Values invites applications for a postdoctoral position in the Cognitive Science of Values. The successful candidate will be based in the laboratory of Dr. Tania Lombrozo in the Department of Psychology. We aim to support a highly promising scholar with a background in cognitive science or a related discipline, such as psychology, empirically informed / experimental philosophy, or formal epistemology. The scholar's research agenda should address a topic that engages with both cognitive science and values, such as the role of moral values in decision making, or the role of epistemic values in belief revision. The proposed research is expected to yield both theoretical and empirical publications. The candidate will be appointed in the Program in Cognitive Science and will be invited to participate in programs of the University Center for Human Values. *Qualifications* Applications are welcome from candidates who have or expect to have a Ph.D. by the start date, September 1, 2019. Applicants should not have held the degree for more than three years by the date of appointment. They may not be employed by another institution during the term of their Princeton appointment. Applications will be evaluated on the basis of the applicant's previous accomplishments, the promise of the proposed research project in the cognitive science of values, and the applicant's ability to contribute to the intellectual life of the Program in Cognitive Science, the University Center for Human Values, and Dr. Lombrozo's laboratory group. *Term of Appointment * The term of appointment is one year, normally beginning September 1, 2019, with the expectation of renewal assuming good performance. Applicants are expected to be in residence for the duration of the appointment. Princeton offers competitive salary and employee benefits. *How to Apply* You may submit an online application at https://www.princeton.edu/acad-positions/position/9962. The online system includes instructions on how to apply. A complete application will include the following materials: 1.A current curriculum vitae; 2.A research proposal (not to exceed 1,500 words). Please supply an indicative title for the project at the beginning of the proposal; 3. A representative manuscript or publication; 4. Contact information for three referees, who will be asked to comment specifically on your qualifications for the proposed research project. Referees will be contacted directly by email with instructions for uploading letters of reference. These materials should be submitted online by February 8, 2019 for full consideration. We cannot accept application materials by any other method. Letters of reference are to be submitted by the end of the business day on February 15, 2019 (5:00PM EST). The selection committee will begin reviewing applications immediately and applications lacking any of the elements listed above may be at a disadvantage. We will continue to accept applications until the position is filled. This position is subject to the University's background check policy. Princeton University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to age, race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law. _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190109/afac4510/attachment.html From feine@duq.edu Wed Jan 9 13:33:46 2019 From: feine@duq.edu (Dr. Elizabeth Fein) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 21:33:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology: DEADLINE EXTENDED Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The deadline for submitting proposals for the 2019 conference of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology has been extended to February 1st. The Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP), a Section of Division 5 (Quantitative and Qualitative Methods) of the American Psychological Association, is pleased to announce that its annual conference will be held at Simmons University (formerly Simmons College) in Boston, on Monday and Tuesday, June 10-11, 2019. *There will also be an optional pre-conference workshop the afternoon of Sunday, June 9th. Please see the end of this Call for Proposals for information. Because our society is focused on qualitative inquiry, we are specifically interested in proposals that discuss contributions of qualitative methodology and methods, or approaches to research design that transform the understanding of a phenomenon of interest or transform psychology as a discipline. Please see the attached, updated Call for Papers for more information about how to submit. Best, Suzanne Kirschner & Gary Senecal, Program Committee Co-Chairs Elizabeth Fein, Communications Officer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190109/b17b2a32/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SQIP - CFP - 2019 - Extended Deadline.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 177785 bytes Desc: SQIP - CFP - 2019 - Extended Deadline.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190109/b17b2a32/attachment.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Jan 10 16:56:01 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:56:01 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: URL = Utterly-Remarkable-Letter + In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This forwarded article seems worth our attention. mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Frank Kessel Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:22 PM Subject: URL = Utterly-Remarkable-Letter + Is it ridiculous ?reaching? or simply silly to sense some resonances here ? "In 2019, no longer should weak science, poorly informed crusaders and racist attitudes continue to shape public policy? ? of the issues/concerns that have animated our conversations? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? *THE NEW YORK TIMES ? Opinion* LETTER Demonizing ?Crack Mothers,? Victimizing Their Children A mother who lost custody of her children because of her drug use describes how ?racism and unjust treatment? led to her family?s(sic) being torn apart. Jan. 5, 2019 - - - - - Suzanne Sellers with her son, Lawrence, near her home in Chicago.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times Image Suzanne Sellers with her son, Lawrence, near her home in Chicago.Credit CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times To the Editor: I am humbly honored to have been featured in ?Slandering the Unborn ? (?A Woman?s Rights? editorial series, nytimes.com, Dec. 28 ? ATTACHED BELOW). As one of the mothers who suffered during the 1990s crack epidemic, I want to thank The New York Times for its apology for how it demonized mothers like me and for its brilliant journalism. The apology is welcomed, and it gives me hope. I want to apologize as well ? to society, the media, my family and my children. My child welfare case happened because of my drug use, which was due to untreated trauma in my childhood. Without my using drugs, my son would not have been born with drugs in his system, and my parental rights to both my daughter and son would not have been terminated. The broken entity that is child welfare system and the racism that is so embedded in this society had prominent roles in how my child welfare case played out. Nevertheless, the ultimate responsibility of not having raised my children rests with me. This country?s war on drugs was intended to be a system of social control. Yet the war on drugs has instead become a system of social chaos. American citizens, including drug users, have rights. My rights were violated numerous times during my child welfare case, and my family was wrongfully torn apart. When families are wrongfully torn apart, the results are devastating. When the fundamental relationship of every human being ? the relationship of a child with his or her mother ? is severed, the effects can be irreversible. I had been sober for over two years at the time I was coerced to sign away my parental rights, despite numerous accomplishments and evidence of a rehabilitated life. Being black was used against me. Yet there were other factors that compounded the racism and unjust treatment, including my being a woman who was poor, with an unstable living situation, unmarried and, of course, a drug user. More important than the demonization of me is the victimization of my son. My son was taken from me at birth, with the only basis for removal being a single drug test. A single drug test is not an indicator of the type of mother a woman will be toward her child. Authorities made forceful efforts to intrude into the lives of families during the 1990s ?war on drugs.? Unjust laws like the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 were signed. This act needs to be repealed. The year that it was passed was the year that I entered a 90-day inpatient drug treatment facility, and I have been sober ever since. Today, I am a productive member of society. I am a homeowner. I hold five academic degrees, three of which are master?s degrees. I am the founder and executive director of a nonprofit organization, Families Organizing for Child Welfare Justice. I am president and chief executive of S.D. Sellers Consulting. I have had an 18-year career as a procurement professional. I speak nationally and sit on committees and work groups for child welfare and prison reform. I list my accomplishments not to ?toot my own horn? but to show that people can and do recover from drug addiction. More important, I am a loving mother. Both my daughter and my son sought a relationship with me when they each turned 18, in 2011 and 2013, respectively. Although we are reunited, the process of rebuilding the relationship has been long and sometimes difficult. Yet I am willing to do whatever it takes to make us a family again. The termination of parental rights means it is possible that we may never again be a legal family, yet we will always be a blood family. I have never and will never give up being their mother. My parental rights were wrongfully terminated. But they can never terminate the parental love. In 2019, no longer should weak science, poorly informed crusaders and racist attitudes continue to shape public policy. Legislative initiatives with roots in crack hysteria need to be repealed. Not only does the science around pregnancy need to be approached with humility and humanity, but all science ? and all social norms ? need to be approached with humility and humanity. The underlying racism that fueled the demonization of black women during the crack epidemic is an ugly monster that continues to haunt and hurt our society. Enough is enough. Suzanne Sellers Chicago -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190110/14657473/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NYTimes Bad Science Moral Panic Media.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1249169 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190110/14657473/attachment-0001.bin From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Jan 10 23:14:49 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:14:49 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Passions, (Projects?) and Interests Message-ID: Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over whether or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, taken by almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking and intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, it was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of "Teaching on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine of the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected Works). And the rest was silence. Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very important topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a week mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or less withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual reasons but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is terribly sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example the test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures equal participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start as soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be INTERESTING. In other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we have here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal of sex. All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends set before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the unity of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: in the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in themselves) become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already a passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing is there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's idea of the Project? David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives Show all authors https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/afdd0ce5/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Sex and Conflict.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3872428 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/afdd0ce5/attachment-0001.pdf From robsub@ariadne.org.uk Fri Jan 11 00:37:27 2019 From: robsub@ariadne.org.uk (robsub@ariadne.org.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 08:37:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> Fifteen hours a week??? I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is called Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked on some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They missed a trick there - they should have put it the other way round "Relationship and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a tabloid induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when related to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. Rob On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: > Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over > whether or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace > position, taken by almost all high Vygotskyans including my > francophone friends, is that Vygotsky spent too much of his life > developing a theory of thinking and intellect, complexes and concept > formation, and when he turned his attention to the lower and higher > emotions, that dark side of the moon, it was too late. He worked out a > kind of prolegomena, in the form of "Teaching on the Emotions" (or > "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine of the Emotions"--you > can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected Works). And the rest > was silence. > > Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works > (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina > Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very > important topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex > education a week mandated by the government, but the ministry of > education has more or less withdrawn the downloadable materials for > this, not for the usual reasons but instead because of criticism from > Human Rights Watch (it is terribly sexist, homophobic, and just plain > ignorant). > > Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual > enlightenment")?has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example > the test of a good sex?enlightenment programme would be one that > ensures equal participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it > has to start as soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has > to be INTERESTING. In other words, instead of the "sex education > without sex" programme we have here in South Korea, we need non-sex > education...but with a good deal of sex. > > All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends > set before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that > unites passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on > how the unity of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but > instead it is all about how passions, shared projects, and interests > give rise to sexual love, and it is more or less right before we would > expect to find it: in the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the > chapter on concept formation, which shows how complexes (which are > categories for others) become concepts (categories for themselves). > This is the chapter on interests, which explains how passions (which > are sensations in themselves) become interests: that is, emotions for > themselves. (There is already a passable translation of this in Volume > Five of the CW). The only thing is there is a need for a transitional > form--a feeling with others. Andy's idea of the Project? > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in /Language and Literature/, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives > Show all authors > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/3645e922/attachment.html From julie.waddington@udg.edu Fri Jan 11 00:48:37 2019 From: julie.waddington@udg.edu (JULIE WADDINGTON) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 09:48:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: URL = Utterly-Remarkable-Letter + In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52778.83.40.182.13.1547196517.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Absolutely agree. Totally worth our attention. A highlight from the closing paragraph: "Not only does the science around pregnancy need to be approached with humility and humanity, but all science ? and all social norms ? need to be approached with humility and humanity." Humility & humanity: sound benchmarks for science & society. Thank you Suzanne Sellers. Thank you Mike for drawing out attention to this. Julie > This forwarded article seems worth our attention. > mike > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Frank Kessel > Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:22 PM > Subject: URL = Utterly-Remarkable-Letter + > > > > Is it ridiculous ???reaching??? or simply silly to sense some resonances > here ??? > "In 2019, no longer should weak science, poorly informed crusaders and > racist attitudes continue to shape public policy??? ??? of the > issues/concerns > that have animated our conversations? > > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > *THE NEW YORK TIMES ??? Opinion* > > LETTER > Demonizing ???Crack Mothers,??? Victimizing Their Children > > A mother who lost custody of her children because of her drug use > describes > how ???racism and unjust treatment??? led to her family???s(sic) being > torn apart. > Jan. 5, 2019 > > - > > - > > - > > - > - > > Suzanne Sellers with her son, Lawrence, near her home in > Chicago.CreditDamon > Winter/The New York Times > Image > Suzanne Sellers with her son, Lawrence, near her home in Chicago.Credit > CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times > > To the Editor: > > I am humbly honored to have been featured in ???Slandering the Unborn > ??? > (???A Woman???s Rights??? editorial series, nytimes.com, Dec. 28 ??? > ATTACHED > BELOW). As one of the mothers who suffered during the 1990s crack > epidemic, > I want to thank The New York Times for its apology for how it demonized > mothers like me and for its brilliant journalism. The apology is welcomed, > and it gives me hope. > > I want to apologize as well ??? to society, the media, my family and my > children. My child welfare case happened because of my drug use, which was > due to untreated trauma in my childhood. Without my using drugs, my son > would not have been born with drugs in his system, and my parental rights > to both my daughter and son would not have been terminated. > > The broken entity that is child welfare system and the racism that is so > embedded in this society had prominent roles in how my child welfare case > played out. Nevertheless, the ultimate responsibility of not having raised > my children rests with me. > This country???s war on drugs was intended to be a system of social > control. > Yet the war on drugs has instead become a system of social chaos. American > citizens, including drug users, have rights. My rights were violated > numerous times during my child welfare case, and my family was wrongfully > torn apart. When families are wrongfully torn apart, the results are > devastating. When the fundamental relationship of every human being ??? > the > relationship of a child with his or her mother ??? is severed, the effects > can be irreversible. > > I had been sober for over two years at the time I was coerced to sign away > my parental rights, despite numerous accomplishments and evidence of a > rehabilitated life. Being black was used against me. Yet there were other > factors that compounded the racism and unjust treatment, including my > being > a woman who was poor, with an unstable living situation, unmarried and, of > course, a drug user. > > More important than the demonization of me is the victimization of my son. > My son was taken from me at birth, with the only basis for removal being a > single drug test. A single drug test is not an indicator of the type of > mother a woman will be toward her child. > > Authorities made forceful efforts to intrude into the lives of families > during the 1990s ???war on drugs.??? Unjust laws like the federal Adoption > and > Safe Families Act of 1997 were signed. This act needs to be repealed. The > year that it was passed was the year that I entered a 90-day inpatient > drug > treatment facility, and I have been sober ever since. > > Today, I am a productive member of society. I am a homeowner. I hold five > academic degrees, three of which are master???s degrees. I am the founder > and > executive director of a nonprofit organization, Families Organizing for > Child Welfare Justice. I am president and chief executive of S.D. Sellers > Consulting. I have had an 18-year career as a procurement professional. I > speak nationally and sit on committees and work groups for child welfare > and prison reform. I list my accomplishments not to ???toot my own horn??? > but > to show that people can and do recover from drug addiction. > More important, I am a loving mother. Both my daughter and my son sought a > relationship with me when they each turned 18, in 2011 and 2013, > respectively. Although we are reunited, the process of rebuilding the > relationship has been long and sometimes difficult. Yet I am willing to do > whatever it takes to make us a family again. > > The termination of parental rights means it is possible that we may never > again be a legal family, yet we will always be a blood family. I have > never > and will never give up being their mother. My parental rights were > wrongfully terminated. But they can never terminate the parental love. > > In 2019, no longer should weak science, poorly informed crusaders and > racist attitudes continue to shape public policy. Legislative initiatives > with roots in crack hysteria need to be repealed. > > Not only does the science around pregnancy need to be approached with > humility and humanity, but all science ??? and all social norms ??? need > to be > approached with humility and humanity. The underlying racism that fueled > the demonization of black women during the crack epidemic is an ugly > monster that continues to haunt and hurt our society. Enough is enough. > Suzanne Sellers > Chicago > Dra. Julie Waddington Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia Universitat de Girona From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jan 11 02:57:33 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:57:33 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> Message-ID: Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for visiting the provinces. In contrast, Vygotsky says: a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex education is not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to us. b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply learning how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must have some form of sexual "enlightenment". c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives Show all authors https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk wrote: > Fifteen hours a week??? > > I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. > > In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is called > Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked on > some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They missed > a trick there - they should have put it the other way round "Relationship > and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a tabloid > induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when related > to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. > > Rob > > On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: > > Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over whether > or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, taken by > almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that > Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking and > intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his > attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, it > was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of "Teaching > on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine of > the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected > Works). And the rest was silence. > > Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works > (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina > Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very important > topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a week > mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or less > withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual reasons > but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is terribly > sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). > > Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual > enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example the > test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures equal > participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start as > soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be INTERESTING. In > other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we have > here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal of > sex. > > All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends set > before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites > passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the unity > of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all > about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual > love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: in > the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept > formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) > become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on > interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in themselves) > become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already a > passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing is > there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's idea > of the Project? > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > alternatives > Show all authors > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/1ce771b9/attachment.html From julie.waddington@udg.edu Fri Jan 11 03:47:20 2019 From: julie.waddington@udg.edu (JULIE WADDINGTON) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:47:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> Message-ID: <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> David, I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be introduced from and in relation to the students' current knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a decontextualised way. At least I think that's what's going on here... Julie > Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant > specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for > visiting the provinces. > > In contrast, Vygotsky says: > > a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and > sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex education > is > not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to > us. > > b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply > learning > how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must have > some form of sexual "enlightenment". > > c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot???s ???Atrocities??? and Woolf???s > alternatives > Show all authors > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk > > wrote: > >> Fifteen hours a week??? >> >> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >> >> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is called >> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked on >> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >> missed >> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >> "Relationship >> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >> tabloid >> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >> related >> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >> >> Rob >> >> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >> whether >> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, taken >> by >> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking and >> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, >> it >> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >> "Teaching >> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine of >> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >> Works). And the rest was silence. >> >> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works >> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >> important >> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >> week >> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >> less >> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual reasons >> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is terribly >> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >> >> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example >> the >> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >> equal >> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start as >> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be INTERESTING. >> In >> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >> have >> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal of >> sex. >> >> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends set >> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites >> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >> unity >> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all >> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual >> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: in >> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) >> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >> themselves) >> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already a >> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing >> is >> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's >> idea >> of the Project? >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> Mountains in labour: Eliot???s ???Atrocities??? and Woolf???s >> alternatives >> Show all authors >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> > Dra. Julie Waddington Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia Universitat de Girona From moises.esteban@udg.edu Fri Jan 11 04:06:44 2019 From: moises.esteban@udg.edu (Moises Esteban-Guitart) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:06:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new interest ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex too ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore this. m > David, > > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be > introduced from and in relation to the students' current > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a > decontextualised way. > > At least I think that's what's going on here... > > Julie > > > > >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >> visiting the provinces. >> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex education >> is >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to >> us. >> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >> learning >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >> have >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> Mountains in labour: Eliot???s ???Atrocities??? and Woolf???s >> alternatives >> Show all authors >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> >> wrote: >> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is called >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >>> on >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >>> missed >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>> "Relationship >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>> tabloid >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>> related >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>> whether >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>> taken >>> by >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking and >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, >>> it >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>> "Teaching >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >>> of >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>> important >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >>> week >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >>> less >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>> reasons >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>> terribly >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example >>> the >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >>> equal >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >>> as >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>> INTERESTING. >>> In >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >>> have >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >>> of >>> sex. >>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >>> set >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >>> unity >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >>> in >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>> themselves) >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already a >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing >>> is >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's >>> idea >>> of the Project? >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot???s ???Atrocities??? and Woolf???s >>> alternatives >>> Show all authors >>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > Dra. Julie Waddington > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > Universitat de Girona > > > > > -- Mois?s Esteban Guitart Dpt de psicologia Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia Universitat de Girona Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) https://culturaieducacio.cat Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Early_Vygotsky_2018_HistoryOfPsychology.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 184350 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/94fd48ff/attachment.pdf From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jan 11 05:54:44 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:54:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, such as with reference to psychological functions. I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. Best, Huw On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart wrote: > That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read EDUCATIONAL > PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new interest > ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that > it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document > attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex too > ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore > this. > m > > > David, > > > > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' > > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be > > introduced from and in relation to the students' current > > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a > > decontextualised way. > > > > At least I think that's what's going on here... > > > > Julie > > > > > > > > > >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant > >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for > >> visiting the provinces. > >> > >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: > >> > >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and > >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex education > >> is > >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to > >> us. > >> > >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply > >> learning > >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must > >> have > >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". > >> > >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Sangmyung University > >> > >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > >> alternatives > >> Show all authors > >> > >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Fifteen hours a week??? > >>> > >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. > >>> > >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is called > >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked > >>> on > >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They > >>> missed > >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round > >>> "Relationship > >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a > >>> tabloid > >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when > >>> related > >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. > >>> > >>> Rob > >>> > >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: > >>> > >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over > >>> whether > >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, > >>> taken > >>> by > >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that > >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking and > >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his > >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, > >>> it > >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of > >>> "Teaching > >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine > >>> of > >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected > >>> Works). And the rest was silence. > >>> > >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works > >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina > >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very > >>> important > >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a > >>> week > >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or > >>> less > >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual > >>> reasons > >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is > >>> terribly > >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). > >>> > >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual > >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example > >>> the > >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures > >>> equal > >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start > >>> as > >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be > >>> INTERESTING. > >>> In > >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we > >>> have > >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal > >>> of > >>> sex. > >>> > >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends > >>> set > >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites > >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the > >>> unity > >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all > >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual > >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: > >>> in > >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept > >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) > >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on > >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in > >>> themselves) > >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already a > >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing > >>> is > >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's > >>> idea > >>> of the Project? > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Sangmyung University > >>> > >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > >>> alternatives > >>> Show all authors > >>> > >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > Dra. Julie Waddington > > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques > > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > > Universitat de Girona > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mois?s Esteban Guitart > Dpt de psicologia > Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > Universitat de Girona > > Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) > https://culturaieducacio.cat > > Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en > Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/2169f702/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jan 11 08:45:20 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 08:45:20 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: So interests are curiosity, Huw? Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. Mike On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd wrote: > For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that > Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the > essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon > developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being > explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a > certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, > but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, > such as with reference to psychological functions. > > I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to > compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology > (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < > moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: > >> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read EDUCATIONAL >> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new interest >> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex too >> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >> this. >> m >> >> > David, >> > >> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a >> > decontextualised way. >> > >> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >> > >> > Julie >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >> >> visiting the provinces. >> >> >> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >> >> >> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >> education >> >> is >> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to >> >> us. >> >> >> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >> >> learning >> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >> >> have >> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >> >> >> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Sangmyung University >> >> >> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> >> alternatives >> >> Show all authors >> >> >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >> >>> >> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >> >>> >> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >> called >> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >> >>> on >> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >> >>> missed >> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >> >>> "Relationship >> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >> >>> tabloid >> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >> >>> related >> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >> >>> >> >>> Rob >> >>> >> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >> >>> whether >> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >> >>> taken >> >>> by >> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >> and >> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >> moon, >> >>> it >> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >> >>> "Teaching >> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >> >>> of >> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >> >>> >> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works >> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >> >>> important >> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >> >>> week >> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >> >>> less >> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >> >>> reasons >> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >> >>> terribly >> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >> >>> >> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example >> >>> the >> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >> >>> equal >> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >> >>> as >> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >> >>> INTERESTING. >> >>> In >> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >> >>> have >> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >> >>> of >> >>> sex. >> >>> >> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >> >>> set >> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites >> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >> >>> unity >> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all >> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual >> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >> >>> in >> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) >> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >> >>> themselves) >> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already >> a >> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing >> >>> is >> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's >> >>> idea >> >>> of the Project? >> >>> >> >>> David Kellogg >> >>> Sangmyung University >> >>> >> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> >>> alternatives >> >>> Show all authors >> >>> >> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > Dra. Julie Waddington >> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >> > Universitat de Girona >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >> Dpt de psicologia >> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >> Universitat de Girona >> >> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >> https://culturaieducacio.cat >> >> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/5af06404/attachment.html From robsub@ariadne.org.uk Fri Jan 11 09:00:48 2019 From: robsub@ariadne.org.uk (robsub@ariadne.org.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 17:00:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> Message-ID: Fifteen hours a year sounds more reasonable :-) The contrast between Vygotsky, as in your summary (all that is new to me, so thank you for that), and what actually happens, at least here, could not be more stark. This is one of those areas where the audit culture fails us really badly. Audit culture is primarily suited to turning out workers, not people or citizens - hence relationship and sex education, among other teachable things, doesn't feature highly. It aids the employability agenda, with its own internal contradiction of needing workers who use their initiative to do their jobs profitably but are otherwise wholly and uniformly compliant. And the actual effects may be self contradictory - I have just been reading some research whch suggests that the people trackers Amazon uses in its warehouse may reduce productivity. People are not automatons, whoda thunk it. To revert to the basics of CHAT, the box that gets ticked has become the object rather than the tool, and it shows no sign of giving up that position. What will it take to shift it? Rob On 11/01/2019 10:57, David Kellogg wrote: > Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant > specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for > visiting the provinces. > > In contrast, Vygotsky says: > > a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and > sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex > education is not a science of a natural whole, where the object of > study is given to us. > > b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply > learning how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all > classes must have some form of sexual "enlightenment". > > c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in /Language and Literature/, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives > Show all authors > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk > > wrote: > > Fifteen hours a week??? > > I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. > > In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is > called Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit > was tacked on some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I > recall rightly. They missed a trick there - they should have put > it the other way round "Relationship and Sex Education". A very > large lump of the population go into a tabloid induced panic as > soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when related to > children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. > > Rob > > On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts >> over whether or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The >> commonplace position, taken by almost all high Vygotskyans >> including my francophone friends, is that Vygotsky spent too much >> of his life developing a theory of thinking and intellect, >> complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his attention >> to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, it >> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >> "Teaching on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps >> "The Doctrine of the Emotions"--you can read what he did in >> Volume 6 of the Collected Works). And the rest was silence. >> >> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >> works (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer >> and Irina Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which >> is a very important topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen >> hours of sex education a week mandated by the government, but the >> ministry of education has more or less withdrawn the downloadable >> materials for this, not for the usual reasons but instead because >> of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is terribly sexist, >> homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >> >> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >> enlightenment")?has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >> example the test of a good sex?enlightenment programme would be >> one that ensures equal participation of boys and girls in math >> and physics), it has to start as soon as preschoolers enter >> primary school, and it has to be INTERESTING. In other words, >> instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we have here >> in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >> of sex. >> >> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >> friends set before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a >> theory that unites passions and interests. It's like that book by >> Hirschmann on how the unity of passion and interest gave rise to >> capitalism, but instead it is all about how passions, shared >> projects, and interests give rise to sexual love, and it is more >> or less right before we would expect to find it: in the Pedology >> of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept formation, >> which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) >> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter >> on interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations >> in themselves) become interests: that is, emotions for >> themselves. (There is already a passable translation of this in >> Volume Five of the CW). The only thing is there is a need for a >> transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's idea of the Project? >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New in /Language and Literature/, co-authored with Fang Li: >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives >> Show all authors >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/e2d2c6b0/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jan 11 09:28:23 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 09:28:23 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> Message-ID: Very neat summary of the situation, Rob. Workers of different kinds, however, with all the consequences of inequality that follow. Audit culture is a nice way to describe the operation of an "efficient" neoliberal regime, the "*cutting* edge" of technology. mike On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 9:07 AM robsub@ariadne.org.uk wrote: > Fifteen hours a year sounds more reasonable :-) > > The contrast between Vygotsky, as in your summary (all that is new to me, > so thank you for that), and what actually happens, at least here, could not > be more stark. This is one of those areas where the audit culture fails us > really badly. > > Audit culture is primarily suited to turning out workers, not people or > citizens - hence relationship and sex education, among other teachable > things, doesn't feature highly. It aids the employability agenda, with its > own internal contradiction of needing workers who use their initiative to > do their jobs profitably but are otherwise wholly and uniformly compliant. > > And the actual effects may be self contradictory - I have just been > reading some research whch suggests that the people trackers Amazon uses in > its warehouse may reduce productivity. People are not automatons, whoda > thunk it. > > To revert to the basics of CHAT, the box that gets ticked has become the > object rather than the tool, and it shows no sign of giving up that > position. What will it take to shift it? > > Rob > > > On 11/01/2019 10:57, David Kellogg wrote: > > Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant > specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for > visiting the provinces. > > In contrast, Vygotsky says: > > a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and > sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex education is > not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to us. > > b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply > learning how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes > must have some form of sexual "enlightenment". > > c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > alternatives > Show all authors > > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk < > robsub@ariadne.org.uk> wrote: > >> Fifteen hours a week??? >> >> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >> >> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is called >> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked on >> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They missed >> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round "Relationship >> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a tabloid >> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when related >> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >> >> Rob >> >> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >> whether or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >> taken by almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >> that Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >> and intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, it >> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of "Teaching >> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine of >> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >> Works). And the rest was silence. >> >> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works >> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very important >> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a week >> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or less >> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual reasons >> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is terribly >> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >> >> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example the >> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures equal >> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start as >> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be INTERESTING. In >> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we have >> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal of >> sex. >> >> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends set >> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites >> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the unity >> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all >> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual >> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: in >> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) >> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in themselves) >> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already a >> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing is >> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's idea >> of the Project? >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> alternatives >> Show all authors >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/4cb74250/attachment.html From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Fri Jan 11 09:40:45 2019 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:40:45 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Also how could LSV's work with "subtexts" and Stanislavski be regarded as anything but a holistic concept of mind, body and emotions? See Susan Davis, Beth Ferholt, Hannah Grainger Clemson, Satu-Mari Jansson, Ana Marjanovic-Shane linked below. Robert Lake https://books.google.com/books?id=sfrrBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=subtext+stanislavski+vygotsky&source=bl&ots=mMVAsRYbtc&sig=jZgPvvxeC7o1CMW_7-3I8vZo3i4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjni4fcoObfAhVpneAKHViQC9AQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=subtext%20stanislavski%20vygotsky&f=false On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:47 AM mike cole wrote: > So interests are curiosity, Huw? > Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? > 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >> such as with reference to psychological functions. >> >> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >> >>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>> EDUCATIONAL >>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>> interest >>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>> too >>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>> this. >>> m >>> >>> > David, >>> > >>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a >>> > decontextualised way. >>> > >>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>> > >>> > Julie >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >>> >> visiting the provinces. >>> >> >>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>> >> >>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>> education >>> >> is >>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given >>> to >>> >> us. >>> >> >>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>> >> learning >>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >>> >> have >>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>> >> >>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >>> >> >>> >> David Kellogg >>> >> Sangmyung University >>> >> >>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >> alternatives >>> >> Show all authors >>> >> >>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>> called >>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >>> >>> on >>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >>> >>> missed >>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>> >>> "Relationship >>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>> >>> tabloid >>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>> >>> related >>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>> >>> whether >>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>> >>> taken >>> >>> by >>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >>> and >>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>> moon, >>> >>> it >>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>> >>> "Teaching >>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >>> >>> of >>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>> works >>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>> >>> important >>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >>> >>> week >>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >>> >>> less >>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>> >>> reasons >>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>> >>> terribly >>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>> >>> >>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>> example >>> >>> the >>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >>> >>> equal >>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >>> >>> as >>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>> >>> INTERESTING. >>> >>> In >>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >>> >>> have >>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >>> >>> of >>> >>> sex. >>> >>> >>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >>> >>> set >>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>> unites >>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >>> >>> unity >>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>> all >>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>> sexual >>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >>> >>> in >>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>> others) >>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>> >>> themselves) >>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>> already a >>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>> thing >>> >>> is >>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>> Andy's >>> >>> idea >>> >>> of the Project? >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> >>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >>> alternatives >>> >>> Show all authors >>> >>> >>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> > Universitat de Girona >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>> Dpt de psicologia >>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> Universitat de Girona >>> >>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>> >>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >> >> -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Professor of Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/db669af0/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Jan 11 10:58:21 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 18:58:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: I wouldn't say so, Mike. Not in the way Vygotsky attributes the term. It is one of the places where Vygotsky gets quite close, in a vague manner, to what I have called "active orientation". Only I refer to active orientation as an integral aspect of psychological development and activity, including affect. Although I have not set out to explain Vygotsky - I refer to other numerous other authors - it is possible that what I have written can be read in a manner that can help to explain vague aspects of Vygotsky, such as his reference to psychological functions, psychological systems, misinterpretations of his rationality etc. Here's the quoted translation for "interests": "Such integral dynamic tendencies that determine the structure of the direction of our reactions can justifiably be termed interests. (vol.5, p.8)" Best, Huw On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: > So interests are curiosity, Huw? > Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? > 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >> such as with reference to psychological functions. >> >> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >> >>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>> EDUCATIONAL >>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>> interest >>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>> too >>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>> this. >>> m >>> >>> > David, >>> > >>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a >>> > decontextualised way. >>> > >>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>> > >>> > Julie >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >>> >> visiting the provinces. >>> >> >>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>> >> >>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>> education >>> >> is >>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given >>> to >>> >> us. >>> >> >>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>> >> learning >>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >>> >> have >>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>> >> >>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >>> >> >>> >> David Kellogg >>> >> Sangmyung University >>> >> >>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >> alternatives >>> >> Show all authors >>> >> >>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>> called >>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >>> >>> on >>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >>> >>> missed >>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>> >>> "Relationship >>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>> >>> tabloid >>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>> >>> related >>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>> >>> whether >>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>> >>> taken >>> >>> by >>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >>> and >>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>> moon, >>> >>> it >>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>> >>> "Teaching >>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >>> >>> of >>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>> works >>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>> >>> important >>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >>> >>> week >>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >>> >>> less >>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>> >>> reasons >>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>> >>> terribly >>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>> >>> >>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>> example >>> >>> the >>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >>> >>> equal >>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >>> >>> as >>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>> >>> INTERESTING. >>> >>> In >>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >>> >>> have >>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >>> >>> of >>> >>> sex. >>> >>> >>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >>> >>> set >>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>> unites >>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >>> >>> unity >>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>> all >>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>> sexual >>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >>> >>> in >>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>> others) >>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>> >>> themselves) >>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>> already a >>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>> thing >>> >>> is >>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>> Andy's >>> >>> idea >>> >>> of the Project? >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> >>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >>> alternatives >>> >>> Show all authors >>> >>> >>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> > Universitat de Girona >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>> Dpt de psicologia >>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> Universitat de Girona >>> >>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>> >>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/59dd3e73/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Jan 11 14:00:52 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 07:00:52 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Yes, the sex bits in ?Educational Psychology? are actually more progressive than what Vygotsky writes in adolescent pedology, reflecting a time that was perhaps not a happier one but a more hopeful one (bliss it was upon that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven). So for example in Educational Psychology he takes the scientific position on ?onanism? which was being taken by people like Metchnikoff (yes, the yogurt guy, whose disciple founded Danon) and Stekel (who was a student and patient of Freud). But in Pedology of the Adolescent he takes the position of his boss, Aaron Zalkind. He argues that the scientific understandings of Metchnikoff and Stekel still have to be synthesized with the older, non-scientific understandings of the church: onanism may be harmless physiologically, but it has psychological risks (including suicide?according to Pavlov?and ?latency of world view??according to Vygotsky--because the activity of sex becomes detached from the task of reproduction). The reason why ?Pedology of the Adolescent? is more attractive for us in Korea is that we need some theory of higher emotions for very practical, teaching purposes. I think the truth is that kids in Korea are not so much being driven to suicide and latency of world view by onanism but by sheer boredom: the kind of ?audit culture? that Rob describes (internships, coding camps, qualifications without any actual knowledge) is pretty much our high school curriculum, except that it is directed not towards a real (robotic but at least lucrative) job. Instead, it's all about Judgement Day: the one-day college entrance examination. Take (please!) the K-Pop group BTS (which our president Mun Jae-in referenced in his New Years press conference as a model for the development of Korean culture!). Here?s their hit single ?No More Dreams?, from their debut album ?Too Cool for School?. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4sEu9QSnnA I think BTS puts the problem raised by Huw (and by Mike) in a very concrete (not to say danceable) way. It is also the way Vygosky is framing the problem in the section Huw is quoting. Huw would like to show us ontological and epistemological questions underlying the link between activeness and interests; my ontology (and my epistemology) is to keep things both classroom real and after-school interesting. In this case that does mean keeping pedagogical activity linked to activeness. And that?s particularly hard to do with sex education, when ?love has to wait? until you can get a job and an apartment. Fortunately, art can help. One way to look at BTS and all other K-Pop groups is that they provide a kind of fast food menu of "types" for adolescents to choose from--BTS is a kind of sexual version of the Lotteria drive-through fast food menu for teenage girls (the name "Lotteria", which is the Korean equivalent of McDonald's or Burger King, comes from Goethe's heroine Charlotte in "Sorrows of Young Werther"....) Mike points out (quite rightly) that emotion is right there in Psych of Art, in the form of Vygotsky?s polemic against Bukharin?s conceptualization of art as a form of emotional agitation (Vygotsky reverses it and says it?s not the tool of the individual agitator but the social tool of emotion). If we experience "No More Dream" that way, we see that it is not taking a position against learning or against development but trying, in its inarticulate way, to express the inadequacy of learning and development detached from long-term interests (as it must be in Korea). The problem is that the form they have chosen for this message (or at least the form that they chose before they were snatched up by Hyundai cars and Coca-cola) is the Psychology of Art form?emotion as an aesthetic reaction rather than as a higher interest. That's what Vygotsky attacks in the section that Huw quotes (he is actually arguing that the Gestaltist definition of emotion is inadequate, because doesn't distinguish between instincts, habits, and higher forms of emotion like creativity and free will). So too with Vygotsky?s analysis of Stanislavsky. It just doesn?t go far enough, Rob. It?s not enough to say that an actor has to say one thing and mean another, or even say one thing and feel another. It?s not enough to say that an actor has to be able to strip off the literal meaning of the text and show the subtext. You have to be able to show that beneath that subtext of meaning, there is some other subtext of sub-meaning, and yet another beneath that. And in order to do that you will need not simply a psychology but a linguistics. You remember I tried to provide this in the book I did for you, by showing how a text had at least three subtexts, an interpersonal one articulated through intonation, an ideational one articulated through vocabulary and a textual one articulated through grammar. Take, for example, ?No More Dream?. In order to decide whether the song is anti-learning/anti-develoment (?too cool for school?) or simply trying to articulate a particular aesthetic reaction (?you know you feel this way too, even if you are afraid to say it as we do?) it is not enough to have the ideational meaning of the words: you also need the interpersonal meaning?you need to know who the kids are talking to?their teachers, their parents, or other kids like them. In some ways, the official music video makes this much clearer than the words do, not so much because we have the context of situation (this is actually pretty vague!) but because we have the gestures and facial expressions that go with the intonations (which, because of the meter and stress of rap music, is actually not that helpful here). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX9yD6XeMw4 David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives Show all authors https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 4:00 AM Huw Lloyd wrote: > I wouldn't say so, Mike. Not in the way Vygotsky attributes the term. It > is one of the places where Vygotsky gets quite close, in a vague manner, to > what I have called "active orientation". Only I refer to active orientation > as an integral aspect of psychological development and activity, including > affect. Although I have not set out to explain Vygotsky - I refer to other > numerous other authors - it is possible that what I have written can be > read in a manner that can help to explain vague aspects of Vygotsky, such > as his reference to psychological functions, psychological systems, > misinterpretations of his rationality etc. > > Here's the quoted translation for "interests": > > "Such integral dynamic tendencies that determine the structure of the > direction of our reactions can justifiably be termed interests. (vol.5, > p.8)" > > Best, > Huw > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: > >> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? >> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>> >>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>> interest >>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>>> too >>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>>> this. >>>> m >>>> >>>> > David, >>>> > >>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in >>>> a >>>> > decontextualised way. >>>> > >>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>> > >>>> > Julie >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus >>>> for >>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>> >> >>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>> >> >>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>> education >>>> >> is >>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given >>>> to >>>> >> us. >>>> >> >>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>> >> learning >>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >>>> >> have >>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>> >> >>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >>>> >> >>>> >> David Kellogg >>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>> >> >>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>> >> alternatives >>>> >> Show all authors >>>> >> >>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>> >> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>> called >>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>> tacked >>>> >>> on >>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >>>> >>> missed >>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>> >>> "Relationship >>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>> >>> tabloid >>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>>> >>> related >>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Rob >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>>> >>> whether >>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>>> >>> taken >>>> >>> by >>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>> that >>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >>>> and >>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>>> moon, >>>> >>> it >>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>> >>> "Teaching >>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>> Doctrine >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>> works >>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>> >>> important >>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education >>>> a >>>> >>> week >>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more >>>> or >>>> >>> less >>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>> >>> reasons >>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>> >>> terribly >>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>> example >>>> >>> the >>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >>>> >>> equal >>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>> start >>>> >>> as >>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>> >>> In >>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >>>> >>> have >>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>> deal >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> sex. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >>>> >>> set >>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>> unites >>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >>>> >>> unity >>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>>> all >>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>> sexual >>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find >>>> it: >>>> >>> in >>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>> others) >>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>> >>> themselves) >>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>> already a >>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>> thing >>>> >>> is >>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>> Andy's >>>> >>> idea >>>> >>> of the Project? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>> >>> >>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>> >>> alternatives >>>> >>> Show all authors >>>> >>> >>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>> Universitat de Girona >>>> >>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>> >>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/41ee03f5/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Fri Jan 11 15:54:46 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 23:54:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational and textual). James *_______________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar * *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: > So interests are curiosity, Huw? > Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? > 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >> such as with reference to psychological functions. >> >> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >> >>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>> EDUCATIONAL >>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>> interest >>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>> too >>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>> this. >>> m >>> >>> > David, >>> > >>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a >>> > decontextualised way. >>> > >>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>> > >>> > Julie >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >>> >> visiting the provinces. >>> >> >>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>> >> >>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>> education >>> >> is >>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given >>> to >>> >> us. >>> >> >>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>> >> learning >>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >>> >> have >>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>> >> >>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >>> >> >>> >> David Kellogg >>> >> Sangmyung University >>> >> >>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >> alternatives >>> >> Show all authors >>> >> >>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>> called >>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >>> >>> on >>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >>> >>> missed >>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>> >>> "Relationship >>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>> >>> tabloid >>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>> >>> related >>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>> >>> whether >>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>> >>> taken >>> >>> by >>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >>> and >>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>> moon, >>> >>> it >>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>> >>> "Teaching >>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >>> >>> of >>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>> works >>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>> >>> important >>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >>> >>> week >>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >>> >>> less >>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>> >>> reasons >>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>> >>> terribly >>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>> >>> >>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>> example >>> >>> the >>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >>> >>> equal >>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >>> >>> as >>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>> >>> INTERESTING. >>> >>> In >>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >>> >>> have >>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >>> >>> of >>> >>> sex. >>> >>> >>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >>> >>> set >>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>> unites >>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >>> >>> unity >>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>> all >>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>> sexual >>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >>> >>> in >>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>> others) >>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>> >>> themselves) >>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>> already a >>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>> thing >>> >>> is >>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>> Andy's >>> >>> idea >>> >>> of the Project? >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> >>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >>> alternatives >>> >>> Show all authors >>> >>> >>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> > Universitat de Girona >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>> Dpt de psicologia >>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> Universitat de Girona >>> >>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>> >>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/6ce83f1d/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jan 11 16:33:11 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:33:11 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point of.view? A subjtive object? Mike On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: > Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a > subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't > recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. > To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in > linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source > of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without > saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being > interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one > person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's > viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense > perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational > and textual). > > James > > *_______________________________________________________* > > *James Ma Independent Scholar * > *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: > >> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? >> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>> >>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>> interest >>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>>> too >>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>>> this. >>>> m >>>> >>>> > David, >>>> > >>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in >>>> a >>>> > decontextualised way. >>>> > >>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>> > >>>> > Julie >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus >>>> for >>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>> >> >>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>> >> >>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>> education >>>> >> is >>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given >>>> to >>>> >> us. >>>> >> >>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>> >> learning >>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >>>> >> have >>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>> >> >>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >>>> >> >>>> >> David Kellogg >>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>> >> >>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>> >> alternatives >>>> >> Show all authors >>>> >> >>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>> >> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>> called >>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>> tacked >>>> >>> on >>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >>>> >>> missed >>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>> >>> "Relationship >>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>> >>> tabloid >>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>>> >>> related >>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Rob >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>>> >>> whether >>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>>> >>> taken >>>> >>> by >>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>> that >>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >>>> and >>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>>> moon, >>>> >>> it >>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>> >>> "Teaching >>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>> Doctrine >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>> works >>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>> >>> important >>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education >>>> a >>>> >>> week >>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more >>>> or >>>> >>> less >>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>> >>> reasons >>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>> >>> terribly >>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>> example >>>> >>> the >>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >>>> >>> equal >>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>> start >>>> >>> as >>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>> >>> In >>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >>>> >>> have >>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>> deal >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> sex. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >>>> >>> set >>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>> unites >>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >>>> >>> unity >>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>>> all >>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>> sexual >>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find >>>> it: >>>> >>> in >>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>> others) >>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>> >>> themselves) >>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>> already a >>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>> thing >>>> >>> is >>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>> Andy's >>>> >>> idea >>>> >>> of the Project? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>> >>> >>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>> >>> alternatives >>>> >>> Show all authors >>>> >>> >>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>> Universitat de Girona >>>> >>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>> >>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/854d0abc/attachment.html From ewall@umich.edu Fri Jan 11 19:15:01 2019 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:15:01 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: A few thoughts come to mind. For example. (1) are interests always affective and (2) it would seem that disinterests also accompany point of views. Ed > On Jan 11, 2019, at 6:33 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point of.view? A subjtive object? > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma > wrote: > Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. > To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational and textual). > > James > _______________________________________________________ > > James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole > wrote: > So interests are curiosity, Huw? > Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? > 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, such as with reference to psychological functions. > > I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart > wrote: > That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read EDUCATIONAL > PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new interest > ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that > it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document > attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex too > ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore > this. > m > > > David, > > > > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' > > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be > > introduced from and in relation to the students' current > > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a > > decontextualised way. > > > > At least I think that's what's going on here... > > > > Julie > > > > > > > > > >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant > >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for > >> visiting the provinces. > >> > >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: > >> > >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and > >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex education > >> is > >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to > >> us. > >> > >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply > >> learning > >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must > >> have > >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". > >> > >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Sangmyung University > >> > >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > >> alternatives > >> Show all authors > >> > >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Fifteen hours a week??? > >>> > >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. > >>> > >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is called > >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked > >>> on > >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They > >>> missed > >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round > >>> "Relationship > >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a > >>> tabloid > >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when > >>> related > >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. > >>> > >>> Rob > >>> > >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: > >>> > >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over > >>> whether > >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, > >>> taken > >>> by > >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that > >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking and > >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his > >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, > >>> it > >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of > >>> "Teaching > >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine > >>> of > >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected > >>> Works). And the rest was silence. > >>> > >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works > >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina > >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very > >>> important > >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a > >>> week > >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or > >>> less > >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual > >>> reasons > >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is > >>> terribly > >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). > >>> > >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual > >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example > >>> the > >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures > >>> equal > >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start > >>> as > >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be > >>> INTERESTING. > >>> In > >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we > >>> have > >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal > >>> of > >>> sex. > >>> > >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends > >>> set > >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites > >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the > >>> unity > >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all > >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual > >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: > >>> in > >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept > >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) > >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on > >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in > >>> themselves) > >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already a > >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing > >>> is > >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's > >>> idea > >>> of the Project? > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Sangmyung University > >>> > >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > >>> alternatives > >>> Show all authors > >>> > >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > Dra. Julie Waddington > > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques > > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > > Universitat de Girona > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mois?s Esteban Guitart > Dpt de psicologia > Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > Universitat de Girona > > Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) > https://culturaieducacio.cat > > Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en > Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/d52057af/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Jan 11 20:15:11 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 20:15:11 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Seems like yes is the answer to both your questions, Ed. mike On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Wall wrote: > A few thoughts come to mind. For example. (1) are interests always > affective and (2) it would seem that disinterests also accompany point of > views. > > Ed > > > On Jan 11, 2019, at 6:33 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point > of.view? A subjtive object? > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: > >> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a >> subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't >> recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in >> linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source >> of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without >> saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being >> interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one >> person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's >> viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense >> perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational >> and textual). >> >> James >> >> *_______________________________________________________* >> >> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: >> >>> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >>> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? >>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >>> Mike >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>>> >>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>>> interest >>>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was >>>>> that >>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>>>> too >>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>>>> this. >>>>> m >>>>> >>>>> > David, >>>>> > >>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed >>>>> in a >>>>> > decontextualised way. >>>>> > >>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>>> > >>>>> > Julie >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has >>>>> itinerant >>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus >>>>> for >>>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>>> education >>>>> >> is >>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is >>>>> given to >>>>> >> us. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>>> >> learning >>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes >>>>> must >>>>> >> have >>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>>> >> >>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is >>>>> interest? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> David Kellogg >>>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>>> >> >>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>> >> alternatives >>>>> >> Show all authors >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>> >> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>>> called >>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>>> tacked >>>>> >>> on >>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. >>>>> They >>>>> >>> missed >>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>>> >>> "Relationship >>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>>> >>> tabloid >>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>>>> >>> related >>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Rob >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>>>> >>> whether >>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>>>> >>> taken >>>>> >>> by >>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>>> that >>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of >>>>> thinking and >>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>>>> moon, >>>>> >>> it >>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>>> >>> "Teaching >>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>>> Doctrine >>>>> >>> of >>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the >>>>> Collected >>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>>> works >>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>>> >>> important >>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex >>>>> education a >>>>> >>> week >>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more >>>>> or >>>>> >>> less >>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>>> >>> reasons >>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>>> >>> terribly >>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>>> example >>>>> >>> the >>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that >>>>> ensures >>>>> >>> equal >>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>>> start >>>>> >>> as >>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>>> >>> In >>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme >>>>> we >>>>> >>> have >>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>>> deal >>>>> >>> of >>>>> >>> sex. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >>>>> friends >>>>> >>> set >>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>>> unites >>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how >>>>> the >>>>> >>> unity >>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>>>> all >>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>>> sexual >>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find >>>>> it: >>>>> >>> in >>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>>> others) >>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>>> >>> themselves) >>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>>> already a >>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>>> thing >>>>> >>> is >>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>>> Andy's >>>>> >>> idea >>>>> >>> of the Project? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>> >>> alternatives >>>>> >>> Show all authors >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>> Universitat de Girona >>>>> >>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>>> >>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari >>>>> en >>>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>>> >>>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/ffbc16a2/attachment.html From ewall@umich.edu Fri Jan 11 21:10:16 2019 From: ewall@umich.edu (Edward Wall) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 23:10:16 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Mike So a third question. Are interests always accompanied by a point of view? I am asking all this because there is so much talk about making this or that interesting and so little talk about ?viewing? or, one, might say, 'point of viewing' (smile). Ed > On Jan 11, 2019, at 10:15 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Seems like yes is the answer to both your questions, Ed. > mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Wall > wrote: > A few thoughts come to mind. For example. (1) are interests always affective and (2) it would seem that disinterests also accompany point of views. > > Ed > > >> On Jan 11, 2019, at 6:33 PM, mike cole > wrote: >> >> Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point of.view? A subjtive object? >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma > wrote: >> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational and textual). >> >> James >> _______________________________________________________ >> >> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole > wrote: >> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? >> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: >> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, such as with reference to psychological functions. >> >> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart > wrote: >> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read EDUCATIONAL >> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new interest >> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex too >> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >> this. >> m >> >> > David, >> > >> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a >> > decontextualised way. >> > >> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >> > >> > Julie >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >> >> visiting the provinces. >> >> >> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >> >> >> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex education >> >> is >> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to >> >> us. >> >> >> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >> >> learning >> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >> >> have >> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >> >> >> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Sangmyung University >> >> >> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> >> alternatives >> >> Show all authors >> >> >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >> >>> >> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >> >>> >> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is called >> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >> >>> on >> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >> >>> missed >> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >> >>> "Relationship >> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >> >>> tabloid >> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >> >>> related >> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >> >>> >> >>> Rob >> >>> >> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >> >>> whether >> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >> >>> taken >> >>> by >> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking and >> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the moon, >> >>> it >> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >> >>> "Teaching >> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >> >>> of >> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >> >>> >> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works >> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >> >>> important >> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >> >>> week >> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >> >>> less >> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >> >>> reasons >> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >> >>> terribly >> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >> >>> >> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example >> >>> the >> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >> >>> equal >> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >> >>> as >> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >> >>> INTERESTING. >> >>> In >> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >> >>> have >> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >> >>> of >> >>> sex. >> >>> >> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >> >>> set >> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites >> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >> >>> unity >> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all >> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual >> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >> >>> in >> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) >> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >> >>> themselves) >> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already a >> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing >> >>> is >> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's >> >>> idea >> >>> of the Project? >> >>> >> >>> David Kellogg >> >>> Sangmyung University >> >>> >> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> >>> alternatives >> >>> Show all authors >> >>> >> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > Dra. Julie Waddington >> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >> > Universitat de Girona >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >> Dpt de psicologia >> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >> Universitat de Girona >> >> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >> https://culturaieducacio.cat >> >> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190111/8d5281bd/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 01:58:41 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:58:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Hi Huw, I agree with you very much. What's behind one's interest is by all means an ontological and epistemological stance as a driving force to deal with what there is to appeal to one and how one might go about pursuing it. Above all, one has an axiological positioning that is meshed with his/her ontological and epistemological stance. James On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:58, Huw Lloyd wrote: > For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that > Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the > essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon > developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being > explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a > certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, > but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, > such as with reference to psychological functions. > > I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to > compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology > (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < > moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: > >> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read EDUCATIONAL >> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new interest >> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex too >> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >> this. >> m >> >> > David, >> > >> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a >> > decontextualised way. >> > >> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >> > >> > Julie >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >> >> visiting the provinces. >> >> >> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >> >> >> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >> education >> >> is >> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given to >> >> us. >> >> >> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >> >> learning >> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >> >> have >> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >> >> >> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Sangmyung University >> >> >> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> >> alternatives >> >> Show all authors >> >> >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >> >>> >> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >> >>> >> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >> called >> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >> >>> on >> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >> >>> missed >> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >> >>> "Relationship >> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >> >>> tabloid >> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >> >>> related >> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >> >>> >> >>> Rob >> >>> >> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >> >>> whether >> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >> >>> taken >> >>> by >> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >> and >> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >> moon, >> >>> it >> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >> >>> "Teaching >> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >> >>> of >> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >> >>> >> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's works >> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >> >>> important >> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >> >>> week >> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >> >>> less >> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >> >>> reasons >> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >> >>> terribly >> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >> >>> >> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for example >> >>> the >> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >> >>> equal >> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >> >>> as >> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >> >>> INTERESTING. >> >>> In >> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >> >>> have >> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >> >>> of >> >>> sex. >> >>> >> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >> >>> set >> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that unites >> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >> >>> unity >> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is all >> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to sexual >> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >> >>> in >> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for others) >> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >> >>> themselves) >> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is already >> a >> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only thing >> >>> is >> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. Andy's >> >>> idea >> >>> of the Project? >> >>> >> >>> David Kellogg >> >>> Sangmyung University >> >>> >> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> >>> alternatives >> >>> Show all authors >> >>> >> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > Dra. Julie Waddington >> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >> > Universitat de Girona >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >> Dpt de psicologia >> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >> Universitat de Girona >> >> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >> https://culturaieducacio.cat >> >> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/e0382d99/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Jan 12 02:17:26 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 21:17:26 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: So we have axiological, ontological, epistemological and motivational angles to line up. Amazing people ever get to do anything by the time they figure that all out. :) How would you go about conceiving of human life holistically, rather than a sum of all these abstractions? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/01/2019 8:58 pm, James Ma wrote: > Hi Huw, I agree with you very much.?What's behind?one's > interest is?by all means?an ontological and > epistemological?stance?as?a driving force to deal with > what?there is to appeal to one and how one might go about > pursuing?it. Above all, one has?an?axiological positioning > that is meshed with?his/her ontological and > epistemological?stance. > James > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:58, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he > recognises that Lewin's structural theory is > inadequate with regard to discerning the essence of > interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon > developmental patterns of interests, and he does not > get around to being explicit about what is behind > interest -- what is really driving it. To a certain > extent this is answered with the social situation of > development, but unless one reads between the lines > there is a great deal of vagueness, such as with > reference to psychological functions. > > I have a rather large theoretical paper I am > completing on this to compliment some empirical work. > What I state is that it is epistemology (and ontology) > that is the interest behind interest. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart > > wrote: > > That's an interesting question that I asked myself > when I read EDUCATIONAL > PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the > child?s to a new interest > ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). > My conclusion was that > it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 > to 396 document > attached). By the way, in his "Educational > Psychology" he wrote on sex too > ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), > however I didn't explore > this. > m > > > David, > > > > I would imagine the reference to interest > relates to the STUDENTS' > > interest: meaning that whatever way it is > approached it needs to be > > introduced from and in relation to the students' > current > > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as > opposed to being imposed in a > > decontextualised way. > > > > At least I think that's what's going on here... > > > > Julie > > > > > > > > > >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The > government has itinerant > >> specialists who lecture from school to school. > There is even a bus for > >> visiting the provinces. > >> > >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: > >> > >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since > anatomical, sexual, and > >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in > modern humans, sex education > >> is > >> not a science of a natural whole, where the > object of study is given to > >> us. > >> > >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex > education is simply > >> learning > >> how to be with people who may be of sexual > interest, all classes must > >> have > >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". > >> > >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, > exactly, is interest? > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Sangmyung University > >> > >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored > with Fang Li: > >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and > Woolf?s > >> alternatives > >> Show all authors > >> > >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM > robsub@ariadne.org.uk > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Fifteen hours a week??? > >>> > >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers > would be exhausted. > >>> > >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing > we do in schools is called > >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and > Relationship" bit was tacked > >>> on > >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if > I recall rightly. They > >>> missed > >>> a trick there - they should have put it the > other way round > >>> "Relationship > >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the > population go into a > >>> tabloid > >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word > "sex", especially when > >>> related > >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and > relationship" it. > >>> > >>> Rob > >>> > >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: > >>> > >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a > tiff with my hosts over > >>> whether > >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The > commonplace position, > >>> taken > >>> by > >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my > francophone friends, is that > >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing > a theory of thinking and > >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, > and when he turned his > >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, > that dark side of the moon, > >>> it > >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of > prolegomena, in the form of > >>> "Teaching > >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" > or perhaps "The Doctrine > >>> of > >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in > Volume 6 of the Collected > >>> Works). And the rest was silence. > >>> > >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth > volume of Vygotsky's works > >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee > Van der Veer and Irina > >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex > education, which is a very > >>> important > >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen > hours of sex education a > >>> week > >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry > of education has more or > >>> less > >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, > not for the usual > >>> reasons > >>> but instead because of criticism from Human > Rights Watch (it is > >>> terribly > >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). > >>> > >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he > calls "sexual > >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL > subjects (so for example > >>> the > >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme > would be one that ensures > >>> equal > >>> participation of boys and girls in math and > physics), it has to start > >>> as > >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and > it has to be > >>> INTERESTING. > >>> In > >>> other words, instead of the "sex education > without sex" programme we > >>> have > >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex > education...but with a good deal > >>> of > >>> sex. > >>> > >>> All of which has got me thinking about the > problem my Geneva friends > >>> set > >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES > have a theory that unites > >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by > Hirschmann on how the > >>> unity > >>> of passion and interest gave rise to > capitalism, but instead it is all > >>> about how passions, shared projects, and > interests give rise to sexual > >>> love, and it is more or less right before we > would expect to find it: > >>> in > >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before > the chapter on concept > >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which > are categories for others) > >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). > This is the chapter on > >>> interests, which explains how passions (which > are sensations in > >>> themselves) > >>> become interests: that is, emotions for > themselves. (There is already a > >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of > the CW). The only thing > >>> is > >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a > feeling with others. Andy's > >>> idea > >>> of the Project? > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Sangmyung University > >>> > >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored > with Fang Li: > >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and > Woolf?s > >>> alternatives > >>> Show all authors > >>> > >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > Dra. Julie Waddington > > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques > > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > > Universitat de Girona > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mois?s Esteban Guitart > Dpt de psicologia > Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > Universitat de Girona > > Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) > https://culturaieducacio.cat > > Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del > Postgrau Interuniversitari en > Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE > http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/88da6f47/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 02:28:53 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 10:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: It has to be abstractions, Andy. Human understanding is by nature abstraction from experience. James On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:20, Andy Blunden wrote: > So we have axiological, ontological, epistemological and motivational > angles to line up. Amazing people ever get to do anything by the time they > figure that all out. :) > > How would you go about conceiving of human life holistically, rather than > a sum of all these abstractions? > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/01/2019 8:58 pm, James Ma wrote: > > Hi Huw, I agree with you very much. What's behind one's interest is by all > means an ontological and epistemological stance as a driving force to deal > with what there is to appeal to one and how one might go about pursuing it. > Above all, one has an axiological positioning that is meshed with his/her > ontological and epistemological stance. > James > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:58, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >> such as with reference to psychological functions. >> >> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >> >>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>> EDUCATIONAL >>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>> interest >>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>> too >>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>> this. >>> m >>> >>> > David, >>> > >>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a >>> > decontextualised way. >>> > >>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>> > >>> > Julie >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >>> >> visiting the provinces. >>> >> >>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>> >> >>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>> education >>> >> is >>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given >>> to >>> >> us. >>> >> >>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>> >> learning >>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >>> >> have >>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>> >> >>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >>> >> >>> >> David Kellogg >>> >> Sangmyung University >>> >> >>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >> alternatives >>> >> Show all authors >>> >> >>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>> called >>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >>> >>> on >>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >>> >>> missed >>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>> >>> "Relationship >>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>> >>> tabloid >>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>> >>> related >>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>> >>> whether >>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>> >>> taken >>> >>> by >>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >>> and >>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>> moon, >>> >>> it >>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>> >>> "Teaching >>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >>> >>> of >>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>> works >>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>> >>> important >>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >>> >>> week >>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >>> >>> less >>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>> >>> reasons >>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>> >>> terribly >>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>> >>> >>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>> example >>> >>> the >>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >>> >>> equal >>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >>> >>> as >>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>> >>> INTERESTING. >>> >>> In >>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >>> >>> have >>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >>> >>> of >>> >>> sex. >>> >>> >>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >>> >>> set >>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>> unites >>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >>> >>> unity >>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>> all >>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>> sexual >>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >>> >>> in >>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>> others) >>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>> >>> themselves) >>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>> already a >>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>> thing >>> >>> is >>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>> Andy's >>> >>> idea >>> >>> of the Project? >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> >>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >>> alternatives >>> >>> Show all authors >>> >>> >>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> > Universitat de Girona >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>> Dpt de psicologia >>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> Universitat de Girona >>> >>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>> >>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/0ed76d53/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 03:01:44 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:01:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Yes Mike, a subjective object. Any point of view by a viewer is subjective since the viewing is completed through the medium of the viewer himself. Should there be one point of view that is objective, it must be a view from nowhere. I remember being fascinated by Thomas Nagel when I first encountered his book "The View from Nowhere" a long time ago - it was an eye-opener and a mind-liberator! James On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 00:36, mike cole wrote: > Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point > of.view? A subjtive object? > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: > >> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a >> subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't >> recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in >> linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source >> of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without >> saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being >> interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one >> person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's >> viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense >> perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational >> and textual). >> >> James >> >> *_______________________________________________________* >> >> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: >> >>> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >>> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? >>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >>> Mike >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>>> >>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>>> interest >>>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was >>>>> that >>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>>>> too >>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>>>> this. >>>>> m >>>>> >>>>> > David, >>>>> > >>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed >>>>> in a >>>>> > decontextualised way. >>>>> > >>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>>> > >>>>> > Julie >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has >>>>> itinerant >>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus >>>>> for >>>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>>> education >>>>> >> is >>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is >>>>> given to >>>>> >> us. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>>> >> learning >>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes >>>>> must >>>>> >> have >>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>>> >> >>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is >>>>> interest? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> David Kellogg >>>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>>> >> >>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>> >> alternatives >>>>> >> Show all authors >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>> >> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>>> called >>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>>> tacked >>>>> >>> on >>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. >>>>> They >>>>> >>> missed >>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>>> >>> "Relationship >>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>>> >>> tabloid >>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>>>> >>> related >>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Rob >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>>>> >>> whether >>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>>>> >>> taken >>>>> >>> by >>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>>> that >>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of >>>>> thinking and >>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>>>> moon, >>>>> >>> it >>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>>> >>> "Teaching >>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>>> Doctrine >>>>> >>> of >>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the >>>>> Collected >>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>>> works >>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>>> >>> important >>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex >>>>> education a >>>>> >>> week >>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more >>>>> or >>>>> >>> less >>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>>> >>> reasons >>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>>> >>> terribly >>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>>> example >>>>> >>> the >>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that >>>>> ensures >>>>> >>> equal >>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>>> start >>>>> >>> as >>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>>> >>> In >>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme >>>>> we >>>>> >>> have >>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>>> deal >>>>> >>> of >>>>> >>> sex. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >>>>> friends >>>>> >>> set >>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>>> unites >>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how >>>>> the >>>>> >>> unity >>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>>>> all >>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>>> sexual >>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find >>>>> it: >>>>> >>> in >>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>>> others) >>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>>> >>> themselves) >>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>>> already a >>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>>> thing >>>>> >>> is >>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>>> Andy's >>>>> >>> idea >>>>> >>> of the Project? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>> >>> alternatives >>>>> >>> Show all authors >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>> Universitat de Girona >>>>> >>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>>> >>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari >>>>> en >>>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/818799ea/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 03:41:51 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:41:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: PS: Andy, this experience should include other people's experience as well since life is too short. I think Saussure ad Vygotsky would agree. :) James On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:28, James Ma wrote: > It has to be abstractions, Andy. Human understanding is by nature > abstraction from experience. James > > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:20, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> So we have axiological, ontological, epistemological and motivational >> angles to line up. Amazing people ever get to do anything by the time they >> figure that all out. :) >> >> How would you go about conceiving of human life holistically, rather than >> a sum of all these abstractions? >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 12/01/2019 8:58 pm, James Ma wrote: >> >> Hi Huw, I agree with you very much. What's behind one's interest is by >> all means an ontological and epistemological stance as a driving force to >> deal with what there is to appeal to one and how one might go about >> pursuing it. Above all, one has an axiological positioning that is meshed >> with his/her ontological and epistemological stance. >> James >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:58, Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>> >>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/3bfe1a00/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Jan 12 04:30:07 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:30:07 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: <61d60a57-8264-e0bf-d0c2-40483adec39a@marxists.org> I can see that "Human understanding is by nature abstraction from experience," but if you say that "this experience?should include?other people's experience," then that is /really/ making abstractions your starting point. What do you know of someone else's experience? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/01/2019 10:41 pm, James Ma wrote: > PS: Andy, this experience?should include?other people's > experience as well since life is too short. I > think?Saussure ad Vygotsky would agree. :) > James > > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:28, James Ma > > wrote: > > It has?to be abstractions, Andy. Human understanding > is by nature abstraction from experience. James > > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:20, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > So we have axiological, ontological, > epistemological and motivational angles to line > up. Amazing people ever get to do anything by the > time they figure that all out. :) > > How would you go about conceiving of human life > holistically, rather than a sum of all these > abstractions? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/01/2019 8:58 pm, James Ma wrote: >> Hi Huw, I agree with you very much.?What's >> behind?one's interest is?by all means?an >> ontological and epistemological?stance?as?a >> driving force to deal with what?there is to >> appeal to one and how one might go about >> pursuing?it. Above all, one has?an?axiological >> positioning that is meshed with?his/her >> ontological and epistemological?stance. >> James >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:58, Huw Lloyd >> > > wrote: >> >> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions.? >> Although he recognises that Lewin's >> structural theory is inadequate with regard >> to discerning the essence of interests, his >> own writings in that chapter focus upon >> developmental patterns of interests, and he >> does not get around to being explicit about >> what is behind interest -- what is really >> driving it. To a certain extent this is >> answered with the social situation of >> development, but unless one reads between the >> lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >> such as with reference to psychological >> functions. >> >> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am >> completing on this to compliment some >> empirical work. What I state is that it is >> epistemology (and ontology) that is the >> interest behind interest. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/91104e74/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 08:45:57 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:45:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Vygotsky likens them to temporary needs. Huw On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 00:36, mike cole wrote: > Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point > of.view? A subjtive object? > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: > >> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a >> subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't >> recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in >> linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source >> of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without >> saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being >> interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one >> person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's >> viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense >> perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational >> and textual). >> >> James >> >> *_______________________________________________________* >> >> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: >> >>> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >>> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? >>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >>> Mike >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>>> >>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>>> interest >>>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was >>>>> that >>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>>>> too >>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>>>> this. >>>>> m >>>>> >>>>> > David, >>>>> > >>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed >>>>> in a >>>>> > decontextualised way. >>>>> > >>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>>> > >>>>> > Julie >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has >>>>> itinerant >>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus >>>>> for >>>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>>> education >>>>> >> is >>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is >>>>> given to >>>>> >> us. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>>> >> learning >>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes >>>>> must >>>>> >> have >>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>>> >> >>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is >>>>> interest? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> David Kellogg >>>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>>> >> >>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>> >> alternatives >>>>> >> Show all authors >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>> >> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>>> called >>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>>> tacked >>>>> >>> on >>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. >>>>> They >>>>> >>> missed >>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>>> >>> "Relationship >>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>>> >>> tabloid >>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>>>> >>> related >>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Rob >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>>>> >>> whether >>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>>>> >>> taken >>>>> >>> by >>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>>> that >>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of >>>>> thinking and >>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>>>> moon, >>>>> >>> it >>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>>> >>> "Teaching >>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>>> Doctrine >>>>> >>> of >>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the >>>>> Collected >>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>>> works >>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>>> >>> important >>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex >>>>> education a >>>>> >>> week >>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more >>>>> or >>>>> >>> less >>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>>> >>> reasons >>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>>> >>> terribly >>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>>> example >>>>> >>> the >>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that >>>>> ensures >>>>> >>> equal >>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>>> start >>>>> >>> as >>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>>> >>> In >>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme >>>>> we >>>>> >>> have >>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>>> deal >>>>> >>> of >>>>> >>> sex. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >>>>> friends >>>>> >>> set >>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>>> unites >>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how >>>>> the >>>>> >>> unity >>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>>>> all >>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>>> sexual >>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find >>>>> it: >>>>> >>> in >>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>>> others) >>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>>> >>> themselves) >>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>>> already a >>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>>> thing >>>>> >>> is >>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>>> Andy's >>>>> >>> idea >>>>> >>> of the Project? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>> >>> alternatives >>>>> >>> Show all authors >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>> Universitat de Girona >>>>> >>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>>> >>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari >>>>> en >>>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/39e48424/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 08:48:12 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:48:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: They are from my position, Ed, which is a perspective-based theory of cognitive development. Huw On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 05:13, Edward Wall wrote: > Mike > > So a third question. Are interests always accompanied by a point of > view? > > I am asking all this because there is so much talk about making this > or that interesting and so little talk about ?viewing? or, one, might say, > 'point of viewing' (smile). > > Ed > > > On Jan 11, 2019, at 10:15 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Seems like yes is the answer to both your questions, Ed. > mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Wall wrote: > >> A few thoughts come to mind. For example. (1) are interests always >> affective and (2) it would seem that disinterests also accompany point of >> views. >> >> Ed >> >> >> On Jan 11, 2019, at 6:33 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point >> of.view? A subjtive object? >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: >> >>> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a >>> subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't >>> recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >>> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in >>> linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source >>> of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without >>> saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being >>> interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one >>> person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's >>> viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense >>> perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational >>> and textual). >>> >>> James >>> >>> *_______________________________________________________* >>> >>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>> * >>> >>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >>>> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? >>>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>>>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>>>> >>>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Huw >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>>>> interest >>>>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was >>>>>> that >>>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on >>>>>> sex too >>>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>>>>> this. >>>>>> m >>>>>> >>>>>> > David, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed >>>>>> in a >>>>>> > decontextualised way. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Julie >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has >>>>>> itinerant >>>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus >>>>>> for >>>>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>>>> education >>>>>> >> is >>>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is >>>>>> given to >>>>>> >> us. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>>>> >> learning >>>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes >>>>>> must >>>>>> >> have >>>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is >>>>>> interest? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> David Kellogg >>>>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>> >> alternatives >>>>>> >> Show all authors >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>>>> called >>>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>>>> tacked >>>>>> >>> on >>>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. >>>>>> They >>>>>> >>> missed >>>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>>>> >>> "Relationship >>>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>>>> >>> tabloid >>>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>>>>> >>> related >>>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Rob >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>>>>> >>> whether >>>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>>>>> >>> taken >>>>>> >>> by >>>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of >>>>>> thinking and >>>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>>>>> moon, >>>>>> >>> it >>>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>>>> >>> "Teaching >>>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>>>> Doctrine >>>>>> >>> of >>>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the >>>>>> Collected >>>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>>>> works >>>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>>>> >>> important >>>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex >>>>>> education a >>>>>> >>> week >>>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has >>>>>> more or >>>>>> >>> less >>>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>>>> >>> reasons >>>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>>>> >>> terribly >>>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>>>> example >>>>>> >>> the >>>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that >>>>>> ensures >>>>>> >>> equal >>>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>>>> start >>>>>> >>> as >>>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>>>> >>> In >>>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>> have >>>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>>>> deal >>>>>> >>> of >>>>>> >>> sex. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >>>>>> friends >>>>>> >>> set >>>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>>>> unites >>>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>> unity >>>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it >>>>>> is all >>>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>>>> sexual >>>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find >>>>>> it: >>>>>> >>> in >>>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on >>>>>> concept >>>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>>>> others) >>>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter >>>>>> on >>>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>>>> >>> themselves) >>>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>>>> already a >>>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>>>> thing >>>>>> >>> is >>>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>>>> Andy's >>>>>> >>> idea >>>>>> >>> of the Project? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>> >>> alternatives >>>>>> >>> Show all authors >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>> Universitat de Girona >>>>>> >>>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>>>> >>>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari >>>>>> en >>>>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>>>> >>>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/592e5873/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 08:55:15 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:55:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: They are systemic and integral, hence nothing necessarily overt is required. I try to present what I have as integral, which results in quite a large closely-knit document., even when it is treated as secondary to several other reference documents. Huw On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 10:20, Andy Blunden wrote: > So we have axiological, ontological, epistemological and motivational > angles to line up. Amazing people ever get to do anything by the time they > figure that all out. :) > > How would you go about conceiving of human life holistically, rather than > a sum of all these abstractions? > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/01/2019 8:58 pm, James Ma wrote: > > Hi Huw, I agree with you very much. What's behind one's interest is by all > means an ontological and epistemological stance as a driving force to deal > with what there is to appeal to one and how one might go about pursuing it. > Above all, one has an axiological positioning that is meshed with his/her > ontological and epistemological stance. > James > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:58, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >> such as with reference to psychological functions. >> >> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >> >>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>> EDUCATIONAL >>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>> interest >>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that >>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex >>> too >>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>> this. >>> m >>> >>> > David, >>> > >>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in a >>> > decontextualised way. >>> > >>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>> > >>> > Julie >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant >>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus for >>> >> visiting the provinces. >>> >> >>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>> >> >>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>> education >>> >> is >>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given >>> to >>> >> us. >>> >> >>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>> >> learning >>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must >>> >> have >>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>> >> >>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest? >>> >> >>> >> David Kellogg >>> >> Sangmyung University >>> >> >>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >> alternatives >>> >> Show all authors >>> >> >>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>> called >>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was tacked >>> >>> on >>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They >>> >>> missed >>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>> >>> "Relationship >>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>> >>> tabloid >>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>> >>> related >>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>> >>> whether >>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>> >>> taken >>> >>> by >>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is that >>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking >>> and >>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>> moon, >>> >>> it >>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>> >>> "Teaching >>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine >>> >>> of >>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected >>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>> works >>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>> >>> important >>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education a >>> >>> week >>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more or >>> >>> less >>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>> >>> reasons >>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>> >>> terribly >>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>> >>> >>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>> example >>> >>> the >>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures >>> >>> equal >>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to start >>> >>> as >>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>> >>> INTERESTING. >>> >>> In >>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we >>> >>> have >>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good deal >>> >>> of >>> >>> sex. >>> >>> >>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends >>> >>> set >>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>> unites >>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the >>> >>> unity >>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is >>> all >>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>> sexual >>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find it: >>> >>> in >>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept >>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>> others) >>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on >>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>> >>> themselves) >>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>> already a >>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>> thing >>> >>> is >>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>> Andy's >>> >>> idea >>> >>> of the Project? >>> >>> >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> >>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>> >>> alternatives >>> >>> Show all authors >>> >>> >>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> > Universitat de Girona >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>> Dpt de psicologia >>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>> Universitat de Girona >>> >>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>> >>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en >>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/31587d30/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Jan 12 09:40:37 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 09:40:37 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: I know this may sound obtuse, Huw. But the concept of need in both LSV and ANL has always seemed very slippery to me. Presumably a long term need is to obtain enough food, shelter...... but that involves social transactions that are culturally mediated. Reproduction is a species need in one way and I guess my felt need to check out how Arsenal is faring is short term. But its long term equivalent? Seems more than epistemic/ontological. I am not sure where sexual interests fit in. Can this be explained in a manner that this struggling person can understand? mike On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Huw Lloyd wrote: > Vygotsky likens them to temporary needs. > > Huw > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 00:36, mike cole wrote: > >> Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point >> of.view? A subjtive object? >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: >> >>> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a >>> subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't >>> recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >>> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in >>> linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source >>> of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without >>> saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being >>> interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one >>> person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's >>> viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense >>> perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational >>> and textual). >>> >>> James >>> >>> *_______________________________________________________* >>> >>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>> * >>> >>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >>>> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, David? >>>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>>>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>>>> >>>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Huw >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>>>> interest >>>>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was >>>>>> that >>>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on >>>>>> sex too >>>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore >>>>>> this. >>>>>> m >>>>>> >>>>>> > David, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed >>>>>> in a >>>>>> > decontextualised way. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Julie >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has >>>>>> itinerant >>>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus >>>>>> for >>>>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>>>> education >>>>>> >> is >>>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is >>>>>> given to >>>>>> >> us. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>>>> >> learning >>>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes >>>>>> must >>>>>> >> have >>>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is >>>>>> interest? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> David Kellogg >>>>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>> >> alternatives >>>>>> >> Show all authors >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>>>> called >>>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>>>> tacked >>>>>> >>> on >>>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. >>>>>> They >>>>>> >>> missed >>>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>>>> >>> "Relationship >>>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>>>> >>> tabloid >>>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when >>>>>> >>> related >>>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Rob >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over >>>>>> >>> whether >>>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position, >>>>>> >>> taken >>>>>> >>> by >>>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of >>>>>> thinking and >>>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his >>>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the >>>>>> moon, >>>>>> >>> it >>>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>>>> >>> "Teaching >>>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>>>> Doctrine >>>>>> >>> of >>>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the >>>>>> Collected >>>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>>>> works >>>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina >>>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>>>> >>> important >>>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex >>>>>> education a >>>>>> >>> week >>>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has >>>>>> more or >>>>>> >>> less >>>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>>>> >>> reasons >>>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>>>> >>> terribly >>>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>>>> example >>>>>> >>> the >>>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that >>>>>> ensures >>>>>> >>> equal >>>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>>>> start >>>>>> >>> as >>>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>>>> >>> In >>>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>> have >>>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>>>> deal >>>>>> >>> of >>>>>> >>> sex. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >>>>>> friends >>>>>> >>> set >>>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>>>> unites >>>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>> unity >>>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it >>>>>> is all >>>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>>>> sexual >>>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find >>>>>> it: >>>>>> >>> in >>>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on >>>>>> concept >>>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>>>> others) >>>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter >>>>>> on >>>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>>>> >>> themselves) >>>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>>>> already a >>>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>>>> thing >>>>>> >>> is >>>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>>>> Andy's >>>>>> >>> idea >>>>>> >>> of the Project? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>> >>> alternatives >>>>>> >>> Show all authors >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>> Universitat de Girona >>>>>> >>>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>>>> >>>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari >>>>>> en >>>>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/f0e92d59/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 10:43:38 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 18:43:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: As we know, Vygotsky juggles a large number of ideas. If one wants to arrive at a Vygotskian view of these ideas, then one needs to relate them. In isolation they are vague and slippery. Together they are still vague where Vygotsky remained undeveloped, hence I would say one needs to go beyond Vygotsky's writings to see how the significant fragments that Vygotsky presents fit together. This, for me, is a side effect, I have not set out to explain Vygotsky. Fundamentally, cognition is about the coordination of action. Needs, however one frames them, are addressed through action. Successful realisation of needs arise through relating to the world, to society, to family, to artefacts etc. These coordinations and relations are achieved through what we call knowledge and the fundamental, developmental, features of this knowledge is that they become reorganised. Knowing how to find out is epistemological knowledge. Shifts in one's personal epistemology also entails shifts in one's ontology. There is no single cultural "epistemological form" this is quite obvious from the first volume of Vygotsky. From my position, epistemological forms are developmental. Culture can support and hinder this aspect. From my position, focusing upon culture as a universal medium is abstracting away a great deal concerning personal meanings. In my paper I introduce a model of epistemological forms which helps to make all the relations that the theory touches upon more tangible, albeit simplified. Best, Huw On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 17:43, mike cole wrote: > I know this may sound obtuse, Huw. But the concept of need in both LSV and > ANL has always > seemed very slippery to me. Presumably a long term need is to obtain > enough food, shelter...... > but that involves social transactions that are culturally mediated. > Reproduction is a species need in one way and > I guess my felt need to check out how Arsenal is faring is short term. But > its long term equivalent? Seems more than epistemic/ontological. I am not > sure where sexual interests fit in. > > Can this be explained in a manner that this struggling person can > understand? > > mike > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> Vygotsky likens them to temporary needs. >> >> Huw >> >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 00:36, mike cole wrote: >> >>> Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point >>> of.view? A subjtive object? >>> Mike >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: >>> >>>> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a >>>> subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't >>>> recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >>>> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in >>>> linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source >>>> of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without >>>> saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being >>>> interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one >>>> person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's >>>> viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense >>>> perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational >>>> and textual). >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>> >>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> * >>>> >>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>>> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >>>>> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, >>>>> David? >>>>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>>>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>>>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>>>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>>>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>>>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>>>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>>>>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>>>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>>>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>>>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>>>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>>>>> interest >>>>>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on >>>>>>> sex too >>>>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't >>>>>>> explore >>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> m >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > David, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> > decontextualised way. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Julie >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has >>>>>>> itinerant >>>>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a >>>>>>> bus for >>>>>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>>>>> education >>>>>>> >> is >>>>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is >>>>>>> given to >>>>>>> >> us. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>>>>> >> learning >>>>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> >> have >>>>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is >>>>>>> interest? >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>>> >> alternatives >>>>>>> >> Show all authors >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>>>>> called >>>>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>>>>> tacked >>>>>>> >>> on >>>>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. >>>>>>> They >>>>>>> >>> missed >>>>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>>>>> >>> "Relationship >>>>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>>>>> >>> tabloid >>>>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> >>> related >>>>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Rob >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> >>> whether >>>>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace >>>>>>> position, >>>>>>> >>> taken >>>>>>> >>> by >>>>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of >>>>>>> thinking and >>>>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned >>>>>>> his >>>>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of >>>>>>> the moon, >>>>>>> >>> it >>>>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>>>>> >>> "Teaching >>>>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>>>>> Doctrine >>>>>>> >>> of >>>>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the >>>>>>> Collected >>>>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>>>>> works >>>>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and >>>>>>> Irina >>>>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>>>>> >>> important >>>>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex >>>>>>> education a >>>>>>> >>> week >>>>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has >>>>>>> more or >>>>>>> >>> less >>>>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>>>>> >>> reasons >>>>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>>>>> >>> terribly >>>>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>>>>> example >>>>>>> >>> the >>>>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that >>>>>>> ensures >>>>>>> >>> equal >>>>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>>>>> start >>>>>>> >>> as >>>>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>>>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>>>>> >>> In >>>>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" >>>>>>> programme we >>>>>>> >>> have >>>>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>>>>> deal >>>>>>> >>> of >>>>>>> >>> sex. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >>>>>>> friends >>>>>>> >>> set >>>>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>>>>> unites >>>>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>> unity >>>>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it >>>>>>> is all >>>>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>>>>> sexual >>>>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to >>>>>>> find it: >>>>>>> >>> in >>>>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on >>>>>>> concept >>>>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>>>>> others) >>>>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>>>>> >>> themselves) >>>>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>>>>> already a >>>>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>>>>> thing >>>>>>> >>> is >>>>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>>>>> Andy's >>>>>>> >>> idea >>>>>>> >>> of the Project? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>>> >>> alternatives >>>>>>> >>> Show all authors >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>>>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>>>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>>>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>>>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>>> Universitat de Girona >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau >>>>>>> Interuniversitari en >>>>>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/510022df/attachment-0001.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Jan 12 13:16:44 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 06:16:44 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: Well, as we know, the ideas that Vygotsky is tussling with in this chapter (The Development of Interests in the Transitional Age, CW Volume Five) are not his. "Quasi-Bedurfnisse", for example, is from Lewin, and ?temporary needs?, which lives on in the form of Maslow?s hierarchy of needs, is probably from Max Wertheimer, who taught both Maslow and Lewin. Vygotsky spends a whole section of this chapter criticizing Lewin (section 4). Section 2 is the temporary needs section. Vygotsky introduces Thorndike, for whom interests are simply a byproduct of skills. You take a four year old, make the child practice the piano for three hours a day, and in a couple of years the child will develop the feel for music that Vygotsky thinks should be the goal of musical education. Just as the James-Lange theory of emotion derives emotion from action instead of the other way around, the Thorndike theory starts with skill and derives interest--interest is inherent in the practice of a skill. Then Vygotsky introduces McDougall (an anti-Darwinian who was appalled by the democratic implications of Thorndike). McDougall shows that, pace Thorndike, interest isn't inherent in the practice of a skill. If I start saying the the alphabet ("a, b, c...") I may find that I feel an "interest" in finishing it ("...x, y, z"). If you interrupt me at the letter "k", I might feel...well, interrupted, and somehow frustrated. An experimenter might then jump to Thorndike's conclusion. But suppose the experimenter sets me the task of discovering whether "k" is the tenth letter of the alphabet or the eleventh letter. Now, if you interrupt me at "k" I feel nothing at all. For McDougall--and for Vygotsky--this shows that interest is NOT intrinsic to skill at all, but instead inheres in the motive for which the skill developed in the first place (1998: 5) Wait a minute. It's easy to see why McDougall finds this example convincing: he wants to show that interests and mechanisms of behavior are separable: the former are congenital and the latter are not (but, as a Lamarckian and a racist with very strong aristocratic tendancies, McDougall believes that BOTH are inheritable!) But why does Vygotsky like this stuff? Neither saying ?x, y, z? nor finding out if ?k? is the tenth or the eleventh letter of the English alphabet has anything to do with the creative, free will we see when an adolescent chooses a profession or a partner, and that is the ?need? that Vygotsky is really writing about here: it's "temporary" only in the sense that it is culturally given rather than biologically so. I can think of three reasons why Vygotsky might like the experiment: methodological, theoretical, and purely polemical. Methodologically, Vygotsky often takes gedankenexperimenten like this as exercises in abstraction. Sure, they lack the rich empirical content of clinical or classroom data, just as an everyday concept lacks the rich empirical content of everyday life. But for that very reason they will give you a conclusion in a purified, rarified logical form, just like a scientific concept does. (Note that Vygotsky argues, on p. 10, that the key to the problem of interests was found by the noted experimentalist G.W.F. Hegel!) That?s why Vygotsky is willing to use the ?selection reaction? in HDHMF, even though there is no actual selection in it. That?s why Vygotsky gives us an imaginary account of how gesture develops from an action in itself to an action for itself. It?s not an empirical experiment but a logical, Hegelian, one. Theoretically, I think that Vygotsky really DOES believe that interests are separable from the mechanisms of behavior. Otherwise, mediated action in general would be impossible. Otherwise, we could never ask a child to learn a skill for eight hours a day with no actual sensuous outcome for years on end, and we couldn?t ask children to repress their sexual impulses for a whole decade untli they can afford ?big car?, ?big house?, ?big rings? (as BTS put it). Negatively, Vygotsky is not trying to prove that McDougall is right. He?s only trying to prove that Thorndike is wrong, and McDougall?s ?temporary need? is sufficient for that purpose. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s alternatives Show all authors https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 3:46 AM Huw Lloyd wrote: > As we know, Vygotsky juggles a large number of ideas. If one wants to > arrive at a Vygotskian view of these ideas, then one needs to relate them. > In isolation they are vague and slippery. Together they are still vague > where Vygotsky remained undeveloped, hence I would say one needs to go > beyond Vygotsky's writings to see how the significant fragments that > Vygotsky presents fit together. This, for me, is a side effect, I have not > set out to explain Vygotsky. > > Fundamentally, cognition is about the coordination of action. Needs, > however one frames them, are addressed through action. Successful > realisation of needs arise through relating to the world, to society, to > family, to artefacts etc. These coordinations and relations are achieved > through what we call knowledge and the fundamental, developmental, features > of this knowledge is that they become reorganised. Knowing how to find out > is epistemological knowledge. Shifts in one's personal epistemology also > entails shifts in one's ontology. > > There is no single cultural "epistemological form" this is quite obvious > from the first volume of Vygotsky. From my position, epistemological forms > are developmental. Culture can support and hinder this aspect. From my > position, focusing upon culture as a universal medium is abstracting away a > great deal concerning personal meanings. In my paper I introduce a model of > epistemological forms which helps to make all the relations that the theory > touches upon more tangible, albeit simplified. > > Best, > Huw > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 17:43, mike cole wrote: > >> I know this may sound obtuse, Huw. But the concept of need in both LSV >> and ANL has always >> seemed very slippery to me. Presumably a long term need is to obtain >> enough food, shelter...... >> but that involves social transactions that are culturally mediated. >> Reproduction is a species need in one way and >> I guess my felt need to check out how Arsenal is faring is short term. >> But its long term equivalent? Seems more than epistemic/ontological. I am >> not sure where sexual interests fit in. >> >> Can this be explained in a manner that this struggling person can >> understand? >> >> mike >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >> >>> Vygotsky likens them to temporary needs. >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 00:36, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the >>>> point of.view? A subjtive object? >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>>> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a >>>>> subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't >>>>> recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >>>>> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in >>>>> linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source >>>>> of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without >>>>> saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being >>>>> interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one >>>>> person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's >>>>> viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense >>>>> perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational >>>>> and textual). >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>>> >>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >>>>>> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, >>>>>> David? >>>>>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >>>>>> Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>>>>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>>>>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>>>>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>>>>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>>>>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>>>>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>>>>>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>>>>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>>>>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>>>>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>>>>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>>>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>>>>>> interest >>>>>>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>>>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on >>>>>>>> sex too >>>>>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't >>>>>>>> explore >>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > David, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>>>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>>>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being >>>>>>>> imposed in a >>>>>>>> > decontextualised way. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Julie >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has >>>>>>>> itinerant >>>>>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a >>>>>>>> bus for >>>>>>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>>>>>> education >>>>>>>> >> is >>>>>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is >>>>>>>> given to >>>>>>>> >> us. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is >>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>> >> learning >>>>>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>> >> have >>>>>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is >>>>>>>> interest? >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>>>> >> alternatives >>>>>>>> >> Show all authors >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be >>>>>>>> exhausted. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools >>>>>>>> is called >>>>>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>>>>>> tacked >>>>>>>> >>> on >>>>>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. >>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>> >>> missed >>>>>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>>>>>> >>> "Relationship >>>>>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> >>> tabloid >>>>>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially >>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>> >>> related >>>>>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Rob >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> >>> whether >>>>>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace >>>>>>>> position, >>>>>>>> >>> taken >>>>>>>> >>> by >>>>>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, >>>>>>>> is that >>>>>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of >>>>>>>> thinking and >>>>>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of >>>>>>>> the moon, >>>>>>>> >>> it >>>>>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> >>> "Teaching >>>>>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>>>>>> Doctrine >>>>>>>> >>> of >>>>>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the >>>>>>>> Collected >>>>>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's works >>>>>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and >>>>>>>> Irina >>>>>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> >>> important >>>>>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex >>>>>>>> education a >>>>>>>> >>> week >>>>>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has >>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>> >>> less >>>>>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>>>>>> >>> reasons >>>>>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>>>>>> >>> terribly >>>>>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>>>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>>>>>> example >>>>>>>> >>> the >>>>>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that >>>>>>>> ensures >>>>>>>> >>> equal >>>>>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>> >>> as >>>>>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>>>>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>>>>>> >>> In >>>>>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" >>>>>>>> programme we >>>>>>>> >>> have >>>>>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a >>>>>>>> good deal >>>>>>>> >>> of >>>>>>>> >>> sex. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >>>>>>>> friends >>>>>>>> >>> set >>>>>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>>>>>> unites >>>>>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on >>>>>>>> how the >>>>>>>> >>> unity >>>>>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it >>>>>>>> is all >>>>>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>>>>>> sexual >>>>>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to >>>>>>>> find it: >>>>>>>> >>> in >>>>>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on >>>>>>>> concept >>>>>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>>>>>> others) >>>>>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the >>>>>>>> chapter on >>>>>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>>>>>> >>> themselves) >>>>>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>>>>>> already a >>>>>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The >>>>>>>> only thing >>>>>>>> >>> is >>>>>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>>>>>> Andy's >>>>>>>> >>> idea >>>>>>>> >>> of the Project? >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>>>> >>> alternatives >>>>>>>> >>> Show all authors >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>>>>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>>>>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>>>>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>>>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>>>>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>>>> Universitat de Girona >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>>>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau >>>>>>>> Interuniversitari en >>>>>>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190113/ac51bef9/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Jan 12 15:41:28 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 10:41:28 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: <37638d17-8a27-6476-dcb1-6f7887e54f72@marxists.org> As I see it, the problems Leontyev has with "need" derive from his taking the object of activity to be "simply objective." By this I mean that not only is the object external, and in that sense objective (and can only be fulfilled by processes which exist in the wider social and material world, and not just a psychic process), but it is not problematic - it is determined by the community as a whole (in turn taken as an unproblematic whole) and if an individual is pursuing some other conception of the object then they are mistaken. There is nothing mediate between the individual and the community as a whole (i.e., the state - the individual does not belong to an interest group, for example). The individual's need is determined by psychic reflection on the object of activity (and in that sense both subjective and objective) but it gets slippery only when you enquire about the object of activity, which ought to provide for the material needs of the individual in order to sustain the society, but of course it is not so simple! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/01/2019 4:40 am, mike cole wrote: > I know this may sound obtuse, Huw. But the concept of need > in both LSV and ANL has always > seemed very slippery to me. Presumably a long term need is > to obtain enough food, shelter...... > but that involves social transactions that are culturally > mediated. Reproduction is a species need in one way and > I guess my felt need to check out how Arsenal is faring is > short term. But its long term equivalent? Seems more than > epistemic/ontological. I am not sure where sexual > interests fit in. > > Can this be explained in a manner that this struggling > person can understand? > > mike > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > Vygotsky likens them to temporary needs. > > Huw > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 00:36, mike cole > > wrote: > > Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that > accompanies the point of.view?? A subjtive object? > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma > > wrote: > > Interests have much to do with intentionality > - and there is always a subjective angle from > which the object (interests) is viewed -?I > don't recall coming across Vygotsky alluding > to this. > To illustrate my point,?I use?the term > "evidentiality" (which?in linguistics refers > to statements being explicitly marked to show > the source of the speaker's information, e.g. > "I witnessed this"). It goes without saying > that privileged access bears on one's interest > (a?state of being interested, or?an act of > taking an interest, in something). Thus, one > person's interest is always a "secondary > evidential"?from?another person's viewpoint, > in which case?another person has to?make > inference through sense perception, mediated > by?contextual?factors (e.g. interpersonal, > ideational and textual). > > James > > */_______________________________________________________/* > > /*James Ma *Independent Scholar > //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > / > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole > > wrote: > > So interests are curiosity, Huw? > Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something > to to do with Emotions, David? > 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. > Mike > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > For Vygotsky, interests are > intentions. Although he recognises > that Lewin's structural theory is > inadequate with regard to discerning > the essence of interests, his own > writings in that chapter focus upon > developmental patterns of interests, > and he does not get around to being > explicit about what is behind interest > -- what is really driving it. To a > certain extent this is answered with > the social situation of development, > but unless one reads between the lines > there is a great deal of vagueness, > such as with reference to > psychological functions. > > I have a rather large theoretical > paper I am completing on this to > compliment some empirical work. What I > state is that it is epistemology (and > ontology) that is the interest behind > interest. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises > Esteban-Guitart > > wrote: > > That's an interesting question > that I asked myself when I read > EDUCATIONAL > PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one > interest of the child?s to a new > interest > ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, > 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion > was that > it depends on the biographical > moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document > attached). By the way, in his > "Educational Psychology" he wrote > on sex too > ("Education on the sex instinct", > pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore > this. > m > > > David, > > > > I would imagine the reference to > interest relates to the STUDENTS' > > interest: meaning that whatever > way it is approached it needs to be > > introduced from and in relation > to the students' current > > knowledge/interest/developmental > stage as opposed to being imposed in a > > decontextualised way. > > > > At least I think that's what's > going on here... > > > > Julie > > > > > > > > > >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen > hours a year. The government has > itinerant > >> specialists who lecture from > school to school. There is even a > bus for > >> visiting the provinces. > >> > >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: > >> > >> a) No class with ONLY sex > education--since anatomical, > sexual, and > >> sociocultural maturation do not > coincide in modern humans, sex > education > >> is > >> not a science of a natural > whole, where the object of study > is given to > >> us. > >> > >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex > education--since sex education is > simply > >> learning > >> how to be with people who may > be of sexual interest, all classes > must > >> have > >> some form of sexual > "enlightenment". > >> > >> c) No sex education without > INTEREST. But what, exactly, is > interest? > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> Sangmyung University > >> > >> New in *Language and > Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s > ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > >> alternatives > >> Show all authors > >> > >> > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM > robsub@ariadne.org.uk > > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Fifteen hours a week??? > >>> > >>> I hope it's not all practicals > - the teachers would be exhausted. > >>> > >>> In the UK nowadays the very > inadequate thing we do in schools > is called > >>> Sex and Relationship > Education. The "and Relationship" > bit was tacked > >>> on > >>> some time in the 90s or maybe > early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They > >>> missed > >>> a trick there - they should > have put it the other way round > >>> "Relationship > >>> and Sex Education". A very > large lump of the population go into a > >>> tabloid > >>> induced panic as soon as they > hear the word "sex", especially when > >>> related > >>> to children, and then fail to > hear the "and relationship" it. > >>> > >>> Rob > >>> > >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David > Kellogg wrote: > >>> > >>> Last July in Geneva, I got > into a bit of a tiff with my hosts > over > >>> whether > >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory > of emotion. The commonplace position, > >>> taken > >>> by > >>> almost all high Vygotskyans > including my francophone friends, > is that > >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his > life developing a theory of > thinking and > >>> intellect, complexes and > concept formation, and when he > turned his > >>> attention to the lower and > higher emotions, that dark side of > the moon, > >>> it > >>> was too late. He worked out a > kind of prolegomena, in the form of > >>> "Teaching > >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of > the Emotions" or perhaps "The Doctrine > >>> of > >>> the Emotions"--you can read > what he did in Volume 6 of the > Collected > >>> Works). And the rest was silence. > >>> > >>> Here in Korea we are bringing > out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's > works > >>> (see attached cover, with > blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and > Irina > >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all > about sex education, which is a very > >>> important > >>> topic here in Korea, because > we have fifteen hours of sex > education a > >>> week > >>> mandated by the government, > but the ministry of education has > more or > >>> less > >>> withdrawn the downloadable > materials for this, not for the usual > >>> reasons > >>> but instead because of > criticism from Human Rights Watch > (it is > >>> terribly > >>> sexist, homophobic, and just > plain ignorant). > >>> > >>> Vygosky's view is that sex > education (which he calls "sexual > >>> enlightenment") has to be > integrated into ALL subjects (so > for example > >>> the > >>> test of a good sex > enlightenment programme would be > one that ensures > >>> equal > >>> participation of boys and > girls in math and physics), it has > to start > >>> as > >>> soon as preschoolers enter > primary school, and it has to be > >>> INTERESTING. > >>> In > >>> other words, instead of the > "sex education without sex" > programme we > >>> have > >>> here in South Korea, we need > non-sex education...but with a > good deal > >>> of > >>> sex. > >>> > >>> All of which has got me > thinking about the problem my > Geneva friends > >>> set > >>> before me. I think that > Vygotsky really DOES have a theory > that unites > >>> passions and interests. It's > like that book by Hirschmann on > how the > >>> unity > >>> of passion and interest gave > rise to capitalism, but instead it > is all > >>> about how passions, shared > projects, and interests give rise > to sexual > >>> love, and it is more or less > right before we would expect to > find it: > >>> in > >>> the Pedology of the > Adolescent, right before the > chapter on concept > >>> formation, which shows how > complexes (which are categories > for others) > >>> become concepts (categories > for themselves). This is the > chapter on > >>> interests, which explains how > passions (which are sensations in > >>> themselves) > >>> become interests: that is, > emotions for themselves. (There is > already a > >>> passable translation of this > in Volume Five of the CW). The > only thing > >>> is > >>> there is a need for a > transitional form--a feeling with > others. Andy's > >>> idea > >>> of the Project? > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Sangmyung University > >>> > >>> New in *Language and > Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: > >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s > ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s > >>> alternatives > >>> Show all authors > >>> > >>> > https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > Dra. Julie Waddington > > Departament de Did?ctiques > Espec?fiques > > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > > Universitat de Girona > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mois?s Esteban Guitart > Dpt de psicologia > Director - Institut de Recerca > Educativa - > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia > Universitat de Girona > > Grup de recerca "Cultura i > Educaci?" (GRC? 2017SGR19) > https://culturaieducacio.cat > > Responsable a la Universitat de > Girona del Postgrau > Interuniversitari en > Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE > http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190113/4f1c3d97/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Jan 12 16:26:00 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:26:00 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: <37638d17-8a27-6476-dcb1-6f7887e54f72@marxists.org> References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <37638d17-8a27-6476-dcb1-6f7887e54f72@marxists.org> Message-ID: You have motivated to read the chapter, David. Thanks. Andy. I think what you are talking about is called, by some (Rubenshtein? Brushlinsky?, a subjective object. mike On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 3:45 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > As I see it, the problems Leontyev has with "need" derive from his taking > the object of activity to be "simply objective." By this I mean that not > only is the object external, and in that sense objective (and can only be > fulfilled by processes which exist in the wider social and material world, > and not just a psychic process), but it is not problematic - it is > determined by the community as a whole (in turn taken as an unproblematic > whole) and if an individual is pursuing some other conception of the object > then they are mistaken. There is nothing mediate between the individual and > the community as a whole (i.e., the state - the individual does not belong > to an interest group, for example). The individual's need is determined by > psychic reflection on the object of activity (and in that sense both > subjective and objective) but it gets slippery only when you enquire about > the object of activity, which ought to provide for the material needs of > the individual in order to sustain the society, but of course it is not so > simple! > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 13/01/2019 4:40 am, mike cole wrote: > > I know this may sound obtuse, Huw. But the concept of need in both LSV and > ANL has always > seemed very slippery to me. Presumably a long term need is to obtain > enough food, shelter...... > but that involves social transactions that are culturally mediated. > Reproduction is a species need in one way and > I guess my felt need to check out how Arsenal is faring is short term. But > its long term equivalent? Seems more than epistemic/ontological. I am not > sure where sexual interests fit in. > > Can this be explained in a manner that this struggling person can > understand? > > mike > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> Vygotsky likens them to temporary needs. >> >> Huw >> >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 00:36, mike cole wrote: >> >>> Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient that accompanies the point >>> of.view? A subjtive object? >>> Mike >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma wrote: >>> >>>> Interests have much to do with intentionality - and there is always a >>>> subjective angle from which the object (interests) is viewed - I don't >>>> recall coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >>>> To illustrate my point, I use the term "evidentiality" (which in >>>> linguistics refers to statements being explicitly marked to show the source >>>> of the speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed this"). It goes without >>>> saying that privileged access bears on one's interest (a state of being >>>> interested, or an act of taking an interest, in something). Thus, one >>>> person's interest is always a "secondary evidential" from another person's >>>> viewpoint, in which case another person has to make inference through sense >>>> perception, mediated by contextual factors (e.g. interpersonal, ideational >>>> and textual). >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>> >>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> * >>>> >>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>>> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >>>>> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have something to to do with Emotions, >>>>> David? >>>>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions. Although he recognises that >>>>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the >>>>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon >>>>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being >>>>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a >>>>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development, >>>>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness, >>>>>> such as with reference to psychological functions. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to >>>>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology >>>>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart < >>>>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read >>>>>>> EDUCATIONAL >>>>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child?s to a new >>>>>>> interest >>>>>>> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document >>>>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on >>>>>>> sex too >>>>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't >>>>>>> explore >>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> m >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > David, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS' >>>>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be >>>>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current >>>>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> > decontextualised way. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here... >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Julie >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has >>>>>>> itinerant >>>>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a >>>>>>> bus for >>>>>>> >> visiting the provinces. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and >>>>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex >>>>>>> education >>>>>>> >> is >>>>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is >>>>>>> given to >>>>>>> >> us. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply >>>>>>> >> learning >>>>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> >> have >>>>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment". >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is >>>>>>> interest? >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >> Sangmyung University >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>>> >> alternatives >>>>>>> >> Show all authors >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is >>>>>>> called >>>>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was >>>>>>> tacked >>>>>>> >>> on >>>>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. >>>>>>> They >>>>>>> >>> missed >>>>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round >>>>>>> >>> "Relationship >>>>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a >>>>>>> >>> tabloid >>>>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> >>> related >>>>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Rob >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> >>> whether >>>>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace >>>>>>> position, >>>>>>> >>> taken >>>>>>> >>> by >>>>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of >>>>>>> thinking and >>>>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned >>>>>>> his >>>>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of >>>>>>> the moon, >>>>>>> >>> it >>>>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of >>>>>>> >>> "Teaching >>>>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The >>>>>>> Doctrine >>>>>>> >>> of >>>>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the >>>>>>> Collected >>>>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's >>>>>>> works >>>>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and >>>>>>> Irina >>>>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very >>>>>>> >>> important >>>>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex >>>>>>> education a >>>>>>> >>> week >>>>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has >>>>>>> more or >>>>>>> >>> less >>>>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual >>>>>>> >>> reasons >>>>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is >>>>>>> >>> terribly >>>>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant). >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual >>>>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for >>>>>>> example >>>>>>> >>> the >>>>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that >>>>>>> ensures >>>>>>> >>> equal >>>>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to >>>>>>> start >>>>>>> >>> as >>>>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be >>>>>>> >>> INTERESTING. >>>>>>> >>> In >>>>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" >>>>>>> programme we >>>>>>> >>> have >>>>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good >>>>>>> deal >>>>>>> >>> of >>>>>>> >>> sex. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva >>>>>>> friends >>>>>>> >>> set >>>>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that >>>>>>> unites >>>>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>> unity >>>>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it >>>>>>> is all >>>>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to >>>>>>> sexual >>>>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to >>>>>>> find it: >>>>>>> >>> in >>>>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on >>>>>>> concept >>>>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for >>>>>>> others) >>>>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in >>>>>>> >>> themselves) >>>>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is >>>>>>> already a >>>>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only >>>>>>> thing >>>>>>> >>> is >>>>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others. >>>>>>> Andy's >>>>>>> >>> idea >>>>>>> >>> of the Project? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>> Sangmyung University >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li: >>>>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >>>>>>> >>> alternatives >>>>>>> >>> Show all authors >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington >>>>>>> > Departament de Did?ctiques Espec?fiques >>>>>>> > Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>>> > Universitat de Girona >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >>>>>>> Dpt de psicologia >>>>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - >>>>>>> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >>>>>>> Universitat de Girona >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) >>>>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau >>>>>>> Interuniversitari en >>>>>>> Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/719b1299/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Jan 12 16:42:54 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 11:42:54 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests In-Reply-To: References: <7ce07e15-dbbf-9858-d6cf-99504c2139b6@ariadne.org.uk> <54774.83.40.182.13.1547207240.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <50955.193.125.59.99.1547208404.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <37638d17-8a27-6476-dcb1-6f7887e54f72@marxists.org> Message-ID: <672f9bea-78e6-6f95-fae9-b69784bd9cde@marxists.org> Well Mike, there can be different formulations, but there has to be some sense of a subject-object; I call it a project, Leontyev called it an activity, Yrjo calls it a system of activity, and Hegel called it a formation of consciousness. Hegel formulates this as a triadic relationship between the universal, the individual and the particular. What is absent from Leontyev is the particular interest. In my view, this 2-sidedness instead of 3-sidedness derives from the condition of discourse in the USSR, but that is open for discussion. When his grandson addressed us in Sydney a couple of years ago, he drew a big diagram on the whiteboard with a line down the middle, and subjective factors (the individual) and the left and objective factors (the state) on the right. When I questioned him about the lack of particular interest and the resulting dichotomy, he really didn't get what I was talking about (I guess that's something that is not new to me) and at a stretch he could only accept that there would be regional differences between different objectives. Not a lot of room for class struggle, feminism, anti-racism or whatever in there. I don't know much about Rubenshtein or anything about Brushlinsky, I admit, but nothing I have heard of them has tended to persuade me away from a Marxist-Hegelian perspective. German Idealism arose not in opposition to materialism, but in opposition to subjective idealism. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/01/2019 11:26 am, mike cole wrote: > You have motivated to read the chapter, David. Thanks. > Andy.? I think what you are talking about is called, by > some (Rubenshtein? Brushlinsky?, a subjective object. > mike > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 3:45 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > As I see it, the problems Leontyev has with "need" > derive from his taking the object of activity to be > "simply objective." By this I mean that not only is > the object external, and in that sense objective (and > can only be fulfilled by processes which exist in the > wider social and material world, and not just a > psychic process), but it is not problematic - it is > determined by the community as a whole (in turn taken > as an unproblematic whole) and if an individual is > pursuing some other conception of the object then they > are mistaken. There is nothing mediate between the > individual and the community as a whole (i.e., the > state - the individual does not belong to an interest > group, for example). The individual's need is > determined by psychic reflection on the object of > activity (and in that sense both subjective and > objective) but it gets slippery only when you enquire > about the object of activity, which ought to provide > for the material needs of the individual in order to > sustain the society, but of course it is not so simple! > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 13/01/2019 4:40 am, mike cole wrote: >> I know this may sound obtuse, Huw. But the concept of >> need in both LSV and ANL has always >> seemed very slippery to me. Presumably a long term >> need is to obtain enough food, shelter...... >> but that involves social transactions that are >> culturally mediated.? Reproduction is a species need >> in one way and >> I guess my felt need to check out how Arsenal is >> faring is short term. But its long term equivalent? >> Seems more than epistemic/ontological. I am not sure >> where sexual interests fit in. >> >> Can this be explained in a manner that this >> struggling person can understand? >> >> mike >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:49 AM Huw Lloyd >> > > wrote: >> >> Vygotsky likens them to temporary needs. >> >> Huw >> >> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 at 00:36, mike cole >> > wrote: >> >> Ah, so interests are the affective ingredient >> that accompanies the point of.view?? A >> subjtive object? >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM James Ma >> > > wrote: >> >> Interests have much to do with >> intentionality - and there is always a >> subjective angle from which the object >> (interests) is viewed -?I don't recall >> coming across Vygotsky alluding to this. >> To illustrate my point,?I use?the term >> "evidentiality" (which?in linguistics >> refers to statements being explicitly >> marked to show the source of the >> speaker's information, e.g. "I witnessed >> this"). It goes without saying that >> privileged access bears on one's interest >> (a?state of being interested, or?an act >> of taking an interest, in something). >> Thus, one person's interest is always a >> "secondary evidential"?from?another >> person's viewpoint, in which case?another >> person has to?make inference through >> sense perception, mediated >> by?contextual?factors (e.g. >> interpersonal, ideational and textual). >> >> James >> >> */_______________________________________________________/* >> >> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> / >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole >> > >> wrote: >> >> So interests are curiosity, Huw? >> Didn?t ?Psychology of Art? have >> something to to do with Emotions, David? >> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow. >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw >> Lloyd > > >> wrote: >> >> For Vygotsky, interests are >> intentions.? Although he >> recognises that Lewin's >> structural theory is inadequate >> with regard to discerning the >> essence of interests, his own >> writings in that chapter focus >> upon developmental patterns of >> interests, and he does not get >> around to being explicit about >> what is behind interest -- what >> is really driving it. To a >> certain extent this is answered >> with the social situation of >> development, but unless one reads >> between the lines there is a >> great deal of vagueness, such as >> with reference to psychological >> functions. >> >> I have a rather large theoretical >> paper I am completing on this to >> compliment some empirical work. >> What I state is that it is >> epistemology (and ontology) that >> is the interest behind interest. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, >> Moises Esteban-Guitart >> > > >> wrote: >> >> That's an interesting >> question that I asked myself >> when I read EDUCATIONAL >> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from >> one interest of the child?s >> to a new interest >> ?that is the rule? (Vygotsky, >> 1926/1997a, p. 86). My >> conclusion was that >> it depends on the >> biographical moment (see pp. >> 393 to 396 document >> attached). By the way, in his >> "Educational Psychology" he >> wrote on sex too >> ("Education on the sex >> instinct", pp. 71-77), >> however I didn't explore >> this. >> m >> >> > David, >> > >> > I would imagine the >> reference to interest relates >> to the STUDENTS' >> > interest: meaning that >> whatever way it is approached >> it needs to be >> > introduced from and in >> relation to the students' current >> > >> knowledge/interest/developmental >> stage as opposed to being >> imposed in a >> > decontextualised way. >> > >> > At least I think that's >> what's going on here... >> > >> > Julie >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen >> hours a year. The government >> has itinerant >> >> specialists who lecture >> from school to school. There >> is even a bus for >> >> visiting the provinces. >> >> >> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says: >> >> >> >> a) No class with ONLY sex >> education--since anatomical, >> sexual, and >> >> sociocultural maturation >> do not coincide in modern >> humans, sex education >> >> is >> >> not a science of a natural >> whole, where the object of >> study is given to >> >> us. >> >> >> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex >> education--since sex >> education is simply >> >> learning >> >> how to be with people who >> may be of sexual interest, >> all classes must >> >> have >> >> some form of sexual >> "enlightenment". >> >> >> >> c) No sex education >> without INTEREST. But what, >> exactly, is interest? >> >> >> >> David Kellogg >> >> Sangmyung University >> >> >> >> New in *Language and >> Literature*, co-authored with >> Fang Li: >> >> Mountains in labour: >> Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> >> alternatives >> >> Show all authors >> >> >> >> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at >> 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk >> >> >> > > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Fifteen hours a week??? >> >>> >> >>> I hope it's not all >> practicals - the teachers >> would be exhausted. >> >>> >> >>> In the UK nowadays the >> very inadequate thing we do >> in schools is called >> >>> Sex and Relationship >> Education. The "and >> Relationship" bit was tacked >> >>> on >> >>> some time in the 90s or >> maybe early 2000s, if I >> recall rightly. They >> >>> missed >> >>> a trick there - they >> should have put it the other >> way round >> >>> "Relationship >> >>> and Sex Education". A >> very large lump of the >> population go into a >> >>> tabloid >> >>> induced panic as soon as >> they hear the word "sex", >> especially when >> >>> related >> >>> to children, and then >> fail to hear the "and >> relationship" it. >> >>> >> >>> Rob >> >>> >> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, >> David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Last July in Geneva, I >> got into a bit of a tiff with >> my hosts over >> >>> whether >> >>> or not Vygotsky had a >> theory of emotion. The >> commonplace position, >> >>> taken >> >>> by >> >>> almost all high >> Vygotskyans including my >> francophone friends, is that >> >>> Vygotsky spent too much >> of his life developing a >> theory of thinking and >> >>> intellect, complexes and >> concept formation, and when >> he turned his >> >>> attention to the lower >> and higher emotions, that >> dark side of the moon, >> >>> it >> >>> was too late. He worked >> out a kind of prolegomena, in >> the form of >> >>> "Teaching >> >>> on the Emotions" (or >> "Study of the Emotions" or >> perhaps "The Doctrine >> >>> of >> >>> the Emotions"--you can >> read what he did in Volume 6 >> of the Collected >> >>> Works). And the rest was >> silence. >> >>> >> >>> Here in Korea we are >> bringing out our tenth volume >> of Vygotsky's works >> >>> (see attached cover, with >> blurbs from Renee Van der >> Veer and Irina >> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's >> all about sex education, >> which is a very >> >>> important >> >>> topic here in Korea, >> because we have fifteen hours >> of sex education a >> >>> week >> >>> mandated by the >> government, but the ministry >> of education has more or >> >>> less >> >>> withdrawn the >> downloadable materials for >> this, not for the usual >> >>> reasons >> >>> but instead because of >> criticism from Human Rights >> Watch (it is >> >>> terribly >> >>> sexist, homophobic, and >> just plain ignorant). >> >>> >> >>> Vygosky's view is that >> sex education (which he calls >> "sexual >> >>> enlightenment") has to be >> integrated into ALL subjects >> (so for example >> >>> the >> >>> test of a good sex >> enlightenment programme would >> be one that ensures >> >>> equal >> >>> participation of boys and >> girls in math and physics), >> it has to start >> >>> as >> >>> soon as preschoolers >> enter primary school, and it >> has to be >> >>> INTERESTING. >> >>> In >> >>> other words, instead of >> the "sex education without >> sex" programme we >> >>> have >> >>> here in South Korea, we >> need non-sex education...but >> with a good deal >> >>> of >> >>> sex. >> >>> >> >>> All of which has got me >> thinking about the problem my >> Geneva friends >> >>> set >> >>> before me. I think that >> Vygotsky really DOES have a >> theory that unites >> >>> passions and interests. >> It's like that book by >> Hirschmann on how the >> >>> unity >> >>> of passion and interest >> gave rise to capitalism, but >> instead it is all >> >>> about how passions, >> shared projects, and >> interests give rise to sexual >> >>> love, and it is more or >> less right before we would >> expect to find it: >> >>> in >> >>> the Pedology of the >> Adolescent, right before the >> chapter on concept >> >>> formation, which shows >> how complexes (which are >> categories for others) >> >>> become concepts >> (categories for themselves). >> This is the chapter on >> >>> interests, which explains >> how passions (which are >> sensations in >> >>> themselves) >> >>> become interests: that >> is, emotions for themselves. >> (There is already a >> >>> passable translation of >> this in Volume Five of the >> CW). The only thing >> >>> is >> >>> there is a need for a >> transitional form--a feeling >> with others. Andy's >> >>> idea >> >>> of the Project? >> >>> >> >>> David Kellogg >> >>> Sangmyung University >> >>> >> >>> New in *Language and >> Literature*, co-authored with >> Fang Li: >> >>> Mountains in labour: >> Eliot?s ?Atrocities? and Woolf?s >> >>> alternatives >> >>> Show all authors >> >>> >> >>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > Dra. Julie Waddington >> > Departament de Did?ctiques >> Espec?fiques >> > Facultat d'Educaci? i >> Psicologia >> > Universitat de Girona >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Mois?s Esteban Guitart >> Dpt de psicologia >> Director - Institut de >> Recerca Educativa - >> Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia >> Universitat de Girona >> >> Grup de recerca "Cultura i >> Educaci?" (GRC? 2017SGR19) >> https://culturaieducacio.cat >> >> Responsable a la Universitat >> de Girona del Postgrau >> Interuniversitari en >> Psicologia de l'educaci? >> MIPE-DIPE >> http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190113/5a58724b/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jan 15 17:38:32 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:38:32 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] School versus work: Personality Changes Message-ID: I bumped into this article by accident, but it seemed potentially interesting to people interested in influence of institutionalized forms of activity on development. Personality has not often been studied in this way, and this example seemed to invite CHAT conclusions. Hit delete at any time! mike -- Who says development is not a life long process has either not lived long enough, or has lived too long. Anon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190115/51c45c2e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: school.work.personality.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 121450 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190115/51c45c2e/attachment.pdf From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Jan 15 17:54:11 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 20:54:11 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: School versus work: Personality Changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30F3221E-E1F3-48C4-BD9D-E402038DA57F@cantab.net> Personality as a particular configuration of the higher psychological functions? Martin > On Jan 15, 2019, at 8:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > > I bumped into this article by accident, but it seemed potentially interesting to people interested in influence of institutionalized forms > of activity on development. Personality has not often been studied in this way, and this example seemed to invite CHAT conclusions. > Hit delete at any time! > mike > > -- > Who says development is not a life long process has either not lived long enough, or has lived too long. > Anon > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190115/c75e33b3/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jan 15 18:01:58 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:01:58 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: School versus work: Personality Changes In-Reply-To: <30F3221E-E1F3-48C4-BD9D-E402038DA57F@cantab.net> References: <30F3221E-E1F3-48C4-BD9D-E402038DA57F@cantab.net> Message-ID: Yes, I think this is what the results imply. De-skiling requires hyper skiling somewhere in the social group. Different lifeways that just happen to be associated with social class. mike On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:55 PM Martin Packer wrote: > Personality as a particular configuration of the higher psychological > functions? > > Martin > > > On Jan 15, 2019, at 8:38 PM, mike cole wrote: > > I bumped into this article by accident, but it seemed potentially > interesting to people interested in influence of institutionalized forms > of activity on development. Personality has not often been studied in this > way, and this example seemed to invite CHAT conclusions. > Hit delete at any time! > mike > > -- > Who says development is not a life long process has either not lived long > enough, or has lived too long. > Anon > > > > -- Who says development is not a life long process has either not lived long enough, or has lived too long. Anon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190115/e796ca22/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 15 18:07:30 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:07:30 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: School versus work: Personality Changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Vygotsky said that "The tasks that are posed for the maturing adolescent by the social environment - tasks that are associated with his entry into the cultural, professional, and social life of the adult world - are an essential functional factor in the formation of concepts," and A N Leontyev, in his well-known work "Activity, Consciousness and Personality" clearly saw personality as developing throughout the subject's life, in institutions. Pity there are not more CHAT scholars working in that area. No accident that 'conception' means both the creation of a person and the forms of activity a person engages in. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/01/2019 12:38 pm, mike cole wrote: > I bumped into this article by accident, but it seemed > potentially interesting to people interested in influence > of institutionalized forms > of activity on development. Personality has not often been > studied in this way, and this example seemed to invite > CHAT conclusions. > Hit delete at any time! > mike > > -- > Who says development is not a life long process has either > not lived long enough, or has lived too long. > Anon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190116/4cda5cb7/attachment.html From moises.esteban@udg.edu Wed Jan 16 09:32:57 2019 From: moises.esteban@udg.edu (Moises Esteban-Guitart) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:32:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: School versus work: Personality Changes In-Reply-To: <18C7D018CE0B714691546DE36E5BA87C0D5FBE41@exmb2.sis.ti.udg.es> References: <18C7D018CE0B714691546DE36E5BA87C0D5FBDA1@exmb2.sis.ti.udg.es> <65055.84.88.152.81.1547627232.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> <18C7D018CE0B714691546DE36E5BA87C0D5FBE41@exmb2.sis.ti.udg.es> Message-ID: <49637.193.125.59.99.1547659977.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Not strictly from an activity theory perspective, but Gonz?lez Rey worked on personality (i.e., Gonz?lez Rey, 1999) and now he is more focused on subjectivity from an Historical-Cultural approach. Gonz?lez Rey, F., Mitjans, A. & Goulart, D. (eds) (2019). Subjectivity within Cultural-Historical Approach. Theory, Methodology and Research. Springer. More than on Leontiev's work on personality, he is influenced by the Bozhovic's group (Chudnovskii and so on). However, it seems that personality from the seminal work of Leontyev has not further developed from an activity theory view. Neither the kind of personality that neoliberalism and consumerism is making of. There are lots of works on this issue but not in Vygotskian scholars. At least I only know a few exceptions (may be Ratner from his marco cultural approach??). However the commuity is big and I'm sure there is relevant work on it that I have no know unfortunately. moises Gonz?lez Rey, F. (1999). Personality, subject and human development: The subjective character of human activity. Activity theory and social practice: Cultural-historical approaches, 253-275. > Vygotsky said that "The tasks that are posed for the > maturing adolescent by the social environment - tasks that > are associated with his entry into the cultural, > professional, and social life of the adult world - are an > essential functional factor in the formation of concepts," > and A N Leontyev, in his well-known work "Activity, > Consciousness and Personality" clearly saw personality as > developing throughout the subject's life, in institutions. > Pity there are not more CHAT scholars working in that area. > > No accident that 'conception' means both the creation of a > person and the forms of activity a person engages in. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/01/2019 12:38 pm, mike cole wrote: >> I bumped into this article by accident, but it seemed >> potentially interesting to people interested in influence >> of institutionalized forms >> of activity on development. Personality has not often been >> studied in this way, and this example seemed to invite >> CHAT conclusions. >> Hit delete at any time! >> mike >> >> -- >> Who says development is not a life long process has either >> not lived long enough, or has lived too long. >> Anon > -- Mois?s Esteban Guitart Dpt de psicologia Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa - Facultat d'Educaci? i Psicologia Universitat de Girona Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educaci?" (GRC 2017SGR19) https://culturaieducacio.cat Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en Psicologia de l'educaci? MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca From anamshane@gmail.com Wed Jan 23 19:17:13 2019 From: anamshane@gmail.com (Ana Marjanovic-Shane) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 03:17:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Searching for a translator from Norwegian to English Message-ID: Dear friends, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal (DPJ) is searching for a translator from Norwegian to English ? to translate about 17 pages from a book by Mosse J?rgensen ? about an experimental democratic high school founded in Oslo in the 60s ? The original title is ?Fra Skoleoppror til Opprorskole? (Freely in my translation: From a School Rebellion to a Rebel School). We are preparing a Special issue of DPJ on Dialogic Pedagogy and Democratic Education and we would like to publish a part of the book in English! Interestingly, there is no English translation of the book, although it was translated to 8 other languages, Serbo-Croatian being one of them ? so I read it back in the 70ties. We would be grateful if you can recommend someone who can translate from Norwegian to English. We have some funds to pay for this translation. Thanks a lot for your help!! Ana _________________________________________ Ana Marjanovic-Shane Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Independent Scholar +1-267-334-2905 anamshane@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190124/f15b2a1e/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Thu Jan 24 05:29:43 2019 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:59:43 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Mexico_US border wall. Message-ID: Hi, We hear about a strong debate and difference of opinion on the issue of erection of a wall on Mexico-US border. An article on the issue presenting my views on the same subject matter is uploaded on following link. Link: https://www.academia.edu/38211291/The_wall_on_Mexico_border.docx I shall be pleased to hear your views on the issue. Regards, Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190124/bc7f4731/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Thu Jan 24 08:44:38 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:44:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Searching for a translator from Norwegian to English In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1548348275490.79954@ils.uio.no> Dear Ana, I can share this among my Oslo colleagues and students and see if someone is interested and has the time. I'd love to be able to do it but I am drown in work... Hopefully someone steps up! I let you know or they take contact with you. Best, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Ana Marjanovic-Shane Sent: 24 January 2019 04:17 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Searching for a translator from Norwegian to English Dear friends, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal (DPJ) is searching for a translator from Norwegian to English - to translate about 17 pages from a book by Mosse J?rgensen - about an experimental democratic high school founded in Oslo in the 60s - The original title is "Fra Skoleoppror til Opprorskole" (Freely in my translation: From a School Rebellion to a Rebel School). We are preparing a Special issue of DPJ on Dialogic Pedagogy and Democratic Education and we would like to publish a part of the book in English! Interestingly, there is no English translation of the book, although it was translated to 8 other languages, Serbo-Croatian being one of them - so I read it back in the 70ties. We would be grateful if you can recommend someone who can translate from Norwegian to English. We have some funds to pay for this translation. Thanks a lot for your help!! Ana _________________________________________ Ana Marjanovic-Shane Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Independent Scholar +1-267-334-2905 anamshane@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190124/5b91ee03/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Fri Jan 25 07:23:19 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:23:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Language, mind and objectivity In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: Hello Fellows, I'd like to resume early discussion on language, music and philosophy with a separate header to address the intersection of language, mind and objectivity. I now start by perusing Andy's message below. As it stands, his counterargument to mine is a little sloppy and, more to the point, barely scratches the surface. My argument centres on a position that there is no way to talk about language without using language. Any language is thus to be scrutinised through the medium of itself (or another language). In doing so, one can't escape from being insider of that language. I elaborate my position as below, which might serve as pointers for discussion or reflection: First, language faculty reduces to mind. In studying the mind, one needs to attend to the use of mind in two different senses: a mind as the object (that is being studied) and a mind as the subject (that is doing the study). Second, to understand how mind functions in the world, it is necessary to bring perception into focus. It seems to be a rather naive realistic view that "in speech and writing, language is objective and actual, so we can also observe it". This doesn't entirely qualify as a case of perceptual recognition in that it latches on sense-data out of which one makes inference, without taking into consideration an interaction of three relations in perception, i.e. sense-data, the object behind sense-data, and the subject (observer). There seems to be a missing subjective angle from which the object is viewed. Moreover, inference processing is not simply conscious or deliberate; it also sets free implicit, involuntary or even irrational dispositions of the mind. In short, perception is interpretative and subjective because it is participatory in nature. I believe that all claims to knowledge answer in the end to perception. Taking for example language teaching, it involves a human being working with another human being, in which case you have to consider the effect of consciousness and intersubjectivity. There is no thought-free perception or perception-free thought - what you get in the mind is not the same as what you perceive! Third, writing, which has the life of its own, can't be analysed without being impinged by the observer's own perception. Recent research in TESOL emphasises the role of learner identity in second language acquisition. Perhaps we should think that the world is already the best representation of itself, to which human beings have limited access. I found Thomas Nagel's explanation of objectivity an eye-opener and a mind-liberator! James > On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:54, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> It is clearly wrong to say that we can't study language objectively >> because we exist and think in it - in speech and writing, language is >> objective and actual, so we can also observe it. But to study language >> objectively, from "outside," requires the student to acquire a certain >> distance from it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving that, even >> writing too, I guess, and anyone who learns a second language has a point >> from which to view their first language. Thus we can learn that "Je ne sais >> pas" is not necessarily a double negative. But is the interviewer who asks >> an artist to explain their painting failing to stand outside language to >> see that there is something else. Like the psychologists who ask subjects >> questions and take the answer to be what the person "really" thought. It's >> the old problem of Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond experience >> which (in my opinion) Hegel so thoroughly debunked >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma wrote: >>> >>>> Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: >>>> >>>> I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a >>>> posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately or >>>> voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the >>>> context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of >>>> default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. >>>> >>>> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which >>>> post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have >>>> existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their >>>> ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example >>>> the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind >>>> those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended >>>> and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object >>>> of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, >>>> i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to >>>> denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes >>>> was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. >>>> There's more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a >>>> concept (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the >>>> system of signification is not concerned with language but linguistics >>>> within which language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become >>>> valid. From Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised >>>> collective norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible >>>> with that norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that >>>> involves an individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code >>>> quite liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects >>>> (different to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical >>>> structure of Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with >>>> Mandarin (the official language or predominant dialect). >>>> >>>> By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because >>>> we are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain >>>> insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have >>>> the will to meaning, so to speak. >>>> >>>> James >>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>> >>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190125/63d39c84/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Jan 25 07:33:57 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 02:33:57 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language, mind and objectivity In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: What you say about language, James, is equally true of History, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Social Theory, Philosophy ... and perception, is it not? andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 26/01/2019 2:23 am, James Ma wrote: > Hello Fellows, > > I'd like to resume early discussion on language, music and > philosophy with a separate header to address the > intersection of language, mind and objectivity. > > I now start by perusing Andy's message below. As it > stands, his counterargument to mine is a little sloppy > and, more to the point, barely scratches the surface. My > argument centres on?a position that there is no way to > talk about language without using language. Any language > is thus to be scrutinised through the medium of itself (or > another language). In doing so, one can't escape from > being insider of that language. I elaborate?my?position?as > below, which might serve as pointers for discussion or > reflection: > > First, language faculty reduces to mind. In studying the > mind, one needs to attend to the use of mind in two > different senses: a mind as the object (that is being > studied) and a mind as the subject (that is doing the study). > > Second, to understand how mind functions in the world, it > is necessary to bring perception into focus. It seems to > be a rather naive realistic view that "in speech and > writing, language is objective and actual, so we can also > observe it". This doesn't entirely qualify as a case of > perceptual recognition in that it latches on sense-data > out of which one makes inference, without taking into > consideration an interaction of three relations in > perception, i.e. sense-data, the object behind sense-data, > and the subject (observer). There?seems to be?a missing > subjective angle from which the object is viewed. > Moreover, inference processing is not simply conscious or > deliberate; it also sets free implicit, involuntary or > even irrational?dispositions of the mind. In short, > perception is interpretative and?subjective because it is > participatory in nature. I?believe that all claims to > knowledge answer in the end to perception. Taking for > example language teaching, it involves a human being > working with another human being, in which case you have > to consider the effect of consciousness and > intersubjectivity.?There is no thought-free perception or > perception-free thought - what you get in the mind is not > the same as what you perceive! > > Third, writing, which has the life of its own, can't be > analysed without being impinged by the observer's own > perception. Recent research in TESOL emphasises the role > of learner identity in second language acquisition. > > Perhaps we should think that the world is already the best > representation of itself, to which human beings have > limited access. I found Thomas Nagel's explanation of > objectivity an eye-opener and a mind-liberator! > > James > / > / > > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:54, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > It is clearly wrong to say that we can't study > language objectively because we exist and think in > it - in speech and writing, language is objective > and actual, so we can also observe it. But to > study language objectively, from "outside," > requires the student to acquire a certain distance > from it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving > that, even writing too, I guess, and anyone who > learns a second language has a point from which to > view their first language. Thus we can learn that > "Je ne sais pas" is not necessarily a double > negative. But is the interviewer who asks an > artist to explain their painting failing to stand > outside language to see that there is something > else. Like the psychologists who ask subjects > questions and take the answer to be what the > person "really" thought. It's the old problem of > Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond > experience which (in my opinion) Hegel so > thoroughly debunked > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Andy, here're my thoughts with respect >>> to your message: >>> >>> I think "default", as a state of the >>> human mind, is intuitive and /a >>> posteriori/ rather than of something we >>> get hung up on deliberately or >>> voluntarily. This state of mind is also >>> multifaceted, depending on the context >>> in which we find ourselves. Perhaps >>> there might be?a prototype of default >>> that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not >>> sure about that. >>> >>> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is >>> profoundly influential, without which >>> post-Saussurean thought, including >>> post-structuralism, wouldn't have >>> existed. Seemingly, none of these >>> theorists could have worked out their >>> ideas without the inspiration and >>> challenge of Saussure. Take for example >>> the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I >>> think would suffice (never mind those >>> Francophone geniuses you might have >>> referred to!). Jakobson extended and >>> modified Saussure's signs, using >>> communicative functions as the object of >>> linguistic studies (instead of >>> standardised rules of a given language, >>> i.e. /langue/ in Saussure's terms). He >>> replaced langue with "code" to denote >>> the goal-directedness of communicative >>> functions. Each of the codes was thus >>> associated with its own langue as a >>> larger system. >>> >>> It seems to me that Saussure's semiology >>> is not simply dualistic. There's more to >>> it, e.g. the system of signification >>> bridging between a concept (signified) >>> and a sound image (signifier). Strictly >>> speaking, the system of signification is >>> not concerned with language but >>> linguistics within which language lends >>> itself to?scrutiny?and related >>> concepts?become valid. From Jakobson's >>> viewpoint, this system is more than a >>> normalised collective norm; it contains >>> personal meanings not necessarily >>> compatible with that norm. Saussure >>> would say this norm is the /parole/ that >>> involves an individual's preference and >>> creativity. I find Jakobson's code quite >>> liberating - it helps?explain the >>> workings of Chinese dialects (different >>> to dialects within the British English), >>> e.g. the grammatical structure of >>> Shanghainese, which is in many aspects >>> at variance with Mandarin (the official >>> language or predominant dialect). >>> >>> By the way, I don't think we can study a >>> language objectively because we are >>> already users of that language when >>> studying it, i.e. we must remain >>> insiders of that language in order to >>> study it, plus the fact that we have the >>> will to meaning, so to speak. >>> >>> James >>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>> >>> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>> / >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190126/d90a0906/attachment.html From bazerman@education.ucsb.edu Fri Jan 25 08:07:04 2019 From: bazerman@education.ucsb.edu (Charles Bazerman) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:07:04 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language, mind and objectivity In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: Andy, I don't want to get into epistemological discussions, of which there are no end, but I think it is with considering how distantly the object of study study of different fields exists apart from systems of human meaning. I think it is an error to homogenize them all, even though all disciplines and forms of human inquiry are human made. So the "objective materials" of language (that is, the stuff outside of ourselves that can be viewed apart from their relation to meanings attributed by human minds are air compressions, reverberating media, inscribed marks, etc. It is naive to take language as meaning, used, understood, etc. to be objective in the sense of being apart from projection of human meaning. True all those subjects you mention also engage human minds and are systems of meaning. In a way they can all be considered and studied as particular uses of language (Indeed that is one way of describing much of my scholarly inquiry). However, the objects of study of some of these disciplines and the evidence that can be inscribed by various means (though humanly organized) exist at a distance from human minds can have more substantial status apart from the minds and meaning attributions of the users. So biological creatures, movement of particles, chemicals all exist apart from humans (unless you want to take a radical solipsistic view epistemology) --even though it takes human perception to notice them and language or other symbol-making to make meaning of them. Some of the other disciplines however are more inextricably tied to human meaning-making and our symbols--philosophy, history (relying on archival texts), important aspects of sociology, etc. This question then gets to the nature and status of appropriate data and evidence in these various fields. Chuck ---- ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. History will judge. https://bazerman.education.ucsb.edu/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles_Bazerman http://www.isawr.org https://dailydoublespeak.com/ On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:35 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > What you say about language, James, is equally true of History, Biology, > Chemistry, Physics, Social Theory, Philosophy ... and perception, is it not? > > andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 26/01/2019 2:23 am, James Ma wrote: > > Hello Fellows, > > I'd like to resume early discussion on language, music and philosophy with > a separate header to address the intersection of language, mind and > objectivity. > > I now start by perusing Andy's message below. As it stands, his > counterargument to mine is a little sloppy and, more to the point, barely > scratches the surface. My argument centres on a position that there is no > way to talk about language without using language. Any language is thus to > be scrutinised through the medium of itself (or another language). In doing > so, one can't escape from being insider of that language. I > elaborate my position as below, which might serve as pointers for > discussion or reflection: > > First, language faculty reduces to mind. In studying the mind, one needs > to attend to the use of mind in two different senses: a mind as the object > (that is being studied) and a mind as the subject (that is doing the study). > > Second, to understand how mind functions in the world, it is necessary to > bring perception into focus. It seems to be a rather naive realistic view > that "in speech and writing, language is objective and actual, so we can > also observe it". This doesn't entirely qualify as a case of perceptual > recognition in that it latches on sense-data out of which one makes > inference, without taking into consideration an interaction of three > relations in perception, i.e. sense-data, the object behind sense-data, and > the subject (observer). There seems to be a missing subjective angle from > which the object is viewed. Moreover, inference processing is not simply > conscious or deliberate; it also sets free implicit, involuntary or even > irrational dispositions of the mind. In short, perception is interpretative > and subjective because it is participatory in nature. I believe that all > claims to knowledge answer in the end to perception. Taking for example > language teaching, it involves a human being working with another human > being, in which case you have to consider the effect of consciousness and > intersubjectivity. There is no thought-free perception or perception-free > thought - what you get in the mind is not the same as what you perceive! > > Third, writing, which has the life of its own, can't be analysed without > being impinged by the observer's own perception. Recent research in TESOL > emphasises the role of learner identity in second language acquisition. > > Perhaps we should think that the world is already the best representation > of itself, to which human beings have limited access. I found Thomas > Nagel's explanation of objectivity an eye-opener and a mind-liberator! > > James > > >> On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:54, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> It is clearly wrong to say that we can't study language objectively >>> because we exist and think in it - in speech and writing, language is >>> objective and actual, so we can also observe it. But to study language >>> objectively, from "outside," requires the student to acquire a certain >>> distance from it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving that, even >>> writing too, I guess, and anyone who learns a second language has a point >>> from which to view their first language. Thus we can learn that "Je ne sais >>> pas" is not necessarily a double negative. But is the interviewer who asks >>> an artist to explain their painting failing to stand outside language to >>> see that there is something else. Like the psychologists who ask subjects >>> questions and take the answer to be what the person "really" thought. It's >>> the old problem of Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond experience >>> which (in my opinion) Hegel so thoroughly debunked >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>>> Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: >>>>> >>>>> I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a >>>>> posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately >>>>> or voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the >>>>> context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of >>>>> default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which >>>>> post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have >>>>> existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their >>>>> ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example >>>>> the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind >>>>> those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended >>>>> and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object >>>>> of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, >>>>> i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to >>>>> denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes >>>>> was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. >>>>> There's more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a >>>>> concept (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the >>>>> system of signification is not concerned with language but linguistics >>>>> within which language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become >>>>> valid. From Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised >>>>> collective norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible >>>>> with that norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that >>>>> involves an individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code >>>>> quite liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects >>>>> (different to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical >>>>> structure of Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with >>>>> Mandarin (the official language or predominant dialect). >>>>> >>>>> By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because >>>>> we are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain >>>>> insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have >>>>> the will to meaning, so to speak. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>>> >>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190125/a98d112a/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Jan 25 08:14:03 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 03:14:03 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language, mind and objectivity In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: <469c04a2-78ec-a0d2-d614-e1b658307914@marxists.org> Chuck, I think that if you want to say "all exist apart from humans ... --even though it takes human perception to notice them and language or other symbol-making to make meaning of them" then you have already taken a radical realist position in epistemology. Does phlogiston exist too? And serious, scientific people were doubting the objective existence of molecules until the 20th century. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 26/01/2019 3:07 am, Charles Bazerman wrote: > Andy, > I don't want to get into epistemological discussions, of > which there are no end, but I think it is with considering > how distantly the object of study study of different > fields exists apart from systems of human meaning.? I > think it is an error to homogenize them all, even though > all disciplines and forms of human inquiry are human made. > > So the "objective materials" of language (that is, the > stuff outside of ourselves that can be viewed apart from > their relation to meanings attributed by human minds are > air compressions, reverberating media, inscribed marks, > etc. It is naive to take language as meaning, used, > understood, etc. to be objective in the sense of being > apart from projection of human meaning. > > True all those subjects you mention also engage human > minds and are systems of meaning. In a way they can all be > considered and studied as particular uses of language > (Indeed that is one way of describing much of my scholarly > inquiry). > ?However, the objects of study of some of these > disciplines and the evidence that can be inscribed by > various means (though humanly organized) exist at a > distance from human minds can have more substantial status > apart from the minds and meaning attributions of the > users. So biological creatures, movement of particles, > chemicals all exist apart from humans (unless you want to > take a radical solipsistic view epistemology) --even > though it takes human perception to notice them and > language or other symbol-making to make meaning of them.? > Some of the other disciplines however are more > inextricably tied to human meaning-making and our > symbols--philosophy, history (relying on archival texts), > important aspects of sociology, etc. > This question then gets to the nature and status of > appropriate data and evidence in these various fields. > Chuck > ---- > ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? > The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. > History will judge. > https://bazerman.education.ucsb.edu/ > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles_Bazerman > http://www.isawr.org > https://dailydoublespeak.com/ > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:35 AM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > What you say about language, James, is equally true of > History, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Social Theory, > Philosophy ... and perception, is it not? > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 26/01/2019 2:23 am, James Ma wrote: >> Hello Fellows, >> >> I'd like to resume early discussion on language, >> music and philosophy with a separate header to >> address the intersection of language, mind and >> objectivity. >> >> I now start by perusing Andy's message below. As it >> stands, his counterargument to mine is a little >> sloppy and, more to the point, barely scratches the >> surface. My argument centres on?a position that there >> is no way to talk about language without using >> language. Any language is thus to be scrutinised >> through the medium of itself (or another language). >> In doing so, one can't escape from being insider of >> that language. I elaborate?my?position?as below, >> which might serve as pointers for discussion or >> reflection: >> >> First, language faculty reduces to mind. In studying >> the mind, one needs to attend to the use of mind in >> two different senses: a mind as the object (that is >> being studied) and a mind as the subject (that is >> doing the study). >> >> Second, to understand how mind functions in the >> world, it is necessary to bring perception into >> focus. It seems to be a rather naive realistic view >> that "in speech and writing, language is objective >> and actual, so we can also observe it". This doesn't >> entirely qualify as a case of perceptual recognition >> in that it latches on sense-data out of which one >> makes inference, without taking into consideration an >> interaction of three relations in perception, i.e. >> sense-data, the object behind sense-data, and the >> subject (observer). There?seems to be?a missing >> subjective angle from which the object is viewed. >> Moreover, inference processing is not simply >> conscious or deliberate; it also sets free implicit, >> involuntary or even irrational?dispositions of the >> mind. In short, perception is interpretative >> and?subjective because it is participatory in nature. >> I?believe that all claims to knowledge answer in the >> end to perception. Taking for example language >> teaching, it involves a human being working with >> another human being, in which case you have to >> consider the effect of consciousness and >> intersubjectivity.?There is no thought-free >> perception or perception-free thought - what you get >> in the mind is not the same as what you perceive! >> >> Third, writing, which has the life of its own, can't >> be analysed without being impinged by the observer's >> own perception. Recent research in TESOL emphasises >> the role of learner identity in second language >> acquisition. >> >> Perhaps we should think that the world is already the >> best representation of itself, to which human beings >> have limited access. I found Thomas Nagel's >> explanation of objectivity an eye-opener and a >> mind-liberator! >> >> James >> / >> / >> >> >> On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:54, Andy Blunden >> > >> wrote: >> >> It is clearly wrong to say that we can't >> study language objectively because we exist >> and think in it - in speech and writing, >> language is objective and actual, so we can >> also observe it. But to study language >> objectively, from "outside," requires the >> student to acquire a certain distance from >> it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving >> that, even writing too, I guess, and anyone >> who learns a second language has a point from >> which to view their first language. Thus we >> can learn that "Je ne sais pas" is not >> necessarily a double negative. But is the >> interviewer who asks an artist to explain >> their painting failing to stand outside >> language to see that there is something else. >> Like the psychologists who ask subjects >> questions and take the answer to be what the >> person "really" thought. It's the old problem >> of Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond >> experience which (in my opinion) Hegel so >> thoroughly debunked >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Andy, here're my thoughts with >>>> respect to your message: >>>> >>>> I think "default", as a state of >>>> the human mind, is intuitive and /a >>>> posteriori/ rather than of >>>> something we get hung up on >>>> deliberately or voluntarily. This >>>> state of mind is also multifaceted, >>>> depending on the context in which >>>> we find ourselves. Perhaps there >>>> might be?a prototype of default >>>> that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm >>>> not sure about that. >>>> >>>> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is >>>> profoundly influential, without >>>> which post-Saussurean thought, >>>> including post-structuralism, >>>> wouldn't have existed. Seemingly, >>>> none of these theorists could have >>>> worked out their ideas without the >>>> inspiration and challenge of >>>> Saussure. Take for example the >>>> Russian linguist Jakobson, which I >>>> think would suffice (never mind >>>> those Francophone geniuses you >>>> might have referred to!). Jakobson >>>> extended and modified Saussure's >>>> signs, using communicative >>>> functions as the object of >>>> linguistic studies (instead of >>>> standardised rules of a given >>>> language, i.e. /langue/ in >>>> Saussure's terms). He replaced >>>> langue with "code" to denote the >>>> goal-directedness of communicative >>>> functions. Each of the codes was >>>> thus associated with its own langue >>>> as a larger system. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that Saussure's >>>> semiology is not simply dualistic. >>>> There's more to it, e.g. the system >>>> of signification bridging between a >>>> concept (signified) and a sound >>>> image (signifier). Strictly >>>> speaking, the system of >>>> signification is not concerned with >>>> language but linguistics within >>>> which language lends itself >>>> to?scrutiny?and related >>>> concepts?become valid. From >>>> Jakobson's viewpoint, this system >>>> is more than a normalised >>>> collective norm; it contains >>>> personal meanings not necessarily >>>> compatible with that norm. Saussure >>>> would say this norm is the /parole/ >>>> that involves an individual's >>>> preference and creativity. I find >>>> Jakobson's code quite liberating - >>>> it helps?explain the workings of >>>> Chinese dialects (different to >>>> dialects within the British >>>> English), e.g. the grammatical >>>> structure of Shanghainese, which is >>>> in many aspects at variance with >>>> Mandarin (the official language or >>>> predominant dialect). >>>> >>>> By the way, I don't think we can >>>> study a language objectively >>>> because we are already users of >>>> that language when studying it, >>>> i.e. we must remain insiders of >>>> that language in order to study it, >>>> plus the fact that we have the will >>>> to meaning, so to speak. >>>> >>>> James >>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>> >>>> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> / >>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190126/2ce567c2/attachment.html From bazerman@education.ucsb.edu Fri Jan 25 08:31:41 2019 From: bazerman@education.ucsb.edu (Charles Bazerman) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:31:41 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language, mind and objectivity In-Reply-To: <469c04a2-78ec-a0d2-d614-e1b658307914@marxists.org> References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> <469c04a2-78ec-a0d2-d614-e1b658307914@marxists.org> Message-ID: As I said, I do not want to go through the epistemological rabbit hole., but I will respond to you. I do not hold the position you attribute to me. "Phlogisten" is a meaning people attributed at some times to their perceptions of the world. There are many attributions fthat have come and gone, and many we currently some different disciplines are not held by other disciplines or by other groups of people, and may well vanish within the domains they are now recognized. I did not assert that any set of meanings or attributions or perceptions existed apart from humans. I only asserted that some things that we attribute meanings to exist beyond ourselves and we can attempt to gain evidence of them. The point I was making about language was just an elaboration of James' point that apart from ourselves what exists of language are its physical traces (and even their physical traces are created by humans or other sentient beings). Meaning (which is typically an important assumption of language studies) does not exist apart from the beings that attribute meaning. Chuck ---- ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. History will judge. https://bazerman.education.ucsb.edu/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles_Bazerman http://www.isawr.org https://dailydoublespeak.com/ On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 8:17 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > Chuck, I think that if you want to say "all exist apart from humans ... > --even though it takes human perception to notice them and language or > other symbol-making to make meaning of them" then you have already taken a > radical realist position in epistemology. Does phlogiston exist too? And > serious, scientific people were doubting the objective existence of > molecules until the 20th century. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 26/01/2019 3:07 am, Charles Bazerman wrote: > > Andy, > I don't want to get into epistemological discussions, of which there are > no end, but I think it is with considering how distantly the object of > study study of different fields exists apart from systems of human > meaning. I think it is an error to homogenize them all, even though all > disciplines and forms of human inquiry are human made. > > So the "objective materials" of language (that is, the stuff outside of > ourselves that can be viewed apart from their relation to meanings > attributed by human minds are air compressions, reverberating media, > inscribed marks, etc. It is naive to take language as meaning, used, > understood, etc. to be objective in the sense of being apart from > projection of human meaning. > > True all those subjects you mention also engage human minds and are > systems of meaning. In a way they can all be considered and studied as > particular uses of language (Indeed that is one way of describing much of > my scholarly inquiry). > However, the objects of study of some of these disciplines and the > evidence that can be inscribed by various means (though humanly organized) > exist at a distance from human minds can have more substantial status apart > from the minds and meaning attributions of the users. So biological > creatures, movement of particles, chemicals all exist apart from humans > (unless you want to take a radical solipsistic view epistemology) --even > though it takes human perception to notice them and language or other > symbol-making to make meaning of them. Some of the other disciplines > however are more inextricably tied to human meaning-making and our > symbols--philosophy, history (relying on archival texts), important aspects > of sociology, etc. > This question then gets to the nature and status of appropriate data and > evidence in these various fields. > Chuck > ---- > ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? > The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. > History will judge. > https://bazerman.education.ucsb.edu/ > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles_Bazerman > http://www.isawr.org > https://dailydoublespeak.com/ > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:35 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> What you say about language, James, is equally true of History, Biology, >> Chemistry, Physics, Social Theory, Philosophy ... and perception, is it not? >> >> andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 26/01/2019 2:23 am, James Ma wrote: >> >> Hello Fellows, >> >> I'd like to resume early discussion on language, music and philosophy >> with a separate header to address the intersection of language, mind and >> objectivity. >> >> I now start by perusing Andy's message below. As it stands, his >> counterargument to mine is a little sloppy and, more to the point, barely >> scratches the surface. My argument centres on a position that there is no >> way to talk about language without using language. Any language is thus to >> be scrutinised through the medium of itself (or another language). In doing >> so, one can't escape from being insider of that language. I >> elaborate my position as below, which might serve as pointers for >> discussion or reflection: >> >> First, language faculty reduces to mind. In studying the mind, one needs >> to attend to the use of mind in two different senses: a mind as the object >> (that is being studied) and a mind as the subject (that is doing the study). >> >> Second, to understand how mind functions in the world, it is necessary to >> bring perception into focus. It seems to be a rather naive realistic view >> that "in speech and writing, language is objective and actual, so we can >> also observe it". This doesn't entirely qualify as a case of perceptual >> recognition in that it latches on sense-data out of which one makes >> inference, without taking into consideration an interaction of three >> relations in perception, i.e. sense-data, the object behind sense-data, and >> the subject (observer). There seems to be a missing subjective angle from >> which the object is viewed. Moreover, inference processing is not simply >> conscious or deliberate; it also sets free implicit, involuntary or even >> irrational dispositions of the mind. In short, perception is interpretative >> and subjective because it is participatory in nature. I believe that all >> claims to knowledge answer in the end to perception. Taking for example >> language teaching, it involves a human being working with another human >> being, in which case you have to consider the effect of consciousness and >> intersubjectivity. There is no thought-free perception or perception-free >> thought - what you get in the mind is not the same as what you perceive! >> >> Third, writing, which has the life of its own, can't be analysed without >> being impinged by the observer's own perception. Recent research in TESOL >> emphasises the role of learner identity in second language acquisition. >> >> Perhaps we should think that the world is already the best representation >> of itself, to which human beings have limited access. I found Thomas >> Nagel's explanation of objectivity an eye-opener and a mind-liberator! >> >> James >> >> >>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:54, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> It is clearly wrong to say that we can't study language objectively >>>> because we exist and think in it - in speech and writing, language is >>>> objective and actual, so we can also observe it. But to study language >>>> objectively, from "outside," requires the student to acquire a certain >>>> distance from it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving that, even >>>> writing too, I guess, and anyone who learns a second language has a point >>>> from which to view their first language. Thus we can learn that "Je ne sais >>>> pas" is not necessarily a double negative. But is the interviewer who asks >>>> an artist to explain their painting failing to stand outside language to >>>> see that there is something else. Like the psychologists who ask subjects >>>> questions and take the answer to be what the person "really" thought. It's >>>> the old problem of Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond experience >>>> which (in my opinion) Hegel so thoroughly debunked >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a >>>>>> posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately >>>>>> or voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the >>>>>> context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of >>>>>> default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without >>>>>> which post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have >>>>>> existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their >>>>>> ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example >>>>>> the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind >>>>>> those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended >>>>>> and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object >>>>>> of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, >>>>>> i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" >>>>>> to denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the >>>>>> codes was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. >>>>>> There's more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a >>>>>> concept (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the >>>>>> system of signification is not concerned with language but linguistics >>>>>> within which language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become >>>>>> valid. From Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised >>>>>> collective norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible >>>>>> with that norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that >>>>>> involves an individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code >>>>>> quite liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects >>>>>> (different to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical >>>>>> structure of Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with >>>>>> Mandarin (the official language or predominant dialect). >>>>>> >>>>>> By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because >>>>>> we are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain >>>>>> insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have >>>>>> the will to meaning, so to speak. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>>>> >>>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190125/2ebab98f/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Jan 26 19:01:02 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 12:01:02 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Mamamamamahln'iqk'okmaqama Message-ID: Benjamin Lee Whorf was an inspector for a fire insurance company in Connecticut, run by, among others,the poet Wallace Stevens. While doing inspections, he noticed that in addition to the material situational setting (the bricks and mortar) of factories, the relationships between people, realized as language, could be a fire hazard. So for example workers taking a cigarette break sometimes threw their fag ends into "empty" gasoline barrels, which were full of gas fumes. Studying with Edward Sapir (who is the real source of many of Vygotsky's insights about internalization, about self-directed speech, and even about the difference between visio-graphic complexes and semantic concepts), Whorf became one of the great linguists of the twentieth century. But although he was enrolled as a PhD student with Sapir, he never bothered to get the degree, and as a result there has been all kinds of snarkiness about his so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Some of this snarkiness (e.g. Steven Pinker, John McWhorter) even dresses up its anti-geneticism as moral rectitude, supposing that Whorf, who actually argued that Hopi grammar was closer to Einsteinian relativity than Standard Average European, was claiming that "primitive" people only had "primitive" thoughts because they have primitive languages. Consider the amazing word/sentence "mamamamamahln'iqk'okmaqama", from the Nootka language on Vancouver Island in Canada. In English we would need a whole sentence to render the meaning: "They each did so by virtue of their characteristic of resembling white folks". Not only is it semantically free of our theories of race (because it suggests that the motive of behavior is not racial but has to do with a kind of role play), it is even grammatically so, because it contains only one actual vocabulary item, "mamahl", or "white folks". All the rest of the word/sentence consists of grammatical functors like our English "of" or "the" or "like". So almost anything, e.g. "ndma" or "doll" could be inserted without any change inmeaning: "mamamamandman'iqk'okmaqama" means something like "they each did so by virtue of their characteristic of resembling dolls". Doesn't BOTH calling this kind of analysis of language either "subjective" (i.e. dependent on the language of the analysand) or "objective" (i.e. existing prior to human consciousness) rather miss the point? In fact, isn't the use of "subject" and "object" in analyzing languages that lack both simply another instance of mamamamamahln'iqk'okmaqama? David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article; David Kellogg (2019) THE STORYTELLER?S TALE: VYGOTSKY?S ?VRASHCHIVANIYA?, THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT AND ?INGROWING? IN THE WEEKEND STORIES OF KOREAN CHILDREN, British Journal of Educational Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/GSS2cTAVAz2jaRdPIkvj/full?target=10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190127/2956d642/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Jan 27 10:32:41 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:32:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language, mind and objectivity In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: Andy, I can see your point. No theory is capable of telling the full story, so synergism is perhaps a solution. I think in social sciences and humanities there's no exactness or preciseness but approximation and appropriation. James Andy Blunden ? 2019?1?25??? 15:35??? > What you say about language, James, is equally true of History, Biology, > Chemistry, Physics, Social Theory, Philosophy ... and perception, is it not? > > andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 26/01/2019 2:23 am, James Ma wrote: > > Hello Fellows, > > I'd like to resume early discussion on language, music and philosophy with > a separate header to address the intersection of language, mind and > objectivity. > > I now start by perusing Andy's message below. As it stands, his > counterargument to mine is a little sloppy and, more to the point, barely > scratches the surface. My argument centres on a position that there is no > way to talk about language without using language. Any language is thus to > be scrutinised through the medium of itself (or another language). In doing > so, one can't escape from being insider of that language. I > elaborate my position as below, which might serve as pointers for > discussion or reflection: > > First, language faculty reduces to mind. In studying the mind, one needs > to attend to the use of mind in two different senses: a mind as the object > (that is being studied) and a mind as the subject (that is doing the study). > > Second, to understand how mind functions in the world, it is necessary to > bring perception into focus. It seems to be a rather naive realistic view > that "in speech and writing, language is objective and actual, so we can > also observe it". This doesn't entirely qualify as a case of perceptual > recognition in that it latches on sense-data out of which one makes > inference, without taking into consideration an interaction of three > relations in perception, i.e. sense-data, the object behind sense-data, and > the subject (observer). There seems to be a missing subjective angle from > which the object is viewed. Moreover, inference processing is not simply > conscious or deliberate; it also sets free implicit, involuntary or even > irrational dispositions of the mind. In short, perception is interpretative > and subjective because it is participatory in nature. I believe that all > claims to knowledge answer in the end to perception. Taking for example > language teaching, it involves a human being working with another human > being, in which case you have to consider the effect of consciousness and > intersubjectivity. There is no thought-free perception or perception-free > thought - what you get in the mind is not the same as what you perceive! > > Third, writing, which has the life of its own, can't be analysed without > being impinged by the observer's own perception. Recent research in TESOL > emphasises the role of learner identity in second language acquisition. > > Perhaps we should think that the world is already the best representation > of itself, to which human beings have limited access. I found Thomas > Nagel's explanation of objectivity an eye-opener and a mind-liberator! > > James > > >> On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:54, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> It is clearly wrong to say that we can't study language objectively >>> because we exist and think in it - in speech and writing, language is >>> objective and actual, so we can also observe it. But to study language >>> objectively, from "outside," requires the student to acquire a certain >>> distance from it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving that, even >>> writing too, I guess, and anyone who learns a second language has a point >>> from which to view their first language. Thus we can learn that "Je ne sais >>> pas" is not necessarily a double negative. But is the interviewer who asks >>> an artist to explain their painting failing to stand outside language to >>> see that there is something else. Like the psychologists who ask subjects >>> questions and take the answer to be what the person "really" thought. It's >>> the old problem of Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond experience >>> which (in my opinion) Hegel so thoroughly debunked >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>>> Andy, here're my thoughts with respect to your message: >>>>> >>>>> I think "default", as a state of the human mind, is intuitive and *a >>>>> posteriori* rather than of something we get hung up on deliberately >>>>> or voluntarily. This state of mind is also multifaceted, depending on the >>>>> context in which we find ourselves. Perhaps there might be a prototype of >>>>> default that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm not sure about that. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is profoundly influential, without which >>>>> post-Saussurean thought, including post-structuralism, wouldn't have >>>>> existed. Seemingly, none of these theorists could have worked out their >>>>> ideas without the inspiration and challenge of Saussure. Take for example >>>>> the Russian linguist Jakobson, which I think would suffice (never mind >>>>> those Francophone geniuses you might have referred to!). Jakobson extended >>>>> and modified Saussure's signs, using communicative functions as the object >>>>> of linguistic studies (instead of standardised rules of a given language, >>>>> i.e. *langue* in Saussure's terms). He replaced langue with "code" to >>>>> denote the goal-directedness of communicative functions. Each of the codes >>>>> was thus associated with its own langue as a larger system. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that Saussure's semiology is not simply dualistic. >>>>> There's more to it, e.g. the system of signification bridging between a >>>>> concept (signified) and a sound image (signifier). Strictly speaking, the >>>>> system of signification is not concerned with language but linguistics >>>>> within which language lends itself to scrutiny and related concepts become >>>>> valid. From Jakobson's viewpoint, this system is more than a normalised >>>>> collective norm; it contains personal meanings not necessarily compatible >>>>> with that norm. Saussure would say this norm is the *parole* that >>>>> involves an individual's preference and creativity. I find Jakobson's code >>>>> quite liberating - it helps explain the workings of Chinese dialects >>>>> (different to dialects within the British English), e.g. the grammatical >>>>> structure of Shanghainese, which is in many aspects at variance with >>>>> Mandarin (the official language or predominant dialect). >>>>> >>>>> By the way, I don't think we can study a language objectively because >>>>> we are already users of that language when studying it, i.e. we must remain >>>>> insiders of that language in order to study it, plus the fact that we have >>>>> the will to meaning, so to speak. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>>> >>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190127/0845551c/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Jan 27 17:30:17 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:30:17 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Language, mind and objectivity In-Reply-To: References: <7773bf30-7526-ea91-fe0d-665d192d9cd5@marxists.org> <9f3eef80-1caf-a662-84f1-42466abafec3@marxists.org> <5d7d0173-e9e7-23d6-e831-120d7e8e7289@marxists.org> <4ED8D190-08FC-446C-94C3-8D5497D76AA8@tlu.ee> Message-ID: <1aa8807c-2493-de95-c6b5-10afd89fa71e@marxists.org> Right! Vygotsky's early speech on Reflexology said it all (I was not original): https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/reflexology.htm Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/01/2019 5:32 am, James Ma wrote: > Andy, I can see your point. No theory is capable of > telling the full story, so synergism is perhaps a > solution. I think in social sciences and humanities > there's no exactness or preciseness but approximation and > appropriation. > James > > > Andy Blunden > ? 2019?1?25??? 15:35??? > > What you say about language, James, is equally true of > History, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Social Theory, > Philosophy ... and perception, is it not? > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 26/01/2019 2:23 am, James Ma wrote: >> Hello Fellows, >> >> I'd like to resume early discussion on language, >> music and philosophy with a separate header to >> address the intersection of language, mind and >> objectivity. >> >> I now start by perusing Andy's message below. As it >> stands, his counterargument to mine is a little >> sloppy and, more to the point, barely scratches the >> surface. My argument centres on?a position that there >> is no way to talk about language without using >> language. Any language is thus to be scrutinised >> through the medium of itself (or another language). >> In doing so, one can't escape from being insider of >> that language. I elaborate?my?position?as below, >> which might serve as pointers for discussion or >> reflection: >> >> First, language faculty reduces to mind. In studying >> the mind, one needs to attend to the use of mind in >> two different senses: a mind as the object (that is >> being studied) and a mind as the subject (that is >> doing the study). >> >> Second, to understand how mind functions in the >> world, it is necessary to bring perception into >> focus. It seems to be a rather naive realistic view >> that "in speech and writing, language is objective >> and actual, so we can also observe it". This doesn't >> entirely qualify as a case of perceptual recognition >> in that it latches on sense-data out of which one >> makes inference, without taking into consideration an >> interaction of three relations in perception, i.e. >> sense-data, the object behind sense-data, and the >> subject (observer). There?seems to be?a missing >> subjective angle from which the object is viewed. >> Moreover, inference processing is not simply >> conscious or deliberate; it also sets free implicit, >> involuntary or even irrational?dispositions of the >> mind. In short, perception is interpretative >> and?subjective because it is participatory in nature. >> I?believe that all claims to knowledge answer in the >> end to perception. Taking for example language >> teaching, it involves a human being working with >> another human being, in which case you have to >> consider the effect of consciousness and >> intersubjectivity.?There is no thought-free >> perception or perception-free thought - what you get >> in the mind is not the same as what you perceive! >> >> Third, writing, which has the life of its own, can't >> be analysed without being impinged by the observer's >> own perception. Recent research in TESOL emphasises >> the role of learner identity in second language >> acquisition. >> >> Perhaps we should think that the world is already the >> best representation of itself, to which human beings >> have limited access. I found Thomas Nagel's >> explanation of objectivity an eye-opener and a >> mind-liberator! >> >> James >> / >> / >> >> >> On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:54, Andy Blunden >> > >> wrote: >> >> It is clearly wrong to say that we can't >> study language objectively because we exist >> and think in it - in speech and writing, >> language is objective and actual, so we can >> also observe it. But to study language >> objectively, from "outside," requires the >> student to acquire a certain distance from >> it. Teaching grammar is one way of achieving >> that, even writing too, I guess, and anyone >> who learns a second language has a point from >> which to view their first language. Thus we >> can learn that "Je ne sais pas" is not >> necessarily a double negative. But is the >> interviewer who asks an artist to explain >> their painting failing to stand outside >> language to see that there is something else. >> Like the psychologists who ask subjects >> questions and take the answer to be what the >> person "really" thought. It's the old problem >> of Kant's supposed "thing-in-itself" beyond >> experience which (in my opinion) Hegel so >> thoroughly debunked >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 4:52 AM James Ma >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Andy, here're my thoughts with >>>> respect to your message: >>>> >>>> I think "default", as a state of >>>> the human mind, is intuitive and /a >>>> posteriori/ rather than of >>>> something we get hung up on >>>> deliberately or voluntarily. This >>>> state of mind is also multifaceted, >>>> depending on the context in which >>>> we find ourselves. Perhaps there >>>> might be?a prototype of default >>>> that is somehow intrinsic, but I'm >>>> not sure about that. >>>> >>>> Yes, Saussure's structuralism is >>>> profoundly influential, without >>>> which post-Saussurean thought, >>>> including post-structuralism, >>>> wouldn't have existed. Seemingly, >>>> none of these theorists could have >>>> worked out their ideas without the >>>> inspiration and challenge of >>>> Saussure. Take for example the >>>> Russian linguist Jakobson, which I >>>> think would suffice (never mind >>>> those Francophone geniuses you >>>> might have referred to!). Jakobson >>>> extended and modified Saussure's >>>> signs, using communicative >>>> functions as the object of >>>> linguistic studies (instead of >>>> standardised rules of a given >>>> language, i.e. /langue/ in >>>> Saussure's terms). He replaced >>>> langue with "code" to denote the >>>> goal-directedness of communicative >>>> functions. Each of the codes was >>>> thus associated with its own langue >>>> as a larger system. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that Saussure's >>>> semiology is not simply dualistic. >>>> There's more to it, e.g. the system >>>> of signification bridging between a >>>> concept (signified) and a sound >>>> image (signifier). Strictly >>>> speaking, the system of >>>> signification is not concerned with >>>> language but linguistics within >>>> which language lends itself >>>> to?scrutiny?and related >>>> concepts?become valid. From >>>> Jakobson's viewpoint, this system >>>> is more than a normalised >>>> collective norm; it contains >>>> personal meanings not necessarily >>>> compatible with that norm. Saussure >>>> would say this norm is the /parole/ >>>> that involves an individual's >>>> preference and creativity. I find >>>> Jakobson's code quite liberating - >>>> it helps?explain the workings of >>>> Chinese dialects (different to >>>> dialects within the British >>>> English), e.g. the grammatical >>>> structure of Shanghainese, which is >>>> in many aspects at variance with >>>> Mandarin (the official language or >>>> predominant dialect). >>>> >>>> By the way, I don't think we can >>>> study a language objectively >>>> because we are already users of >>>> that language when studying it, >>>> i.e. we must remain insiders of >>>> that language in order to study it, >>>> plus the fact that we have the will >>>> to meaning, so to speak. >>>> >>>> James >>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>> >>>> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> / >>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/fa24b492/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Sun Jan 27 21:00:55 2019 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 10:30:55 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Message-ID: Hi, I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" Your views will help me in my work. Regards, Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/69db5c4f/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Jan 27 21:25:05 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:25:05 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Harshad, "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. Hope that helps. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: > Hi, > > I am working on one article. I want to know your views on > following query. > > "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" > > Your views will help me in my work. > > Regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > Email: hhdave15@gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/ceeb6064/attachment.html From Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn Sun Jan 27 21:40:42 2019 From: Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn (Adam Poole (16517826)) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 05:40:42 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Just my response to the prompt. Not particularly well constructed but... Yes, we may find inequalities exist In Nature, but only because we impose our own concepts and experiences onto Nature. In a sense, we anthropomorphize nature, thereby ascribing to it values and judgments that otherwise it does not possess. So, as a thing in itself, nature cannot be said to exhibit inequality, but as a product of our perception, then yes because we utilize a human way of making sense of the wild. ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 28 January 2019 13:25:05 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Harshad, "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. Hope that helps. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: Hi, I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" Your views will help me in my work. Regards, [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B18Z0b6DY4fWbkFHN3I1cEhYUTg&revid=0B18Z0b6DY4fWWVFVOWZiaWVaYmhLNXZOUHp6MEpzT3IxUHFnPQ] Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/7ae0517d/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Jan 27 23:56:29 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 07:56:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". James PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! *_______________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar * *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: > Harshad, > > "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise > "Injustice." > > Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are > living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the > plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are > imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social > system. > > Hope that helps. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: > > Hi, > > I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. > > "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" > > Your views will help me in my work. > > Regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > Email: hhdave15@gmail.com > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/5b84dc80/attachment-0001.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Jan 28 00:14:35 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:14:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! James On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: > Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all > members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put > it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". > James > PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to > me! > > *_______________________________________________________* > > *James Ma Independent Scholar * > *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Harshad, >> >> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise >> "Injustice." >> >> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects >> are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and >> the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are >> imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social >> system. >> >> Hope that helps. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >> >> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >> >> Your views will help me in my work. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Harshad Dave >> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/6b461a67/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Jan 28 05:59:24 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:59:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: > Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a > political, ideological precept! > > James > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: > >> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all >> members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put >> it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >> James >> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak >> to me! >> >> *_______________________________________________________* >> >> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Harshad, >>> >>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise >>> "Injustice." >>> >>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects >>> are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and >>> the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are >>> imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social >>> system. >>> >>> Hope that helps. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following >>> query. >>> >>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>> >>> Your views will help me in my work. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Harshad Dave >>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/a21fc59a/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Mon Jan 28 06:06:33 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:06:33 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B4D1440-3AD7-4D45-A5B2-7E77F501B28D@cantab.net> James, I?m confused. The statement you quote by Moir and Jessel would seem to imply that inequality is ?a biological and scientific? truth. Which is the opposite of what you believe, right? And since humans are a species too, we shouldn?t try to build human society on a belief in equality? Martin > On Jan 28, 2019, at 3:14 AM, James Ma > wrote: > > Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! > > James > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: > Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". > James > PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! > _______________________________________________________ > > James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: > Harshad, > > "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." > Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. > Hope that helps. > > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >> >> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >> >> Your views will help me in my work. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Harshad Dave >> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/09bd65b7/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Jan 28 06:12:12 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 01:12:12 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not? figment of my imagination. andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and > subject to radical changes. > > Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and > predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition > of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and > behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do > not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > > wrote: > > Should you find inequality?within a wildlife system, > that must be a political, ideological precept! > > James > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > > > wrote: > > Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. > To?maintain that all members of the same species > are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, > is to "build a society based on a biological and > scientific lie". > James > PS: I'm apolitical?- anything political, > ideological just doesn't speak to me! > > */_______________________________________________________/* > > /*James Ma *Independent Scholar > //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > / > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > Harshad, > > "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when > referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." > > Justice and equality are relevant only to the > extent that the subjects are living in an > 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural > disasters and the plenitude of Nature have > these dimensions only to the extent they are > imposed on or made available to different > classes of people by the social system. > > Hope that helps. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am working on one article. I want to know >> your views on following query. >> >> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life >> system?" >> >> Your views will help me in my work. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Harshad Dave >> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/8a111d98/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Jan 28 06:50:37 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:50:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. Huw On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: > I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the > meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of > the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is > that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes > objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified > and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. > > andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical > changes. > > Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an > ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in > our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do > not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: > >> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a >> political, ideological precept! >> >> James >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: >> >>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all >>> members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put >>> it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>> James >>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak >>> to me! >>> >>> *_______________________________________________________* >>> >>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>> * >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> Harshad, >>>> >>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise >>>> "Injustice." >>>> >>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects >>>> are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and >>>> the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are >>>> imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social >>>> system. >>>> >>>> Hope that helps. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following >>>> query. >>>> >>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>> >>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Harshad Dave >>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/5c223f6c/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Jan 28 07:21:06 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:21:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Piaget's "elementary forms of dialectics" Message-ID: Apparently Piaget's book, les formes elementaires de la dialectique, has no published translation in English. Is anyone aware of any draft English versions? I have the French paperback and will otherwise set this up as a background task, probably relying on google etc. Best, Huw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/204cc73d/attachment.html From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Mon Jan 28 08:25:24 2019 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:25:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Piaget's "elementary forms of dialectics" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Huw, I suppose that if it exists, it will be mentioned here: http://www.fondationjeanpiaget.ch/fjp/site/textes/index_textes_en_alpha.php Best, Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1 CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont De : > on behalf of Huw Lloyd > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : lundi, 28 janvier 2019 ? 16:21 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Piaget's "elementary forms of dialectics" Apparently Piaget's book, les formes elementaires de la dialectique, has no published translation in English. Is anyone aware of any draft English versions? I have the French paperback and will otherwise set this up as a background task, probably relying on google etc. Best, Huw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/0943e851/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Jan 28 13:29:56 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:29:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <9B4D1440-3AD7-4D45-A5B2-7E77F501B28D@cantab.net> References: <9B4D1440-3AD7-4D45-A5B2-7E77F501B28D@cantab.net> Message-ID: Martin, Moir and Jessel argue in their book "Brain Sex" (1989) that men and women are different but equal only by virtue of their membership of the same species. Moir is a geneticist and Jessel a journalist. Their provocatively apolitical view is stimulating. James On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Martin Packer wrote: > James, I?m confused. The statement you quote by Moir and Jessel would seem > to imply that inequality is ?a biological and scientific? truth. Which is > the opposite of what you believe, right? > > And since humans are a species too, we shouldn?t try to build human > society on a belief in equality? > > Martin > > > > > On Jan 28, 2019, at 3:14 AM, James Ma wrote: > > Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a > political, ideological precept! > > James > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: > >> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all >> members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put >> it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >> James >> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak >> to me! >> >> *_______________________________________________________* >> >> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Harshad, >>> >>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise >>> "Injustice." >>> >>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects >>> are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and >>> the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are >>> imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social >>> system. >>> >>> Hope that helps. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following >>> query. >>> >>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>> >>> Your views will help me in my work. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Harshad Dave >>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190128/68956cbc/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Jan 28 16:16:35 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:16:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a > certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective > about that construal. > > Huw > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that > inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) > is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. > Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The > fact is that states have emerged and developed over > many centuries so as to makes objective certain > concepts of justice, among which are various qualified > and nuances notions of equality. This is not? figment > of my imagination. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and >> subject to radical changes. >> >> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and >> predicated on an ontological scope. We find the >> condition of inequality (or comparison) in our >> thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" >> inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the >> awareness of inequality. >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >> > >> wrote: >> >> Should you find inequality?within a wildlife >> system, that must be a political, ideological >> precept! >> >> James >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >> > > wrote: >> >> Not only is it meaningless but also >> preposterous. To?maintain that all members of >> the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and >> David Jessel put it, is to "build a society >> based on a biological and scientific lie". >> James >> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything political, >> ideological just doesn't speak to me! >> >> */_______________________________________________________/* >> >> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> / >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden >> > > wrote: >> >> Harshad, >> >> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept >> when referred to Nature. Likewise >> "Injustice." >> >> Justice and equality are relevant only to >> the extent that the subjects are living >> in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. >> Natural disasters and the plenitude of >> Nature have these dimensions only to the >> extent they are imposed on or made >> available to different classes of people >> by the social system. >> >> Hope that helps. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am working on one article. I want to >>> know your views on following query. >>> >>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild >>> life system?" >>> >>> Your views will help me in my work. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Harshad Dave >>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/517a055c/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Jan 28 19:29:18 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 03:29:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nevermind, Andy. On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 00:19, Andy Blunden wrote: > Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of > precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, > as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context > and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in > law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations > challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. > > andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. > One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. > > Huw > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the >> meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of >> the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is >> that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes >> objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified >> and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >> >> andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical >> changes. >> >> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an >> ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in >> our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do >> not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: >> >>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a >>> political, ideological precept! >>> >>> James >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: >>> >>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all >>>> members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put >>>> it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>> James >>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak >>>> to me! >>>> >>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>> >>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> * >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>>> Harshad, >>>>> >>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. >>>>> Likewise "Injustice." >>>>> >>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects >>>>> are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and >>>>> the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are >>>>> imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social >>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following >>>>> query. >>>>> >>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>> >>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/4ee2a890/attachment.html From Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn Mon Jan 28 19:49:25 2019 From: Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn (Adam Poole (16517826)) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 03:49:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. Adam ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. Huw On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! James On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". James PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! _______________________________________________________ James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: Harshad, "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. Hope that helps. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: Hi, I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" Your views will help me in my work. Regards, [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B18Z0b6DY4fWbkFHN3I1cEhYUTg&revid=0B18Z0b6DY4fWWVFVOWZiaWVaYmhLNXZOUHp6MEpzT3IxUHFnPQ] Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/513cd771/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Jan 28 21:15:12 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 16:15:12 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: > > Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term > 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which > concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, > language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, > justice can be given objective form in law, but the law > itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, > beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is > not universal, but will differ depending on cultural > context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality > are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they > are objective in nature,?due to the mediating role > of?language. > > > Adam > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy > Blunden > *Sent:* 29 January 2019 08:16:35 > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild > life system? > > Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a > matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a > famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its > contestation is necessarily in a social context and with > social content. Justice and equality are given objective > form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing > states or organisations challenging for state power, not > the opinion of individuals. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a >> certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective >> about that construal. >> >> Huw >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that >> inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used >> it) is something subjective, in the eye of the >> beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious >> politically. The fact is that states have emerged and >> developed over many centuries so as to makes >> objective certain concepts of justice, among which >> are various qualified and nuances notions of >> equality. This is not? figment of my imagination. >> >> andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and >>> subject to radical changes. >>> >>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and >>> predicated on an ontological scope. We find the >>> condition of inequality (or comparison) in our >>> thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" >>> inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the >>> awareness of inequality. >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Should you find inequality?within a wildlife >>> system, that must be a political, ideological >>> precept! >>> >>> James >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Not only is it meaningless but also >>> preposterous. To?maintain that all members >>> of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir >>> and David Jessel put it, is to "build a >>> society based on a biological and scientific >>> lie". >>> James >>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything political, >>> ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>> >>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>> >>> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>> / >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Harshad, >>> >>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept >>> when referred to Nature. Likewise >>> "Injustice." >>> >>> Justice and equality are relevant only >>> to the extent that the subjects are >>> living in an 'artificial' world, out of >>> Nature. Natural disasters and the >>> plenitude of Nature have these >>> dimensions only to the extent they are >>> imposed on or made available to >>> different classes of people by the >>> social system. >>> >>> Hope that helps. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am working on one article. I want to >>>> know your views on following query. >>>> >>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild >>>> life system?" >>>> >>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Harshad Dave >>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> > This message and any attachment are intended solely for > the addressee and may contain confidential information. If > you have received this message in error, please send it > back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, > copy or disclose the information contained in this message > or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by > the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the > views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This > message has been checked for viruses but the contents of > an attachment may still contain software viruses which > could damage your computer system: you are advised to > perform your own checks. Email communications with The > University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as > permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/3e0c543c/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Jan 29 02:50:06 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:50:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well said, Andy! Perhaps the complementarity of subjectivity and objectivity should be likened to be a linchpin around which the theory of knowledge revolves. Given consciousness exists beyond time and space, it is insusceptible of empirical experiments - which results in subjectivism as a defining feature of social research. To acknowledge subjectivity encapsulates the notion of how it comes to affect objectivity, with the latter rendering the researcher a passive recipient of stimuli encountered in the environment. Being objective requires an immediate awareness of the subjectivity of one?s own mind. It would be simplistic to think that social research can be conducted without recognition of its subjective, self-evident nature. What is evident to one individual is not necessarily to another. The subjectivity of mind can always cast a shadow over objective endeavours or ways of being objective in doing the research. James On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 00:19, Andy Blunden wrote: > Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of > precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, > as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context > and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in > law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations > challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. > > andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. > One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. > > Huw > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the >> meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of >> the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is >> that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes >> objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified >> and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >> >> andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical >> changes. >> >> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an >> ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in >> our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do >> not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: >> >>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a >>> political, ideological precept! >>> >>> James >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: >>> >>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all >>>> members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put >>>> it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>> James >>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak >>>> to me! >>>> >>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>> >>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> * >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>>> Harshad, >>>>> >>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. >>>>> Likewise "Injustice." >>>>> >>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects >>>>> are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and >>>>> the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are >>>>> imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social >>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following >>>>> query. >>>>> >>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>> >>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/26329d26/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 29 04:36:35 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 23:36:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b96edea-5648-c838-d7d0-44505d2116ea@marxists.org> So long as we set out from subject on one side and object on the other, putting them together is a hopeless task, complementary or not. Subjectivity and objectivity are abstractions from a shared social life. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 9:50 pm, James Ma wrote: > > Well said, Andy! > > Perhaps the complementarity of subjectivity and > objectivity?should be likened to be a linchpin around > which the theory of knowledge revolves. Given > consciousness exists beyond time and space, it is > insusceptible of empirical experiments - which results in > subjectivism as a defining feature of social research. To > acknowledge subjectivity encapsulates the notion of how it > comes to affect objectivity, with the latter rendering?the > researcher a passive recipient of stimuli encountered in > the environment. Being objective requires an immediate > awareness of the subjectivity of one?s own mind. It would > be simplistic to think that social research can be > conducted without recognition of?its subjective, > self-evident nature. What is evident to one individual is > not necessarily to another. The subjectivity of mind can > always?cast a shadow over objective endeavours or ways of > being objective in doing the research. > > James > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 00:19, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not > a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" > is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," > but its contestation is necessarily in a social > context and with social content. Justice and equality > are given objective form in law and social policy in > definite, really-existing states or organisations > challenging for state power, not the opinion of > individuals. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to >> a certain construal. One can be quite precise and >> objective about that construal. >> >> Huw >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, >> that inequality (in the meaning with which >> Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the >> eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very >> pernicious politically. The fact is that states >> have emerged and developed over many centuries so >> as to makes objective certain concepts of >> justice, among which are various qualified and >> nuances notions of equality. This is not figment >> of my imagination. >> >> andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced >>> and subject to radical changes. >>> >>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct >>> and predicated on an ontological scope. We find >>> the condition of inequality (or comparison) in >>> our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing >>> "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, >>> we find the awareness of inequality. >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Should you find inequality?within a wildlife >>> system, that must be a political, >>> ideological precept! >>> >>> James >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Not only is it meaningless but also >>> preposterous. To?maintain that all >>> members of the same species are equal, >>> as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is >>> to "build a society based on a >>> biological and scientific lie". >>> James >>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything political, >>> ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>> >>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>> >>> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>> / >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy >>> Blunden >> > wrote: >>> >>> Harshad, >>> >>> "Inequality" is a meaningless >>> concept when referred to Nature. >>> Likewise "Injustice." >>> >>> Justice and equality are relevant >>> only to the extent that the subjects >>> are living in an 'artificial' world, >>> out of Nature. Natural disasters and >>> the plenitude of Nature have these >>> dimensions only to the extent they >>> are imposed on or made available to >>> different classes of people by the >>> social system. >>> >>> Hope that helps. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am working on one article. I want >>>> to know your views on following query. >>>> >>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in >>>> wild life system?" >>>> >>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Harshad Dave >>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/f2f39f73/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Jan 29 05:12:14 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:12:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <1b96edea-5648-c838-d7d0-44505d2116ea@marxists.org> References: <1b96edea-5648-c838-d7d0-44505d2116ea@marxists.org> Message-ID: I know what you mean, Andy. To put these two philosophical polarities together is a waste of time, even to try! But what I'm really interested is looking at the polysemy and multimodality of *subjectivism* in social science research. That's worthwhile - Peirce would be impressed! James *_______________________________________________________* *James Ma Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 12:39, Andy Blunden wrote: > So long as we set out from subject on one side and object on the other, > putting them together is a hopeless task, complementary or not. > Subjectivity and objectivity are abstractions from a shared social life. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 9:50 pm, James Ma wrote: > > > Well said, Andy! > > Perhaps the complementarity of subjectivity and objectivity should be > likened to be a linchpin around which the theory of knowledge revolves. > Given consciousness exists beyond time and space, it is insusceptible of > empirical experiments - which results in subjectivism as a defining feature > of social research. To acknowledge subjectivity encapsulates the notion of > how it comes to affect objectivity, with the latter rendering the > researcher a passive recipient of stimuli encountered in the environment. > Being objective requires an immediate awareness of the subjectivity of > one?s own mind. It would be simplistic to think that social research can be > conducted without recognition of its subjective, self-evident nature. What > is evident to one individual is not necessarily to another. The > subjectivity of mind can always cast a shadow over objective endeavours or > ways of being objective in doing the research. > > James > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 00:19, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of >> precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, >> as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context >> and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in >> law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations >> challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >> >> andy >> ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. >> One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >> >> Huw >> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the >>> meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of >>> the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is >>> that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes >>> objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified >>> and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>> >>> andy >>> ------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>> >>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical >>> changes. >>> >>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an >>> ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in >>> our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do >>> not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: >>> >>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a >>>> political, ideological precept! >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all >>>>> members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put >>>>> it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>> James >>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't >>>>> speak to me! >>>>> >>>>> *_______________________________________________________* >>>>> >>>>> *James Ma Independent Scholar * >>>>> *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>> >>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. >>>>>> Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>> >>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the >>>>>> subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural >>>>>> disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the >>>>>> extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people >>>>>> by the social system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following >>>>>> query. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/3b5b3144/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Jan 29 06:41:45 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:41:45 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> Message-ID: There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. Martin > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. > andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. >> >> Adam >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? >> >> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >> andy >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>> andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>> >>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: >>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: >>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>> James >>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>> Harshad, >>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. >>>> Hope that helps. >>>> Andy >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >>>>> >>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>> >>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/d6821ae1/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 29 06:51:17 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 01:51:17 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> Message-ID: <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, /essentially/ artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: > There was a general recognition in the social sciences > (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to > recognize the existence and importance of > ?intersubjective? phenomena. ?Language, for example, is > not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, > subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis > of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are > dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. > > Martin > > > > >> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone >> that is not a linguistic construct. >> >> andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term >>> 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which >>> concepts like inequality and injustice are made >>> objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. >>> For example, justice can be given objective form in law, >>> but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, >>> traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an >>> objective form is not universal, but will differ >>> depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. >>> Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but >>> it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature,?due >>> to the mediating role of?language. >>> >>> Adam >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of Andy >>> Blunden >>> *Sent:* 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild >>> life system? >>> >>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a >>> matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a >>> famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its >>> contestation is necessarily in a social context and with >>> social content. Justice and equality are given objective >>> form in law and social policy in definite, >>> really-existing states or organisations challenging for >>> state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>> >>> andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a >>>> certain construal. One can be quite precise and >>>> objective about that construal. >>>> >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that >>>> inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used >>>> it) is something subjective, in the eye of the >>>> beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious >>>> politically. The fact is that states have emerged >>>> and developed over many centuries so as to makes >>>> objective certain concepts of justice, among which >>>> are various qualified and nuances notions of >>>> equality. This is not? figment of my imagination. >>>> >>>> andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced >>>>> and subject to radical changes. >>>>> >>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and >>>>> predicated on an ontological scope. We find the >>>>> condition of inequality (or comparison) in our >>>>> thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" >>>>> inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find >>>>> the awareness of inequality. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Should you find inequality?within a wildlife >>>>> system, that must be a political, ideological >>>>> precept! >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also >>>>> preposterous. To?maintain that all members >>>>> of the same species are equal, as Anne >>>>> Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build >>>>> a society based on a biological and >>>>> scientific lie". >>>>> James >>>>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything political, >>>>> ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>> >>>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>>> >>>>> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar >>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> / >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Harshad, >>>>> >>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept >>>>> when referred to Nature. Likewise >>>>> "Injustice." >>>>> >>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only >>>>> to the extent that the subjects are >>>>> living in an 'artificial' world, out >>>>> of Nature. Natural disasters and the >>>>> plenitude of Nature have these >>>>> dimensions only to the extent they are >>>>> imposed on or made available to >>>>> different classes of people by the >>>>> social system. >>>>> >>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> >>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am working on one article. I want >>>>>> to know your views on following query. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in >>>>>> wild life system?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for >>> the addressee and may contain confidential information. >>> If you have received this message in error, please send >>> it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not >>> use, copy or disclose the information contained in this >>> message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions >>> expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily >>> reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo >>> China. This message has been checked for viruses but the >>> contents of an attachment may still contain software >>> viruses which could damage your computer system: you are >>> advised to perform your own checks. Email communications >>> with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be >>> monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/9694419a/attachment.html From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Jan 29 07:07:07 2019 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:07:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> Message-ID: Absolutely, Martin. As I see it, subjectivity and intersubjectivity mesh with each other in social context, just as action and interaction. James Paul Gee would say they all fall within the realm of Discourse. James On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 14:44, Martin Packer wrote: > There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including > philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and > importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not > subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even > objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise > from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. > > Martin > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a > linguistic construct. > > andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: > > Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as > the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made > objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice > can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of > language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an > objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. > Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, > but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the > mediating role of language. > > Adam > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > *Sent:* 29 January 2019 08:16:35 > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? > > > Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of > precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, > as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context > and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in > law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations > challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. > > andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. > One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. > > Huw > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: > > I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the > meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of > the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is > that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes > objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified > and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. > > andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical > changes. > > Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an > ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in > our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do > not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: > > Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a > political, ideological precept! > > James > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: > > Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all > members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put > it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". > James > PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to > me! > > *_______________________________________________________* > > *James Ma Independent Scholar * > *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Harshad, > > "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise > "Injustice." > > Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are > living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the > plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are > imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social > system. > > Hope that helps. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: > > Hi, > > I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. > > "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" > > Your views will help me in my work. > > Regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > Email: hhdave15@gmail.com > > > > This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and > may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in > error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not > use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any > attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do > not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo > China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an > attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your > computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email > communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be > monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/1d164110/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Jan 29 07:17:23 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:17:23 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> Message-ID: <4DB1C276-653F-4332-825C-AED551FDC1D6@cantab.net> Thanks for agreeing with me, James, but I?m afraid I don?t agree with you! :) I think you are using ?intersubjectivity? to mean some kind of shared feeling, shared consciousness. I am pointing to the fact that there are practices, languages, institutions, communities, that exist before subjectivity, and provide a ground upon which subjectivity can develop. ?Social context? *is* intersubjective. Martin > On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:07 AM, James Ma wrote: > > Absolutely, Martin. As I see it, subjectivity and intersubjectivity mesh with each other in social context, just as action and interaction. James Paul Gee would say they all fall within the realm of Discourse. > > James > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 14:44, Martin Packer > wrote: > There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. > > Martin > > > > >> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. >> >> andy >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. >>> >>> Adam >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? >>> >>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>> >>> andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >>>> >>>> Huw >>>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>>> >>>> andy >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>> >>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: >>>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: >>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>> James >>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>> Harshad, >>>>> >>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. >>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/511ca005/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Jan 29 07:17:48 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> Message-ID: <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. Martin > On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. > Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. > Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) > andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >> There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>> andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>>> Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? >>>> >>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>> andy >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >>>>> >>>>> Huw >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>> andy >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>>> James >>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. >>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >> > Martin "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/2a34d034/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 29 14:26:25 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:26:25 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> Message-ID: Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen which tries to build a social theory on the basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I have come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail to explain why today can be any different from yesterday, etc. We cold say that mediated interactions are still intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really existing step beyond the step which the intersubjective turn made relative to methodological individualism and abstract social theory. Ontologically, the distinction is this: the /meaning /of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to speak, but /the artefact itself/ is still material and objective, and this constrains the meanings which can be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over and above the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is not just due to the poor preparedness of their people and governments, but the objective vulnerability of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good your education system will be if you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the simple objective existence of the relevant things is not the whole business, but it is something else. And the /nature/ of the constellation of existing artefacts is something else, over and above their existence. EG all the school books are written in a foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a product of past history, you could say, which was intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: > Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally > considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than > subjective or objective. So it could be said that what > this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is > intersubjectivity. > > Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, > that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging > or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word > has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for > example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms > that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The > materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me > to be a very good example of this. > > Martin > > > > >> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including >> intersubjective actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, >> Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of >> Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the >> "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of >> the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and >> Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that >> this means that every action is mediated by material >> culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than >> anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about >> the importance of ownership of the means of production. >> For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what >> it is. >> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises >> the constructive role of language use, but it means that >> the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" >> role. :) >> andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>> There was a general recognition in the social sciences >>> (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial >>> to recognize the existence and importance of >>> ?intersubjective? phenomena. ?Language, for example, is >>> not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, >>> subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s >>> analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and >>> are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone >>>> that is not a linguistic construct. >>>> andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term >>>>> 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which >>>>> concepts like inequality and injustice are made >>>>> objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. >>>>> For example, justice can be given objective form in >>>>> law, but the law itself is comprised of language, >>>>> customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation >>>>> of an objective form is not universal, but will differ >>>>> depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. >>>>> Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but >>>>> it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature,?due >>>>> to the mediating role of?language. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.eduon >>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>> *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>> *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild >>>>> life system? >>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not >>>>> a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" >>>>> is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," >>>>> but its contestation is necessarily in a social >>>>> context and with social content. Justice and equality >>>>> are given objective form in law and social policy in >>>>> definite, really-existing states or organisations >>>>> challenging for state power, not the opinion of >>>>> individuals. >>>>> andy >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to >>>>>> a certain construal. One can be quite precise and >>>>>> objective about that construal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Huw >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, >>>>>> that inequality (in the meaning with which >>>>>> Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the >>>>>> eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very >>>>>> pernicious politically. The fact is that states >>>>>> have emerged and developed over many centuries so >>>>>> as to makes objective certain concepts of >>>>>> justice, among which are various qualified and >>>>>> nuances notions of equality. This is not figment >>>>>> of my imagination. >>>>>> andy >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced >>>>>>> and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct >>>>>>> and predicated on an ontological scope. We find >>>>>>> the condition of inequality (or comparison) in >>>>>>> our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing >>>>>>> "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, >>>>>>> we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should you find inequality?within a wildlife >>>>>>> system, that must be a political, >>>>>>> ideological precept! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also >>>>>>> preposterous. To?maintain that all >>>>>>> members of the same species are equal, >>>>>>> as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is >>>>>>> to "build a society based on a >>>>>>> biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything political, >>>>>>> ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>> Scholar//https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy >>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless >>>>>>> concept when referred to Nature. >>>>>>> Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant >>>>>>> only to the extent that the subjects >>>>>>> are living in an 'artificial' world, >>>>>>> out of Nature. Natural disasters and >>>>>>> the plenitude of Nature have these >>>>>>> dimensions only to the extent they >>>>>>> are imposed on or made available to >>>>>>> different classes of people by the >>>>>>> social system. >>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want >>>>>>>> to know your views on following query. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in >>>>>>>> wild life system?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>> Email:hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely >>>>> for the addressee and may contain confidential >>>>> information. If you have received this message in >>>>> error, please send it back to me, and immediately >>>>> delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the >>>>> information contained in this message or in any >>>>> attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the >>>>> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the >>>>> views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. >>>>> This message has been checked for viruses but the >>>>> contents of an attachment may still contain software >>>>> viruses which could damage your computer system: you >>>>> are advised to perform your own checks. Email >>>>> communications with The University of Nottingham >>>>> Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and >>>>> Chinese legislation. >>> >> > > > > Martin > > /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman or?Dr. > Lowie or discuss matters?with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, > I?become at?once?aware that my partner does not understand > anything in the matter, and I end usually?with the?feeling > that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/a76e9bf4/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Jan 29 15:55:22 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:55:22 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> Message-ID: <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You seem to be attributing to me the view that I am attributing to James, and questioning: namely that ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will never be sufficient, because it neglects a third phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public practices (involving artifacts) in which people are always involved, and into which they are born. I think you hold the same opinion! One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. Some of us here are using ?intersubjectivity? to refer to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was though we played as one! And also those rare occasions dancing salsa with the right partner. But I want to use the term ?intersubjectivity? the way Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our attention ?the social matrix in which individuals find themselves and act,? ?the background to social action,? including ?a common language? which ?is constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He insisted that it is not simply consensus among individuals. But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We could call them intersujectivity-1 and intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the observation that there are phenomena that cannot be reduced to subjects and objects. Obviously these practices and institutions will involve material artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined within the practices. The fact that the US government cannot get rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due to the fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of government as one that cannot be legally infringed. The government is perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal matter, not something that individuals negotiate. Martin > On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen which tries to build a social theory on the basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I have come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail to explain why today can be any different from yesterday, etc. > > We cold say that mediated interactions are still intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really existing step beyond the step which the intersubjective turn made relative to methodological individualism and abstract social theory. > > Ontologically, the distinction is this: the meaning of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to speak, but the artefact itself is still material and objective, and this constrains the meanings which can be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over and above the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is not just due to the poor preparedness of their people and governments, but the objective vulnerability of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good your education system will be if you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the simple objective existence of the relevant things is not the whole business, but it is something else. And the nature of the constellation of existing artefacts is something else, over and above their existence. EG all the school books are written in a foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a product of past history, you could say, which was intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. > I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. > > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >> Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. >> >> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. >>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) >>> andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>> There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>> andy >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>> Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? >>>>>> >>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>>>> andy >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>> andy >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. >>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/ae159e01/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 29 16:24:35 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:24:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> Message-ID: <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both defending the same view. "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been supplanted by others much later. I think he used the term to mean something "in between" objective truth (things fall when you drop them) and subjective truth (heights are scary), which is culturally produced (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic disorder). There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but I don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity reading down to the detailed level that this later intersubjective reading did. I agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering. I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as "intersubjectivity.") I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me telling him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our interaction was *mediated* by 2 computers and the internet and by the English language, but he utterly rejected this, insisting that the only sense in which our communication of mediated was that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had experience of rain. We never got past that point. The concept of artefact-mediation was utterly impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: > I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You seem > to be attributing to me the view that I am attributing to > James, and questioning: namely that ?intersubjectivity? is > two (or more) subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. > > I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and > objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will > never be sufficient, because it neglects a third > phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public practices > (involving?artifacts) in which people are always involved, > and into which they are born. I think you hold the same > opinion! > > One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. Some > of us here are using??intersubjectivity? to refer to some > kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real > phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago > finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was > though we played as one! And also those rare occasions > dancing salsa with the right partner. > > But I want to use the term??intersubjectivity? the way > Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation and > The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last word > on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was one of > the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our attention??the > social matrix in which individuals find themselves and > act,???the background to social action,? including??a > common language? which??is constitutive of? institutions > and practices.? He insisted that it is not simply > consensus among individuals. > > But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We could > call them intersujectivity-1 and intersubjectivity-2. Or > find a new word for what Taylor was talking about. What?s > important is the observation that there are phenomena that > cannot be reduced to subjects and objects. > > Obviously these practices and institutions will involve > material?artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. But > these artifacts will be defined within the practices. The > fact that the US government cannot get rid of guns is not > due to their number, it is due to the fact that the > *right* to own a gun is (on one interpretation) defined by > the texts and practices of government as one that cannot > be legally infringed. The government is perfectly within > *its* rights to destroy a gun that has no owner. I would > want, then, to avoid trying to draw a distinction between > an artifact and its meaning: what *counts as* a gun is > (again) a legal matter, not something that individuals > negotiate. > > Martin > > > >> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the >> CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen which >> tries to build a social theory on the basis of >> subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts being >> used, and in particular, the pre-existence of these >> artefacts relative to the interactions, and their >> materiality. (I admit that I have come to this conclusion >> from my study of Hegel interpretations, which is a >> limited domain. But I do also see it in strands of social >> theory as such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the >> mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice >> is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking >> the mediator as the object rather than a means. Such >> interpretations fail to explain why today can be any >> different from yesterday, etc. >> >> We cold say that mediated interactions are still >> intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions >> with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really >> existing step beyond the step which the intersubjective >> turn made relative to methodological individualism and >> abstract social theory. >> >> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the /meaning /of >> an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to >> speak, but /the artefact itself/ is still material and >> objective, and this constrains the meanings which can be >> attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 >> million guns in the USA is a social problem over and >> above the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of >> so many Americans. A government simply cannot get rid of >> them. For example, the propensity of people in some >> countries to suffer in natural disasters is not just due >> to the poor preparedness of their people and governments, >> but the objective vulnerability of people due to the >> state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good >> your education system will be if you have no teachers, no >> books and no schools. Of course the simple objective >> existence of the relevant things is not the whole >> business, but it is something else. And the /nature/ of >> the constellation of existing artefacts is something >> else, over and above their existence. EG all the school >> books are written in a foreign language, etc. The >> material artefacts is a product of past history, you >> could say, which was intersubjective, but >> intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction ends, >> but the artefact often lives on. >> >> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally >>> considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than >>> subjective or objective. So it could be said that what >>> this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is >>> intersubjectivity. >>> >>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, >>> that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging >>> or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the >>> word has been used here not long ago. But Charles >>> Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as >>> meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in >>> individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? >>> material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good >>> example of this. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including >>>> intersubjective actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, >>>> Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of >>>> Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no >>>> accident. >>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the >>>> "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept >>>> of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea >>>> and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on >>>> this, that this means that every action is mediated by >>>> material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more >>>> honourable than anything produced by its means." For >>>> Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the >>>> means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes >>>> Cultural Psychology what it is. >>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way >>>> minimises the constructive role of language use, but it >>>> means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more >>>> "honourable" role. :) >>>> andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>> There was a general recognition in the social sciences >>>>> (including philosophy) some time ago that it is >>>>> crucial to recognize the existence and importance of >>>>> ?intersubjective? phenomena. ?Language, for example, >>>>> is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy >>>>> notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think >>>>> Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise >>>>> from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone >>>>>> that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>> andy >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term >>>>>>> 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which >>>>>>> concepts like inequality and injustice are made >>>>>>> objective, language, is itself inherently >>>>>>> subjective. For example, justice can be given >>>>>>> objective form in law, but the law itself is >>>>>>> comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, >>>>>>> etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not >>>>>>> universal, but will differ depending on cultural >>>>>>> context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like >>>>>>> inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't >>>>>>> mean that they are objective in nature,?due to the >>>>>>> mediating role of?language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.eduon >>>>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>> *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>> *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in >>>>>>> wild life system? >>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is >>>>>>> not a matter of precision but of relativity. >>>>>>> "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is >>>>>>> "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in >>>>>>> a social context and with social content. Justice >>>>>>> and equality are given objective form in law and >>>>>>> social policy in definite, really-existing states or >>>>>>> organisations challenging for state power, not the >>>>>>> opinion of individuals. >>>>>>> andy >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited >>>>>>>> to a certain construal. One can be quite precise >>>>>>>> and objective about that construal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, >>>>>>>> that inequality (in the meaning with which >>>>>>>> Harshad used it) is something subjective, in >>>>>>>> the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be >>>>>>>> very pernicious politically. The fact is that >>>>>>>> states have emerged and developed over many >>>>>>>> centuries so as to makes objective certain >>>>>>>> concepts of justice, among which are various >>>>>>>> qualified and nuances notions of equality. This >>>>>>>> is not? figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are >>>>>>>>> imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct >>>>>>>>> and predicated on an ontological scope. We >>>>>>>>> find the condition of inequality (or >>>>>>>>> comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. >>>>>>>>> Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do >>>>>>>>> not find inequality, we find the awareness of >>>>>>>>> inequality. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality?within a >>>>>>>>> wildlife system, that must be a political, >>>>>>>>> ideological precept! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also >>>>>>>>> preposterous. To?maintain that all >>>>>>>>> members of the same species are equal, >>>>>>>>> as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, >>>>>>>>> is to "build a society based on a >>>>>>>>> biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything >>>>>>>>> political, ideological just doesn't >>>>>>>>> speak to me! >>>>>>>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>>> Scholar//https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy >>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless >>>>>>>>> concept when referred to Nature. >>>>>>>>> Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant >>>>>>>>> only to the extent that the >>>>>>>>> subjects are living in an >>>>>>>>> 'artificial' world, out of Nature. >>>>>>>>> Natural disasters and the >>>>>>>>> plenitude of Nature have these >>>>>>>>> dimensions only to the extent they >>>>>>>>> are imposed on or made available >>>>>>>>> to different classes of people by >>>>>>>>> the social system. >>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad >>>>>>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I >>>>>>>>>> want to know your views on >>>>>>>>>> following query. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists >>>>>>>>>> in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>> Email:hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely >>>>>>> for the addressee and may contain confidential >>>>>>> information. If you have received this message in >>>>>>> error, please send it back to me, and immediately >>>>>>> delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the >>>>>>> information contained in this message or in any >>>>>>> attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the >>>>>>> author of this email do not necessarily reflect the >>>>>>> views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. >>>>>>> This message has been checked for viruses but the >>>>>>> contents of an attachment may still contain software >>>>>>> viruses which could damage your computer system: you >>>>>>> are advised to perform your own checks. Email >>>>>>> communications with The University of Nottingham >>>>>>> Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and >>>>>>> Chinese legislation. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman or?Dr. >>> Lowie or discuss matters?with Radcliffe-Brown or >>> Kroeber, I?become at?once?aware that my partner does not >>> understand anything in the matter, and I end >>> usually?with the?feeling that this also applies to >>> myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ >>> >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/9a78e19c/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Jan 29 16:50:25 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:50:25 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> Message-ID: <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course Taylor also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on Hegel. Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your spellchecker. :) The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to forget, is that they become invisible in action. Language seems like a window on another person?s consciousness; the plough is simply handy when the soil needs turning. The government is just those idiots in Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice the myriad of mediators, they seem like simple links between us and whatever we?re interacting with, when in fact neither would exist without them. Without language, ploughs, and governments life would be brutish and short. Martin > On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both defending the same view. > > "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been supplanted by others much later. I think he used the term to mean something "in between" objective truth (things fall when you drop them) and subjective truth (heights are scary), which is culturally produced (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic disorder). > There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but I don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity reading down to the detailed level that this later intersubjective reading did. I agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering. > > I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as "intersubjectivity.") > > I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me telling him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our interaction was mediated by 2 computers and the internet and by the English language, but he utterly rejected this, insisting that the only sense in which our communication of mediated was that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had experience of rain. We never got past that point. The concept of artefact-mediation was utterly impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW. > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You seem to be attributing to me the view that I am attributing to James, and questioning: namely that ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. >> >> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will never be sufficient, because it neglects a third phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public practices (involving artifacts) in which people are always involved, and into which they are born. I think you hold the same opinion! >> >> One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. Some of us here are using ?intersubjectivity? to refer to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was though we played as one! And also those rare occasions dancing salsa with the right partner. >> >> But I want to use the term ?intersubjectivity? the way Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our attention ?the social matrix in which individuals find themselves and act,? ?the background to social action,? including ?a common language? which ?is constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He insisted that it is not simply consensus among individuals. >> >> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We could call them intersujectivity-1 and intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the observation that there are phenomena that cannot be reduced to subjects and objects. >> >> Obviously these practices and institutions will involve material artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined within the practices. The fact that the US government cannot get rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due to the fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of government as one that cannot be legally infringed. The government is perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal matter, not something that individuals negotiate. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen which tries to build a social theory on the basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I have come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail to explain why today can be any different from yesterday, etc. >>> >>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really existing step beyond the step which the intersubjective turn made relative to methodological individualism and abstract social theory. >>> >>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the meaning of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to speak, but the artefact itself is still material and objective, and this constrains the meanings which can be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over and above the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is not just due to the poor preparedness of their people and governments, but the objective vulnerability of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good your education system will be if you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the simple objective existence of the relevant things is not the whole business, but it is something else. And the nature of the constellation of existing artefacts is something else, over and above their existence. EG all the school books are written in a foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a product of past history, you could say, which was intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. >>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. >>> >>> Andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. >>>> >>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. >>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) >>>>> andy >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>> andy >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. >>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/e23a301c/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 29 16:56:01 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:56:01 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> Message-ID: <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> as Mike says, we notice them when there's a "perturbation"! December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, but the current Australian government is still promoting coal, so what does that tell us? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: > Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course Taylor > also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on Hegel. > > Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your > spellchecker. ?:) > > The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to > forget, is that they become invisible in action. Language > seems like a window on another person?s consciousness; the > plough is simply handy when the soil needs turning. The > government is just those idiots in Washington (or > Canberra?)? When we notice the myriad of mediators, they > seem like simple links between us and whatever we?re > interacting with, when in fact neither would exist without > them. Without language, ploughs, and governments life > would be brutish and short. > > Martin > > >> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both >> defending the same view. >> >> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I >> thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his >> 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been supplanted >> by others much later. I think he used the term to mean >> something "in between" objective truth (things fall when >> you drop them) and subjective truth (heights are scary), >> which is culturally produced (falling is due to gravity, >> acrophobia is a panic disorder). >> >> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who >> began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of >> "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel, >> in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead >> of that curve, I would agree, but I don't think he took >> the spirit-is-human-activity reading down to the detailed >> level that this later intersubjective reading did. I >> agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering. >> >> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a >> "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age >> kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my >> spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as >> "intersubjectivity.") >> >> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul >> Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian >> Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me telling >> him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to >> see that our interaction was *mediated* by 2 computers >> and the internet and by the English language, but he >> utterly rejected this, insisting that the only sense in >> which our communication of mediated was that in Sydney as >> well as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had >> experience of rain. We never got past that point. The >> concept of artefact-mediation was utterly impenetrable >> for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You >>> seem to be attributing to me the view that I am >>> attributing to James, and questioning: namely that >>> ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities >>> somehow meeting in interaction. >>> >>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and >>> objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will >>> never be sufficient, because it neglects a third >>> phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public >>> practices (involving?artifacts) in which people are >>> always involved, and into which they are born. I think >>> you hold the same opinion! >>> >>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. >>> Some of us here are using??intersubjectivity? to refer >>> to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real >>> phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago >>> finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was >>> though we played as one! And also those rare occasions >>> dancing salsa with the right partner. >>> >>> But I want to use the term??intersubjectivity? the way >>> Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation >>> and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last >>> word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was >>> one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our >>> attention??the social matrix in which individuals find >>> themselves and act,???the background to social action,? >>> including??a common language? which??is constitutive of? >>> institutions and practices.? He insisted that it is not >>> simply consensus among individuals. >>> >>> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We >>> could call them intersujectivity-1 and >>> intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what Taylor >>> was talking about. What?s important is the observation >>> that there are phenomena that cannot be reduced to >>> subjects and objects. >>> >>> Obviously these practices and institutions will involve >>> material?artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. >>> But these artifacts will be defined within the >>> practices. The fact that the US government cannot get >>> rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due to the >>> fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one >>> interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of >>> government as one that cannot be legally infringed. The >>> government is perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a >>> gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid >>> trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its >>> meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal >>> matter, not something that individuals negotiate. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the >>>> CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen >>>> which tries to build a social theory on the basis of >>>> subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts >>>> being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of >>>> these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their >>>> materiality. (I admit that I have come to this >>>> conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations, >>>> which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in >>>> strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by >>>> either subsuming the mediating artefact into the >>>> subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the >>>> subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the >>>> object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail >>>> to explain why today can be any different from >>>> yesterday, etc. >>>> >>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still >>>> intersubjective, we just use things for our >>>> interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a >>>> further really existing step beyond the step which the >>>> intersubjective turn made relative to methodological >>>> individualism and abstract social theory. >>>> >>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the /meaning >>>> /of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to >>>> speak, but /the artefact itself/ is still material and >>>> objective, and this constrains the meanings which can >>>> be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of >>>> 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over >>>> and above the place of guns in the thinking and >>>> behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply >>>> cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of >>>> people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters >>>> is not just due to the poor preparedness of their >>>> people and governments, but the objective vulnerability >>>> of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is >>>> a limit on how good your education system will be if >>>> you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of >>>> course the simple objective existence of the relevant >>>> things is not the whole business, but it is something >>>> else. And the /nature/ of the constellation of existing >>>> artefacts is something else, over and above their >>>> existence. EG all the school books are written in a >>>> foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a >>>> product of past history, you could say, which was >>>> intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as >>>> the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. >>>> >>>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be >>>>> generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, >>>>> rather than subjective or objective. So it could be >>>>> said that what this discussion group is about ? the C >>>>> in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. >>>>> >>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, >>>>> Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of >>>>> merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed >>>>> how the word has been used here not long ago. But >>>>> Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity >>>>> as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in >>>>> individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? >>>>> material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good >>>>> example of this. >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, >>>>>> including intersubjective >>>>>> actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, Vygotsky >>>>>> transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx >>>>>> citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the >>>>>> "syllogism of action." This is the culminating >>>>>> concept of the Logic making the transition to the >>>>>> Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx >>>>>> picks up on this, that this means that every action >>>>>> is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the >>>>>> plough is more honourable than anything produced by >>>>>> its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of >>>>>> ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, >>>>>> it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. >>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way >>>>>> minimises the constructive role of language use, but >>>>>> it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the >>>>>> more "honourable" role. :) >>>>>> andy >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social >>>>>>> sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that >>>>>>> it is crucial to recognize the existence and >>>>>>> importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. >>>>>>> ?Language, for example, is not subjective, it is >>>>>>> intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and >>>>>>> even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science >>>>>>> in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent >>>>>>> upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering >>>>>>>> someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term >>>>>>>>> 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through >>>>>>>>> which concepts like inequality and injustice are >>>>>>>>> made objective, language, is itself inherently >>>>>>>>> subjective. For example, justice can be given >>>>>>>>> objective form in law, but the law itself is >>>>>>>>> comprised of language, customs, traditions, >>>>>>>>> beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective >>>>>>>>> form is not universal, but will differ depending >>>>>>>>> on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. >>>>>>>>> Concepts like inequality are given objective form, >>>>>>>>> but it doesn't mean that they are objective in >>>>>>>>> nature,?due to the mediating role of?language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.eduon >>>>>>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>>> *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in >>>>>>>>> wild life system? >>>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is >>>>>>>>> not a matter of precision but of relativity. >>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as >>>>>>>>> is "injustice," but its contestation is >>>>>>>>> necessarily in a social context and with social >>>>>>>>> content. Justice and equality are given objective >>>>>>>>> form in law and social policy in definite, >>>>>>>>> really-existing states or organisations >>>>>>>>> challenging for state power, not the opinion of >>>>>>>>> individuals. >>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited >>>>>>>>>> to a certain construal. One can be quite precise >>>>>>>>>> and objective about that construal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, >>>>>>>>>> that inequality (in the meaning with which >>>>>>>>>> Harshad used it) is something subjective, in >>>>>>>>>> the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be >>>>>>>>>> very pernicious politically. The fact is that >>>>>>>>>> states have emerged and developed over many >>>>>>>>>> centuries so as to makes objective certain >>>>>>>>>> concepts of justice, among which are various >>>>>>>>>> qualified and nuances notions of equality. >>>>>>>>>> This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are >>>>>>>>>>> imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive >>>>>>>>>>> construct and predicated on an ontological >>>>>>>>>>> scope. We find the condition of inequality >>>>>>>>>>> (or comparison) in our thinking and >>>>>>>>>>> behaviour. Every living thing "finds" >>>>>>>>>>> inequalities. We do not find inequality, we >>>>>>>>>>> find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality?within a >>>>>>>>>>> wildlife system, that must be a >>>>>>>>>>> political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also >>>>>>>>>>> preposterous. To?maintain that all >>>>>>>>>>> members of the same species are >>>>>>>>>>> equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel >>>>>>>>>>> put it, is to "build a society based >>>>>>>>>>> on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything >>>>>>>>>>> political, ideological just doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> speak to me! >>>>>>>>>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>>>>> Scholar//https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy >>>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless >>>>>>>>>>> concept when referred to Nature. >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are >>>>>>>>>>> relevant only to the extent that >>>>>>>>>>> the subjects are living in an >>>>>>>>>>> 'artificial' world, out of >>>>>>>>>>> Nature. Natural disasters and >>>>>>>>>>> the plenitude of Nature have >>>>>>>>>>> these dimensions only to the >>>>>>>>>>> extent they are imposed on or >>>>>>>>>>> made available to different >>>>>>>>>>> classes of people by the social >>>>>>>>>>> system. >>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad >>>>>>>>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I >>>>>>>>>>>> want to know your views on >>>>>>>>>>>> following query. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists >>>>>>>>>>>> in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>>> Email:hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended >>>>>>>>> solely for the addressee and may contain >>>>>>>>> confidential information. If you have received >>>>>>>>> this message in error, please send it back to me, >>>>>>>>> and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy >>>>>>>>> or disclose the information contained in this >>>>>>>>> message or in any attachment. Any views or >>>>>>>>> opinions expressed by the author of this email do >>>>>>>>> not necessarily reflect the views of The >>>>>>>>> University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This >>>>>>>>> message has been checked for viruses but the >>>>>>>>> contents of an attachment may still contain >>>>>>>>> software viruses which could damage your computer >>>>>>>>> system: you are advised to perform your own >>>>>>>>> checks. Email communications with The University >>>>>>>>> of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as >>>>>>>>> permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman or?Dr. >>>>> Lowie or discuss matters?with Radcliffe-Brown or >>>>> Kroeber, I?become at?once?aware that my partner does >>>>> not understand anything in the matter, and I end >>>>> usually?with the?feeling that this also applies to >>>>> myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/d87f1904/attachment-0001.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Jan 29 17:24:07 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:24:07 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> Message-ID: <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> That?s odd! In contrast, the British government is handling Brexit in such a rational and mature manner! Martin > On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > as Mike says, we notice them when there's a "perturbation"! > December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, but the current Australian government is still promoting coal, so what does that tell us? > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: >> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course Taylor also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on Hegel. >> >> Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your spellchecker. :) >> >> The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to forget, is that they become invisible in action. Language seems like a window on another person?s consciousness; the plough is simply handy when the soil needs turning. The government is just those idiots in Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice the myriad of mediators, they seem like simple links between us and whatever we?re interacting with, when in fact neither would exist without them. Without language, ploughs, and governments life would be brutish and short. >> >> Martin >> >> >>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both defending the same view. >>> >>> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been supplanted by others much later. I think he used the term to mean something "in between" objective truth (things fall when you drop them) and subjective truth (heights are scary), which is culturally produced (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic disorder). >>> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but I don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity reading down to the detailed level that this later intersubjective reading did. I agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering. >>> >>> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as "intersubjectivity.") >>> >>> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me telling him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our interaction was mediated by 2 computers and the internet and by the English language, but he utterly rejected this, insisting that the only sense in which our communication of mediated was that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had experience of rain. We never got past that point. The concept of artefact-mediation was utterly impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW. >>> Andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You seem to be attributing to me the view that I am attributing to James, and questioning: namely that ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. >>>> >>>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will never be sufficient, because it neglects a third phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public practices (involving artifacts) in which people are always involved, and into which they are born. I think you hold the same opinion! >>>> >>>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. Some of us here are using ?intersubjectivity? to refer to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was though we played as one! And also those rare occasions dancing salsa with the right partner. >>>> >>>> But I want to use the term ?intersubjectivity? the way Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our attention ?the social matrix in which individuals find themselves and act,? ?the background to social action,? including ?a common language? which ?is constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He insisted that it is not simply consensus among individuals. >>>> >>>> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We could call them intersujectivity-1 and intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the observation that there are phenomena that cannot be reduced to subjects and objects. >>>> >>>> Obviously these practices and institutions will involve material artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined within the practices. The fact that the US government cannot get rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due to the fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of government as one that cannot be legally infringed. The government is perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal matter, not something that individuals negotiate. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen which tries to build a social theory on the basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I have come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail to explain why today can be any different from yesterday, etc. >>>>> >>>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really existing step beyond the step which the intersubjective turn made relative to methodological individualism and abstract social theory. >>>>> >>>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the meaning of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to speak, but the artefact itself is still material and objective, and this constrains the meanings which can be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over and above the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is not just due to the poor preparedness of their people and governments, but the objective vulnerability of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good your education system will be if you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the simple objective existence of the relevant things is not the whole business, but it is something else. And the nature of the constellation of existing artefacts is something else, over and above their existence. EG all the school books are written in a foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a product of past history, you could say, which was intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. >>>>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >>>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. >>>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) >>>>>>> andy >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/751b33d3/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 29 17:32:38 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:32:38 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> Message-ID: Fortunately, we have an election in May, and since the government has already lost their majority, they can't do too much damage, just paralysis. It's an "unreal" government. The interesting phenomenon is that in country electorates and in wealthy "leafy" suburban seats, where respectively the National Party and Liberal Party (both right-wing parties) have held impregnable majorities since time immemorial, Independent candidates are popping up to challenge them and in several cases recently (in State elections and in Federal by-elections) they have toppled them. The extreme right is also fragmenting. It used to be a joke about Trotskyists and Maoists, but nowadays it seems you can't have two right-wingers in the same room without a faction fight and a split. So the political landscape is changing rapidly, and to the better here. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 12:24 pm, Martin Packer wrote: > That?s odd! ?In contrast, the British government is > handling Brexit in such a rational and mature manner! > > Martin > >> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> as Mike says, we notice them when there's a "perturbation"! >> >> December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, >> but the current Australian government is still promoting >> coal, so what does that tell us? >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course >>> Taylor also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on >>> Hegel. >>> >>> Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your >>> spellchecker. ?:) >>> >>> The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to >>> forget, is that they become invisible in action. >>> Language seems like a window on another person?s >>> consciousness; the plough is simply handy when the soil >>> needs turning. The government is just those idiots in >>> Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice the myriad of >>> mediators, they seem like simple links between us and >>> whatever we?re interacting with, when in fact neither >>> would exist without them. Without language, ploughs, and >>> governments life would be brutish and short. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both >>>> defending the same view. >>>> >>>> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I >>>> thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in >>>> his 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been >>>> supplanted by others much later. I think he used the >>>> term to mean something "in between" objective truth >>>> (things fall when you drop them) and subjective truth >>>> (heights are scary), which is culturally produced >>>> (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic >>>> disorder). >>>> >>>> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who >>>> began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of >>>> "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of >>>> Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor >>>> was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but I don't >>>> think he took the spirit-is-human-activity reading down >>>> to the detailed level that this later intersubjective >>>> reading did. I agree with Charles Taylor - his work was >>>> pioneering. >>>> >>>> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a >>>> "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age >>>> kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my >>>> spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as >>>> "intersubjectivity.") >>>> >>>> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul >>>> Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian >>>> Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me >>>> telling him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I >>>> wanted him to see that our interaction was *mediated* >>>> by 2 computers and the internet and by the English >>>> language, but he utterly rejected this, insisting that >>>> the only sense in which our communication of mediated >>>> was that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, >>>> and so we both had experience of rain. We never got >>>> past that point. The concept of artefact-mediation was >>>> utterly impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of >>>> Robert Brandom, BTW. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You >>>>> seem to be attributing to me the view that I am >>>>> attributing to James, and questioning: namely that >>>>> ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities >>>>> somehow meeting in interaction. >>>>> >>>>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and >>>>> objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will >>>>> never be sufficient, because it neglects a third >>>>> phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public >>>>> practices (involving?artifacts) in which people are >>>>> always involved, and into which they are born. I think >>>>> you hold the same opinion! >>>>> >>>>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. >>>>> Some of us here are using??intersubjectivity? to refer >>>>> to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a >>>>> real phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years >>>>> ago finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: >>>>> it was though we played as one! And also those rare >>>>> occasions dancing salsa with the right partner. >>>>> >>>>> But I want to use the term??intersubjectivity? the way >>>>> Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation >>>>> and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the >>>>> last word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but >>>>> he was one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our >>>>> attention??the social matrix in which individuals find >>>>> themselves and act,???the background to social >>>>> action,? including??a common language? which??is >>>>> constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He >>>>> insisted that it is not simply consensus among >>>>> individuals. >>>>> >>>>> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We >>>>> could call them intersujectivity-1 and >>>>> intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what >>>>> Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the >>>>> observation that there are phenomena that cannot be >>>>> reduced to subjects and objects. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously these practices and institutions will >>>>> involve material?artifacts; they couldn?t function >>>>> otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined within >>>>> the practices. The fact that the US government cannot >>>>> get rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due >>>>> to the fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one >>>>> interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of >>>>> government as one that cannot be legally infringed. >>>>> The government is perfectly within *its* rights to >>>>> destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, then, >>>>> to avoid trying to draw a distinction between an >>>>> artifact and its meaning: what *counts as* a gun is >>>>> (again) a legal matter, not something that individuals >>>>> negotiate. >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and >>>>>> the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have >>>>>> seen which tries to build a social theory on the >>>>>> basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the >>>>>> artefacts being used, and in particular, the >>>>>> pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the >>>>>> interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I >>>>>> have come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel >>>>>> interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do >>>>>> also see it in strands of social theory as such.) >>>>>> This is achieved by either subsuming the mediating >>>>>> artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice is a >>>>>> part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking the >>>>>> mediator as the object rather than a means. Such >>>>>> interpretations fail to explain why today can be any >>>>>> different from yesterday, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still >>>>>> intersubjective, we just use things for our >>>>>> interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a >>>>>> further really existing step beyond the step which >>>>>> the intersubjective turn made relative to >>>>>> methodological individualism and abstract social theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the /meaning >>>>>> /of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so >>>>>> to speak, but /the artefact itself/ is still material >>>>>> and objective, and this constrains the meanings which >>>>>> can be attached to it. For example, the sheer >>>>>> existence of 400 million guns in the USA is a social >>>>>> problem over and above the place of guns in the >>>>>> thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A >>>>>> government simply cannot get rid of them. For >>>>>> example, the propensity of people in some countries >>>>>> to suffer in natural disasters is not just due to the >>>>>> poor preparedness of their people and governments, >>>>>> but the objective vulnerability of people due to the >>>>>> state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good >>>>>> your education system will be if you have no >>>>>> teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the >>>>>> simple objective existence of the relevant things is >>>>>> not the whole business, but it is something else. And >>>>>> the /nature/ of the constellation of existing >>>>>> artefacts is something else, over and above their >>>>>> existence. EG all the school books are written in a >>>>>> foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a >>>>>> product of past history, you could say, which was >>>>>> intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon >>>>>> as the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be >>>>>>> generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, >>>>>>> rather than subjective or objective. So it could be >>>>>>> said that what this discussion group is about ? the >>>>>>> C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, >>>>>>> Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind >>>>>>> of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is >>>>>>> indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. >>>>>>> But Charles Taylor, for example, defined >>>>>>> intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist >>>>>>> in practices, not in individuals' minds. The >>>>>>> materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems >>>>>>> to me to be a very good example of this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, >>>>>>>> including intersubjective >>>>>>>> actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, Vygotsky >>>>>>>> transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx >>>>>>>> citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >>>>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) >>>>>>>> the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating >>>>>>>> concept of the Logic making the transition to the >>>>>>>> Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and >>>>>>>> Marx picks up on this, that this means that every >>>>>>>> action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says >>>>>>>> "the plough is more honourable than anything >>>>>>>> produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the >>>>>>>> importance of ownership of the means of production. >>>>>>>> For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology >>>>>>>> what it is. >>>>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way >>>>>>>> minimises the constructive role of language use, >>>>>>>> but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. >>>>>>>> the more "honourable" role. :) >>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social >>>>>>>>> sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that >>>>>>>>> it is crucial to recognize the existence and >>>>>>>>> importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. >>>>>>>>> ?Language, for example, is not subjective, it is >>>>>>>>> intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and >>>>>>>>> even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of >>>>>>>>> science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are >>>>>>>>> dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering >>>>>>>>>> someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the >>>>>>>>>>> term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium >>>>>>>>>>> through which concepts like inequality and >>>>>>>>>>> injustice are made objective, language, is >>>>>>>>>>> itself inherently subjective. For example, >>>>>>>>>>> justice can be given objective form in law, but >>>>>>>>>>> the law itself is comprised of language, >>>>>>>>>>> customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The >>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of an objective form is not >>>>>>>>>>> universal, but will differ depending on cultural >>>>>>>>>>> context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like >>>>>>>>>>> inequality are given objective form, but it >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that they are objective in >>>>>>>>>>> nature,?due to the mediating role of?language. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.eduon >>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>>>>> *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities >>>>>>>>>>> in wild life system? >>>>>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It >>>>>>>>>>> is not a matter of precision but of relativity. >>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as >>>>>>>>>>> is "injustice," but its contestation is >>>>>>>>>>> necessarily in a social context and with social >>>>>>>>>>> content. Justice and equality are given >>>>>>>>>>> objective form in law and social policy in >>>>>>>>>>> definite, really-existing states or >>>>>>>>>>> organisations challenging for state power, not >>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of individuals. >>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is >>>>>>>>>>>> limited to a certain construal. One can be >>>>>>>>>>>> quite precise and objective about that construal. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, >>>>>>>>>>>> Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with >>>>>>>>>>>> which Harshad used it) is something >>>>>>>>>>>> subjective, in the eye of the beholder. >>>>>>>>>>>> Such a view would be very pernicious >>>>>>>>>>>> politically. The fact is that states have >>>>>>>>>>>> emerged and developed over many centuries >>>>>>>>>>>> so as to makes objective certain concepts >>>>>>>>>>>> of justice, among which are various >>>>>>>>>>>> qualified and nuances notions of equality. >>>>>>>>>>>> This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are >>>>>>>>>>>>> imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive >>>>>>>>>>>>> construct and predicated on an ontological >>>>>>>>>>>>> scope. We find the condition of inequality >>>>>>>>>>>>> (or comparison) in our thinking and >>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour. Every living thing "finds" >>>>>>>>>>>>> inequalities. We do not find inequality, >>>>>>>>>>>>> we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality?within a >>>>>>>>>>>>> wildlife system, that must be a >>>>>>>>>>>>> political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but >>>>>>>>>>>>> also preposterous. To?maintain >>>>>>>>>>>>> that all members of the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> species are equal, as Anne Moir >>>>>>>>>>>>> and David Jessel put it, is to >>>>>>>>>>>>> "build a society based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>> biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything >>>>>>>>>>>>> political, ideological just >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>>>>>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>>>>>>> Scholar//https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>> Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless >>>>>>>>>>>>> concept when referred to >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are >>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant only to the extent >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the subjects are living >>>>>>>>>>>>> in an 'artificial' world, out >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Nature. Natural disasters >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the plenitude of Nature >>>>>>>>>>>>> have these dimensions only to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the extent they are imposed on >>>>>>>>>>>>> or made available to different >>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of people by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> social system. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to know your views on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> following query. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email:hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended >>>>>>>>>>> solely for the addressee and may contain >>>>>>>>>>> confidential information. If you have received >>>>>>>>>>> this message in error, please send it back to >>>>>>>>>>> me, and immediately delete it. Please do not >>>>>>>>>>> use, copy or disclose the information contained >>>>>>>>>>> in this message or in any attachment. Any views >>>>>>>>>>> or opinions expressed by the author of this >>>>>>>>>>> email do not necessarily reflect the views of >>>>>>>>>>> The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This >>>>>>>>>>> message has been checked for viruses but the >>>>>>>>>>> contents of an attachment may still contain >>>>>>>>>>> software viruses which could damage your >>>>>>>>>>> computer system: you are advised to perform your >>>>>>>>>>> own checks. Email communications with The >>>>>>>>>>> University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be >>>>>>>>>>> monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese >>>>>>>>>>> legislation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman >>>>>>> or?Dr. Lowie or discuss matters?with Radcliffe-Brown >>>>>>> or Kroeber, I?become at?once?aware that my partner >>>>>>> does not understand anything in the matter, and I >>>>>>> end usually?with the?feeling that this also applies >>>>>>> to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/865a62dc/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Tue Jan 29 18:16:26 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:16:26 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> Message-ID: <5B6C84BB-5696-4499-A136-4ADBA8873B2F@cantab.net> As far as I can tell ? based I confess only on reading New York Times articles ? something similar is happening in the US. And in the UK the Conservative party is fracturing. If one wanted to try to bring about these kinds of change one wouldn?t know where to start, would one? Or is it just me, unable to figure out where the levers of change are hidden? Martin > On Jan 29, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Fortunately, we have an election in May, and since the government has already lost their majority, they can't do too much damage, just paralysis. It's an "unreal" government. > > The interesting phenomenon is that in country electorates and in wealthy "leafy" suburban seats, where respectively the National Party and Liberal Party (both right-wing parties) have held impregnable majorities since time immemorial, Independent candidates are popping up to challenge them and in several cases recently (in State elections and in Federal by-elections) they have toppled them. The extreme right is also fragmenting. It used to be a joke about Trotskyists and Maoists, but nowadays it seems you can't have two right-wingers in the same room without a faction fight and a split. So the political landscape is changing rapidly, and to the better here. > > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 30/01/2019 12:24 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >> That?s odd! In contrast, the British government is handling Brexit in such a rational and mature manner! >> >> Martin >> >>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> as Mike says, we notice them when there's a "perturbation"! >>> December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, but the current Australian government is still promoting coal, so what does that tell us? >>> Andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course Taylor also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on Hegel. >>>> >>>> Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your spellchecker. :) >>>> >>>> The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to forget, is that they become invisible in action. Language seems like a window on another person?s consciousness; the plough is simply handy when the soil needs turning. The government is just those idiots in Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice the myriad of mediators, they seem like simple links between us and whatever we?re interacting with, when in fact neither would exist without them. Without language, ploughs, and governments life would be brutish and short. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both defending the same view. >>>>> >>>>> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been supplanted by others much later. I think he used the term to mean something "in between" objective truth (things fall when you drop them) and subjective truth (heights are scary), which is culturally produced (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic disorder). >>>>> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but I don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity reading down to the detailed level that this later intersubjective reading did. I agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as "intersubjectivity.") >>>>> >>>>> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me telling him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our interaction was mediated by 2 computers and the internet and by the English language, but he utterly rejected this, insisting that the only sense in which our communication of mediated was that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had experience of rain. We never got past that point. The concept of artefact-mediation was utterly impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW. >>>>> Andy >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You seem to be attributing to me the view that I am attributing to James, and questioning: namely that ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will never be sufficient, because it neglects a third phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public practices (involving artifacts) in which people are always involved, and into which they are born. I think you hold the same opinion! >>>>>> >>>>>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. Some of us here are using ?intersubjectivity? to refer to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was though we played as one! And also those rare occasions dancing salsa with the right partner. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I want to use the term ?intersubjectivity? the way Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our attention ?the social matrix in which individuals find themselves and act,? ?the background to social action,? including ?a common language? which ?is constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He insisted that it is not simply consensus among individuals. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We could call them intersujectivity-1 and intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the observation that there are phenomena that cannot be reduced to subjects and objects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously these practices and institutions will involve material artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined within the practices. The fact that the US government cannot get rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due to the fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of government as one that cannot be legally infringed. The government is perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal matter, not something that individuals negotiate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen which tries to build a social theory on the basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I have come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail to explain why today can be any different from yesterday, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really existing step beyond the step which the intersubjective turn made relative to methodological individualism and abstract social theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the meaning of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to speak, but the artefact itself is still material and objective, and this constrains the meanings which can be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over and above the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is not just due to the poor preparedness of their people and governments, but the objective vulnerability of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good your education system will be if you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the simple objective existence of the relevant things is not the whole business, but it is something else. And the nature of the constellation of existing artefacts is something else, over and above their existence. EG all the school books are written in a foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a product of past history, you could say, which was intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. >>>>>>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >>>>>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. >>>>>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) >>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/406c8c14/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 29 18:30:06 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:30:06 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <5B6C84BB-5696-4499-A136-4ADBA8873B2F@cantab.net> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> <5B6C84BB-5696-4499-A136-4ADBA8873B2F@cantab.net> Message-ID: The theory I most favour is that the most recent, but also former, ideologies of capitalist rule have objectively lost their efficacy. The neo-liberal ideology (putting all social functions in the market place) is no longer working. This creates a crisis in all the parties which have relied on this strategy. It will also affect the centre-left, but in the Anglosphere, at this point, they are having an easier time, promoting a little bit of Keynesianism. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 1:16 pm, Martin Packer wrote: > As far as I can tell ? based I confess only on reading New > York Times articles ? something similar is happening in > the US. And in the UK the Conservative party is fracturing. > > If one wanted to try to bring about these kinds of change > one wouldn?t know where to start, would one? Or is it just > me, unable to figure out where the levers of change are > hidden? > > Martin > > > >> On Jan 29, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Fortunately, we have an election in May, and since the >> government has already lost their majority, they can't do >> too much damage, just paralysis. It's an "unreal" government. >> >> The interesting phenomenon is that in country electorates >> and in wealthy "leafy" suburban seats, where respectively >> the National Party and Liberal Party (both right-wing >> parties) have held impregnable majorities since time >> immemorial, Independent candidates are popping up to >> challenge them and in several cases recently (in State >> elections and in Federal by-elections) they have toppled >> them. The extreme right is also fragmenting. It used to >> be a joke about Trotskyists and Maoists, but nowadays it >> seems you can't have two right-wingers in the same room >> without a faction fight and a split. So the political >> landscape is changing rapidly, and to the better here. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 30/01/2019 12:24 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >>> That?s odd! ?In contrast, the British government is >>> handling Brexit in such a rational and mature manner! >>> >>> Martin >>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> as Mike says, we notice them when there's a >>>> "perturbation"! >>>> >>>> December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, >>>> but the current Australian government is still >>>> promoting coal, so what does that tell us? >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course >>>>> Taylor also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) >>>>> on Hegel. >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your >>>>> spellchecker. ?:) >>>>> >>>>> The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to >>>>> forget, is that they become invisible in action. >>>>> Language seems like a window on another person?s >>>>> consciousness; the plough is simply handy when the >>>>> soil needs turning. The government is just those >>>>> idiots in Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice >>>>> the myriad of mediators, they seem like simple links >>>>> between us and whatever we?re interacting with, when >>>>> in fact neither would exist without them. Without >>>>> language, ploughs, and governments life would be >>>>> brutish and short. >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both >>>>>> defending the same view. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. >>>>>> I thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word >>>>>> in his 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been >>>>>> supplanted by others much later. I think he used the >>>>>> term to mean something "in between" objective truth >>>>>> (things fall when you drop them) and subjective truth >>>>>> (heights are scary), which is culturally produced >>>>>> (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic >>>>>> disorder). >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who >>>>>> began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of >>>>>> "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of >>>>>> Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles >>>>>> Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but I >>>>>> don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity >>>>>> reading down to the detailed level that this later >>>>>> intersubjective reading did. I agree with Charles >>>>>> Taylor - his work was pioneering. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as >>>>>> a "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New >>>>>> Age kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my >>>>>> spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as >>>>>> "intersubjectivity.") >>>>>> >>>>>> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with >>>>>> Paul Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" >>>>>> Australian Hegelian) on the question of how he >>>>>> understood me telling him "It's raining here" (he's >>>>>> in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our interaction >>>>>> was *mediated* by 2 computers and the internet and by >>>>>> the English language, but he utterly rejected this, >>>>>> insisting that the only sense in which our >>>>>> communication of mediated was that in Sydney as well >>>>>> as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had >>>>>> experience of rain. We never got past that point. The >>>>>> concept of artefact-mediation was utterly >>>>>> impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of Robert >>>>>> Brandom, BTW. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. >>>>>>> You seem to be attributing to me the view that I am >>>>>>> attributing to James, and questioning: namely that >>>>>>> ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities >>>>>>> somehow meeting in interaction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects >>>>>>> and objects, or only of subjectivity and >>>>>>> objectivity, will never be sufficient, because it >>>>>>> neglects a third phenomenon which is primary: the >>>>>>> shared, public practices (involving?artifacts) in >>>>>>> which people are always involved, and into which >>>>>>> they are born. I think you hold the same opinion! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological >>>>>>> one. Some of us here are using??intersubjectivity? >>>>>>> to refer to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. >>>>>>> That is a real phenomenon, I concur. I still >>>>>>> remember many years ago finding the perfect partner >>>>>>> for mixed badminton: it was though we played as one! >>>>>>> And also those rare occasions dancing salsa with the >>>>>>> right partner. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I want to use the term??intersubjectivity? the >>>>>>> way Charles Taylor used it in his article >>>>>>> "Interpretation and The Sciences of Man" (1971). >>>>>>> (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena of >>>>>>> intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) >>>>>>> Taylor wanted to draw to our attention??the social >>>>>>> matrix in which individuals find themselves and >>>>>>> act,???the background to social action,? >>>>>>> including??a common language? which??is constitutive >>>>>>> of? institutions and practices.? He insisted that it >>>>>>> is not simply consensus among individuals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We >>>>>>> could call them intersujectivity-1 and >>>>>>> intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what >>>>>>> Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the >>>>>>> observation that there are phenomena that cannot be >>>>>>> reduced to subjects and objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously these practices and institutions will >>>>>>> involve material?artifacts; they couldn?t function >>>>>>> otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined >>>>>>> within the practices. The fact that the US >>>>>>> government cannot get rid of guns is not due to >>>>>>> their number, it is due to the fact that the *right* >>>>>>> to own a gun is (on one interpretation) defined by >>>>>>> the texts and practices of government as one that >>>>>>> cannot be legally infringed. The government is >>>>>>> perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a gun that >>>>>>> has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid trying to >>>>>>> draw a distinction between an artifact and its >>>>>>> meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal >>>>>>> matter, not something that individuals negotiate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and >>>>>>>> the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have >>>>>>>> seen which tries to build a social theory on the >>>>>>>> basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the >>>>>>>> artefacts being used, and in particular, the >>>>>>>> pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the >>>>>>>> interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that >>>>>>>> I have come to this conclusion from my study of >>>>>>>> Hegel interpretations, which is a limited domain. >>>>>>>> But I do also see it in strands of social theory as >>>>>>>> such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the >>>>>>>> mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my >>>>>>>> voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) >>>>>>>> or taking the mediator as the object rather than a >>>>>>>> means. Such interpretations fail to explain why >>>>>>>> today can be any different from yesterday, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still >>>>>>>> intersubjective, we just use things for our >>>>>>>> interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as >>>>>>>> a further really existing step beyond the step >>>>>>>> which the intersubjective turn made relative to >>>>>>>> methodological individualism and abstract social >>>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the >>>>>>>> /meaning /of an artefact is established >>>>>>>> intersubjectively, so to speak, but /the artefact >>>>>>>> itself/ is still material and objective, and this >>>>>>>> constrains the meanings which can be attached to >>>>>>>> it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 million >>>>>>>> guns in the USA is a social problem over and above >>>>>>>> the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of >>>>>>>> so many Americans. A government simply cannot get >>>>>>>> rid of them. For example, the propensity of people >>>>>>>> in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is >>>>>>>> not just due to the poor preparedness of their >>>>>>>> people and governments, but the objective >>>>>>>> vulnerability of people due to the state of >>>>>>>> infrastructure. There is a limit on how good your >>>>>>>> education system will be if you have no teachers, >>>>>>>> no books and no schools. Of course the simple >>>>>>>> objective existence of the relevant things is not >>>>>>>> the whole business, but it is something else. And >>>>>>>> the /nature/ of the constellation of existing >>>>>>>> artefacts is something else, over and above their >>>>>>>> existence. EG all the school books are written in a >>>>>>>> foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a >>>>>>>> product of past history, you could say, which was >>>>>>>> intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon >>>>>>>> as the interaction ends, but the artefact often >>>>>>>> lives on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute >>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be >>>>>>>>> generally considered an intersubjective >>>>>>>>> phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. >>>>>>>>> So it could be said that what this discussion >>>>>>>>> group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is >>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, >>>>>>>>> Andy, that you may be reading the word as some >>>>>>>>> kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. >>>>>>>>> Which is indeed how the word has been used here >>>>>>>>> not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, >>>>>>>>> defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms >>>>>>>>> that exist in practices, not in individuals' >>>>>>>>> minds. The materiality of culture ? material >>>>>>>>> artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example >>>>>>>>> of this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, >>>>>>>>>> including intersubjective >>>>>>>>>> actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>> transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of >>>>>>>>>> Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is >>>>>>>>>> no accident. >>>>>>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) >>>>>>>>>> the "syllogism of action." This is the >>>>>>>>>> culminating concept of the Logic making the >>>>>>>>>> transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel >>>>>>>>>> points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this >>>>>>>>>> means that every action is mediated by material >>>>>>>>>> culture. Hegel says "the plough is more >>>>>>>>>> honourable than anything produced by its means." >>>>>>>>>> For Marx, this is about the importance of >>>>>>>>>> ownership of the means of production. For >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology >>>>>>>>>> what it is. >>>>>>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way >>>>>>>>>> minimises the constructive role of language use, >>>>>>>>>> but it means that the language itself plays, >>>>>>>>>> maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) >>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social >>>>>>>>>>> sciences (including philosophy) some time ago >>>>>>>>>>> that it is crucial to recognize the existence >>>>>>>>>>> and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. >>>>>>>>>>> ?Language, for example, is not subjective, it is >>>>>>>>>>> intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and >>>>>>>>>>> even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of >>>>>>>>>>> science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are >>>>>>>>>>> dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering >>>>>>>>>>>> someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the >>>>>>>>>>>>> term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium >>>>>>>>>>>>> through which concepts like inequality and >>>>>>>>>>>>> injustice are made objective, language, is >>>>>>>>>>>>> itself inherently subjective. For example, >>>>>>>>>>>>> justice can be given objective form in law, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the law itself is comprised of language, >>>>>>>>>>>>> customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of an objective form is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> universal, but will differ depending on >>>>>>>>>>>>> cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Concepts like inequality are given objective >>>>>>>>>>>>> form, but it doesn't mean that they are >>>>>>>>>>>>> objective in nature,?due to the mediating role >>>>>>>>>>>>> of?language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.eduon >>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities >>>>>>>>>>>>> in wild life system? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a matter of precision but of >>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. "Inequality" is a famously >>>>>>>>>>>>> contested concept, as is "injustice," but its >>>>>>>>>>>>> contestation is necessarily in a social >>>>>>>>>>>>> context and with social content. Justice and >>>>>>>>>>>>> equality are given objective form in law and >>>>>>>>>>>>> social policy in definite, really-existing >>>>>>>>>>>>> states or organisations challenging for state >>>>>>>>>>>>> power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited to a certain construal. One can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite precise and objective about that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> construal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which Harshad used it) is something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective, in the eye of the beholder. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such a view would be very pernicious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> politically. The fact is that states have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerged and developed over many centuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so as to makes objective certain concepts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of justice, among which are various >>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified and nuances notions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equality. This is not figment of my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construct and predicated on an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ontological scope. We find the condition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of inequality (or comparison) in our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking and behaviour. Every living >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing "finds" inequalities. We do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find inequality, we find the awareness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of inequality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality?within a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wildlife system, that must be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also preposterous. To?maintain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all members of the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species are equal, as Anne Moir >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and David Jessel put it, is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "build a society based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political, ideological just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scholar//https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless concept when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to Nature. Likewise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant only to the extent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the subjects are living >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an 'artificial' world, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of Nature. Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disasters and the plenitude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Nature have these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimensions only to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent they are imposed on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or made available to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different classes of people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the social system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article. I want to know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your views on following query. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email:hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended >>>>>>>>>>>>> solely for the addressee and may contain >>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential information. If you have received >>>>>>>>>>>>> this message in error, please send it back to >>>>>>>>>>>>> me, and immediately delete it. Please do not >>>>>>>>>>>>> use, copy or disclose the information >>>>>>>>>>>>> contained in this message or in any >>>>>>>>>>>>> attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> the author of this email do not necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>>> reflect the views of The University of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> checked for viruses but the contents of an >>>>>>>>>>>>> attachment may still contain software viruses >>>>>>>>>>>>> which could damage your computer system: you >>>>>>>>>>>>> are advised to perform your own checks. Email >>>>>>>>>>>>> communications with The University of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as >>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman >>>>>>>>> or?Dr. Lowie or discuss matters?with >>>>>>>>> Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I?become at?once?aware >>>>>>>>> that my partner does not understand anything in >>>>>>>>> the matter, and I end usually?with the?feeling >>>>>>>>> that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/12908bd2/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Tue Jan 29 19:01:24 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:01:24 +0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> <5B6C84BB-5696-4499-A136-4ADBA8873B2F@cantab.net> Message-ID: <6D6D1881-1FCB-46F1-9BC8-4900B692877E@gmail.com> So what does ?no longer working? refer to? In Vietnam, it?s mass wildcat strikes that make investors wary on the one hand and on the other pushes the government to re-think their labor code to encourage collective bargaining. In the US, one of the issues for the LA teachers was privatization of public schools (charter schools).The outcome of the strike was an agreement that the District would support legislation at the state level to put a cap on charter schools. Step by step. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com > On Jan 30, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > The theory I most favour is that the most recent, but also former, ideologies of capitalist rule have objectively lost their efficacy. The neo-liberal ideology (putting all social functions in the market place) is no longer working. This creates a crisis in all the parties which have relied on this strategy. It will also affect the centre-left, but in the Anglosphere, at this point, they are having an easier time, promoting a little bit of Keynesianism. > > Andy > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 30/01/2019 1:16 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >> As far as I can tell ? based I confess only on reading New York Times articles ? something similar is happening in the US. And in the UK the Conservative party is fracturing. >> >> If one wanted to try to bring about these kinds of change one wouldn?t know where to start, would one? Or is it just me, unable to figure out where the levers of change are hidden? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> Fortunately, we have an election in May, and since the government has already lost their majority, they can't do too much damage, just paralysis. It's an "unreal" government. >>> >>> The interesting phenomenon is that in country electorates and in wealthy "leafy" suburban seats, where respectively the National Party and Liberal Party (both right-wing parties) have held impregnable majorities since time immemorial, Independent candidates are popping up to challenge them and in several cases recently (in State elections and in Federal by-elections) they have toppled them. The extreme right is also fragmenting. It used to be a joke about Trotskyists and Maoists, but nowadays it seems you can't have two right-wingers in the same room without a faction fight and a split. So the political landscape is changing rapidly, and to the better here. >>> >>> Andy >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 30/01/2019 12:24 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >>>> That?s odd! In contrast, the British government is handling Brexit in such a rational and mature manner! >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> as Mike says, we notice them when there's a "perturbation"! >>>>> December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, but the current Australian government is still promoting coal, so what does that tell us? >>>>> Andy >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course Taylor also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on Hegel. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your spellchecker. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to forget, is that they become invisible in action. Language seems like a window on another person?s consciousness; the plough is simply handy when the soil needs turning. The government is just those idiots in Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice the myriad of mediators, they seem like simple links between us and whatever we?re interacting with, when in fact neither would exist without them. Without language, ploughs, and governments life would be brutish and short. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both defending the same view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been supplanted by others much later. I think he used the term to mean something "in between" objective truth (things fall when you drop them) and subjective truth (heights are scary), which is culturally produced (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic disorder). >>>>>>> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but I don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity reading down to the detailed level that this later intersubjective reading did. I agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as "intersubjectivity.") >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me telling him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our interaction was mediated by 2 computers and the internet and by the English language, but he utterly rejected this, insisting that the only sense in which our communication of mediated was that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had experience of rain. We never got past that point. The concept of artefact-mediation was utterly impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW. >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You seem to be attributing to me the view that I am attributing to James, and questioning: namely that ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will never be sufficient, because it neglects a third phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public practices (involving artifacts) in which people are always involved, and into which they are born. I think you hold the same opinion! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. Some of us here are using ?intersubjectivity? to refer to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was though we played as one! And also those rare occasions dancing salsa with the right partner. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I want to use the term ?intersubjectivity? the way Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our attention ?the social matrix in which individuals find themselves and act,? ?the background to social action,? including ?a common language? which ?is constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He insisted that it is not simply consensus among individuals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We could call them intersujectivity-1 and intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the observation that there are phenomena that cannot be reduced to subjects and objects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Obviously these practices and institutions will involve material artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined within the practices. The fact that the US government cannot get rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due to the fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of government as one that cannot be legally infringed. The government is perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal matter, not something that individuals negotiate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen which tries to build a social theory on the basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I have come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail to explain why today can be any different from yesterday, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really existing step beyond the step which the intersubjective turn made relative to methodological individualism and abstract social theory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the meaning of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to speak, but the artefact itself is still material and objective, and this constrains the meanings which can be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over and above the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is not just due to the poor preparedness of their people and governments, but the objective vulnerability of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good your education system will be if you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the simple objective existence of the relevant things is not the whole business, but it is something else. And the nature of the constellation of existing artefacts is something else, over and above their existence. EG all the school books are written in a foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a product of past history, you could say, which was intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. >>>>>>>>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >>>>>>>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. >>>>>>>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) >>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/dc974603/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Jan 29 19:12:48 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:12:48 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <6D6D1881-1FCB-46F1-9BC8-4900B692877E@gmail.com> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> <5B6C84BB-5696-4499-A136-4ADBA8873B2F@cantab.net> <6D6D1881-1FCB-46F1-9BC8-4900B692877E@gmail.com> Message-ID: It is succeeding in shifting vast amounts of wealth into the pockets of an incredibly small minority world-wide (For whom the bell tolls?), but it has lost the *consensus* which enabled it to be a *hegemonic *ideology and social policy. Obviously, Vietnam is not in the same place. Every country is having different crises, but I was referencing the crisis affecting capital on a world scale. It is manifested differently from country-to-country. andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 2:01 pm, Helena Worthen wrote: > So what does ?no longer working? refer to? > > In Vietnam, it?s mass wildcat strikes that make investors > wary on the one hand and on the other pushes the > government to re-think their labor code to encourage > collective bargaining. > > In the US, one of the issues for the LA teachers was > privatization of public schools (charter schools).The > outcome of the strike was an agreement that the District > would support legislation at the state level to put a cap > on charter schools. > > Step by step. > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > >> On Jan 30, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> The theory I most favour is that the most recent, but >> also former, ideologies of capitalist rule have >> objectively lost their efficacy. The neo-liberal ideology >> (putting all social functions in the market place) is no >> longer working. This creates a crisis in all the parties >> which have relied on this strategy. It will also affect >> the centre-left, but in the Anglosphere, at this point, >> they are having an easier time, promoting a little bit of >> Keynesianism. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 30/01/2019 1:16 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >>> As far as I can tell ? based I confess only on reading >>> New York Times articles ? something similar is happening >>> in the US. And in the UK the Conservative party is >>> fracturing. >>> >>> If one wanted to try to bring about these kinds of >>> change one wouldn?t know where to start, would one? Or >>> is it just me, unable to figure out where the levers of >>> change are hidden? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Fortunately, we have an election in May, and since the >>>> government has already lost their majority, they can't >>>> do too much damage, just paralysis. It's an "unreal" >>>> government. >>>> >>>> The interesting phenomenon is that in country >>>> electorates and in wealthy "leafy" suburban seats, >>>> where respectively the National Party and Liberal Party >>>> (both right-wing parties) have held impregnable >>>> majorities since time immemorial, Independent >>>> candidates are popping up to challenge them and in >>>> several cases recently (in State elections and in >>>> Federal by-elections) they have toppled them. The >>>> extreme right is also fragmenting. It used to be a joke >>>> about Trotskyists and Maoists, but nowadays it seems >>>> you can't have two right-wingers in the same room >>>> without a faction fight and a split. So the political >>>> landscape is changing rapidly, and to the better here. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 30/01/2019 12:24 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>> That?s odd! ?In contrast, the British government is >>>>> handling Brexit in such a rational and mature manner! >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> as Mike says, we notice them when there's a >>>>>> "perturbation"! >>>>>> >>>>>> December was the hottest month ever here in >>>>>> Australia, but the current Australian government is >>>>>> still promoting coal, so what does that tell us? >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course >>>>>>> Taylor also wrote a huge book (and then a little >>>>>>> one) on Hegel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your >>>>>>> spellchecker. ?:) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to >>>>>>> forget, is that they become invisible in action. >>>>>>> Language seems like a window on another person?s >>>>>>> consciousness; the plough is simply handy when the >>>>>>> soil needs turning. The government is just those >>>>>>> idiots in Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice >>>>>>> the myriad of mediators, they seem like simple links >>>>>>> between us and whatever we?re interacting with, when >>>>>>> in fact neither would exist without them. Without >>>>>>> language, ploughs, and governments life would be >>>>>>> brutish and short. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all >>>>>>>> both defending the same view. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing >>>>>>>> word. I thought it was Karl Popper who introduced >>>>>>>> the word in his 1945 "Open Society," but his >>>>>>>> meaning has been supplanted by others much later. I >>>>>>>> think he used the term to mean something "in >>>>>>>> between" objective truth (things fall when you drop >>>>>>>> them) and subjective truth (heights are scary), >>>>>>>> which is culturally produced (falling is due to >>>>>>>> gravity, acrophobia is a panic disorder). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters >>>>>>>> who began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of >>>>>>>> "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of >>>>>>>> Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles >>>>>>>> Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but >>>>>>>> I don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity >>>>>>>> reading down to the detailed level that this later >>>>>>>> intersubjective reading did. I agree with Charles >>>>>>>> Taylor - his work was pioneering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity >>>>>>>> as a "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean >>>>>>>> some New Age kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, >>>>>>>> etc. (BTW, my spellchecker keeps telling me there's >>>>>>>> no such word as "intersubjectivity.") >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with >>>>>>>> Paul Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" >>>>>>>> Australian Hegelian) on the question of how he >>>>>>>> understood me telling him "It's raining here" (he's >>>>>>>> in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our >>>>>>>> interaction was *mediated* by 2 computers and the >>>>>>>> internet and by the English language, but he >>>>>>>> utterly rejected this, insisting that the only >>>>>>>> sense in which our communication of mediated was >>>>>>>> that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, >>>>>>>> and so we both had experience of rain. We never got >>>>>>>> past that point. The concept of artefact-mediation >>>>>>>> was utterly impenetrable for him. He's a supporter >>>>>>>> of Robert Brandom, BTW. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. >>>>>>>>> You seem to be attributing to me the view that I >>>>>>>>> am attributing to James, and questioning: namely >>>>>>>>> that ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) >>>>>>>>> subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects >>>>>>>>> and objects, or only of subjectivity and >>>>>>>>> objectivity, will never be sufficient, because it >>>>>>>>> neglects a third phenomenon which is primary: the >>>>>>>>> shared, public practices (involving?artifacts) in >>>>>>>>> which people are always involved, and into which >>>>>>>>> they are born. I think you hold the same opinion! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological >>>>>>>>> one. Some of us here are using??intersubjectivity? >>>>>>>>> to refer to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. >>>>>>>>> That is a real phenomenon, I concur. I still >>>>>>>>> remember many years ago finding the perfect >>>>>>>>> partner for mixed badminton: it was though we >>>>>>>>> played as one! And also those rare occasions >>>>>>>>> dancing salsa with the right partner. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I want to use the term??intersubjectivity? the >>>>>>>>> way Charles Taylor used it in his article >>>>>>>>> "Interpretation and The Sciences of Man" (1971). >>>>>>>>> (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena of >>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) >>>>>>>>> Taylor wanted to draw to our attention??the social >>>>>>>>> matrix in which individuals find themselves and >>>>>>>>> act,???the background to social action,? >>>>>>>>> including??a common language? which??is >>>>>>>>> constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He >>>>>>>>> insisted that it is not simply consensus among >>>>>>>>> individuals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. >>>>>>>>> We could call them intersujectivity-1 and >>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what >>>>>>>>> Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the >>>>>>>>> observation that there are phenomena that cannot >>>>>>>>> be reduced to subjects and objects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Obviously these practices and institutions will >>>>>>>>> involve material?artifacts; they couldn?t function >>>>>>>>> otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined >>>>>>>>> within the practices. The fact that the US >>>>>>>>> government cannot get rid of guns is not due to >>>>>>>>> their number, it is due to the fact that the >>>>>>>>> *right* to own a gun is (on one interpretation) >>>>>>>>> defined by the texts and practices of government >>>>>>>>> as one that cannot be legally infringed. The >>>>>>>>> government is perfectly within *its* rights to >>>>>>>>> destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, >>>>>>>>> then, to avoid trying to draw a distinction >>>>>>>>> between an artifact and its meaning: what *counts >>>>>>>>> as* a gun is (again) a legal matter, not something >>>>>>>>> that individuals negotiate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity >>>>>>>>>> and the CHAT standpoint because the literature I >>>>>>>>>> have seen which tries to build a social theory on >>>>>>>>>> the basis of subject-subject interactions, >>>>>>>>>> ignores the artefacts being used, and in >>>>>>>>>> particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts >>>>>>>>>> relative to the interactions, and their >>>>>>>>>> materiality. (I admit that I have come to this >>>>>>>>>> conclusion from my study of Hegel >>>>>>>>>> interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I >>>>>>>>>> do also see it in strands of social theory as >>>>>>>>>> such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the >>>>>>>>>> mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. >>>>>>>>>> my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my >>>>>>>>>> hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather >>>>>>>>>> than a means. Such interpretations fail to >>>>>>>>>> explain why today can be any different from >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still >>>>>>>>>> intersubjective, we just use things for our >>>>>>>>>> interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT >>>>>>>>>> as a further really existing step beyond the step >>>>>>>>>> which the intersubjective turn made relative to >>>>>>>>>> methodological individualism and abstract social >>>>>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the >>>>>>>>>> /meaning /of an artefact is established >>>>>>>>>> intersubjectively, so to speak, but /the artefact >>>>>>>>>> itself/ is still material and objective, and this >>>>>>>>>> constrains the meanings which can be attached to >>>>>>>>>> it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 >>>>>>>>>> million guns in the USA is a social problem over >>>>>>>>>> and above the place of guns in the thinking and >>>>>>>>>> behaviour of so many Americans. A government >>>>>>>>>> simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the >>>>>>>>>> propensity of people in some countries to suffer >>>>>>>>>> in natural disasters is not just due to the poor >>>>>>>>>> preparedness of their people and governments, but >>>>>>>>>> the objective vulnerability of people due to the >>>>>>>>>> state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how >>>>>>>>>> good your education system will be if you have no >>>>>>>>>> teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the >>>>>>>>>> simple objective existence of the relevant things >>>>>>>>>> is not the whole business, but it is something >>>>>>>>>> else. And the /nature/ of the constellation of >>>>>>>>>> existing artefacts is something else, over and >>>>>>>>>> above their existence. EG all the school books >>>>>>>>>> are written in a foreign language, etc. The >>>>>>>>>> material artefacts is a product of past history, >>>>>>>>>> you could say, which was intersubjective, but >>>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction >>>>>>>>>> ends, but the artefact often lives on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think CHAT has something important to >>>>>>>>>> contribute here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be >>>>>>>>>>> generally considered an intersubjective >>>>>>>>>>> phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. >>>>>>>>>>> So it could be said that what this discussion >>>>>>>>>>> group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is >>>>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I >>>>>>>>>>> think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as >>>>>>>>>>> some kind of merging or sharing of >>>>>>>>>>> subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has >>>>>>>>>>> been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, >>>>>>>>>>> for example, defined intersubjectivity as >>>>>>>>>>> meanings and norms that exist in practices, not >>>>>>>>>>> in individuals' minds. The materiality of >>>>>>>>>>> culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be >>>>>>>>>>> a very good example of this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, >>>>>>>>>>>> including intersubjective >>>>>>>>>>>> actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His >>>>>>>>>>>> citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of >>>>>>>>>>>> reason" is no accident. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel >>>>>>>>>>>> style) the "syllogism of action." This is the >>>>>>>>>>>> culminating concept of the Logic making the >>>>>>>>>>>> transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, >>>>>>>>>>>> that this means that every action is mediated >>>>>>>>>>>> by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is >>>>>>>>>>>> more honourable than anything produced by its >>>>>>>>>>>> means." For Marx, this is about the importance >>>>>>>>>>>> of ownership of the means of production. For >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology >>>>>>>>>>>> what it is. >>>>>>>>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way >>>>>>>>>>>> minimises the constructive role of language >>>>>>>>>>>> use, but it means that the language itself >>>>>>>>>>>> plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) >>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social >>>>>>>>>>>>> sciences (including philosophy) some time ago >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is crucial to recognize the existence >>>>>>>>>>>>> and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?Language, for example, is not subjective, it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is intersubjective. As Andy notes, >>>>>>>>>>>>> subjectivity and even objectivity (think >>>>>>>>>>>>> Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory >>>>>>>>>>>>> Life) arise from and are dependent upon >>>>>>>>>>>>> intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the term 'quasi-objective form', as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> medium through which concepts like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inequality and injustice are made objective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language, is itself inherently subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, justice can be given objective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form in law, but the law itself is comprised >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. The manifestation of an objective form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not universal, but will differ depending >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concepts like inequality are given objective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form, but it doesn't mean that they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective in nature,?due to the mediating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role of?language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.eduon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inequalities in wild life system? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a matter of precision but of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity. "Inequality" is a famously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contested concept, as is "injustice," but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its contestation is necessarily in a social >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context and with social content. Justice and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equality are given objective form in law and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> social policy in definite, really-existing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states or organisations challenging for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited to a certain construal. One can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite precise and objective about that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meaning with which Harshad used it) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is something subjective, in the eye of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beholder. Such a view would be very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pernicious politically. The fact is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that states have emerged and developed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over many centuries so as to makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective certain concepts of justice, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> among which are various qualified and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuances notions of equality. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imbalanced and subject to radical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construct and predicated on an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ontological scope. We find the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition of inequality (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison) in our thinking and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour. Every living thing "finds" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inequalities. We do not find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inequality, we find the awareness of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inequality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality?within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a wildlife system, that must be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political, ideological precept! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also preposterous. To?maintain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all members of the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species are equal, as Anne >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moir and David Jessel put it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to "build a society based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a biological and scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political, ideological just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scholar//https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless concept when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to Nature. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant only to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent that the subjects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are living in an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'artificial' world, out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nature. Natural disasters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the plenitude of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nature have these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimensions only to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent they are imposed on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or made available to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different classes of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people by the social system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article. I want to know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your views on following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists in wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email:hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solely for the addressee and may contain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential information. If you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received this message in error, please send >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it back to me, and immediately delete it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please do not use, copy or disclose the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information contained in this message or in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any attachment. Any views or opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed by the author of this email do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily reflect the views of The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message has been checked for viruses but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contents of an attachment may still contain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software viruses which could damage your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer system: you are advised to perform >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own checks. Email communications with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The University of Nottingham Ningbo China >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be monitored as permitted by UK and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese legislation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman >>>>>>>>>>> or?Dr. Lowie or discuss matters?with >>>>>>>>>>> Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I?become >>>>>>>>>>> at?once?aware that my partner does not >>>>>>>>>>> understand anything in the matter, and I end >>>>>>>>>>> usually?with the?feeling that this also applies >>>>>>>>>>> to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/7dd90ed0/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Jan 29 20:10:58 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:10:58 -0800 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: January READINGS from the Social Science Research Council In-Reply-To: <1522479100.464723717.1548789110359.JavaMail.cloud@mta0102.messagegears.net> References: <1522479100.464723717.1548789110359.JavaMail.cloud@mta0102.messagegears.net> Message-ID: Regarding inequalities, several relevant commentators here. mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Social Science Research Council Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:12 AM Subject: January READINGS from the Social Science Research Council To: Click *here * if you are having trouble viewing this message. [image: SSRC Readings header] In this issue of *READINGS*, we highlight essays from across our blogs that delve into various dimensions of inequality?economic, racial, health, political. Authors include Erik Olin Wright, Danielle Allen, Elizabeth Anderson, and John Robinson. [image: Items image] W. E. B. Du Bois and the Racial Economics of Inclusive Capitalism JOHN ROBINSON III [image: The Immanent Frame image] Social Inequality in/and Religious Studies *THE IMMANENT FRAME* EDITORS [image: Items image] Representational Inequality and Welfare State Change LEA ELS?SSER [image: Parameters image] "Is It a Bird? Is It a Plane?" Rethinking the Binary Divide between Books and Journals CHRIS HARRISON [image: Kujenga Amani image] Peacebuilding through Community Health Work in Nairobi's Informal Settlements ROSEANNE NJIRU In 2016, we launched the essay series ?*What Is Inequality? *? Erik Olin Wright, an esteemed sociologist and long-time friend of the Council, authored one of the opening essays, ?Two Approaches to Inequality and Their Normative Implications.? In the wake of his passing, we revisit his contribution, along with other essays from the series. Two Approaches to Inequality and Their Normative Implications ERIK OLIN WRIGHT Erik Olin Wright helps launch our ?What Is Inequality?? series by offering two narratives of inequality. Durable Social Hierarchies: How Egalitarian Movements Imagine Inequality ELIZABETH ANDERSON Anderson calls attention to the limits of conceptualizing inequality through the lenses of distribution and discrimination. Flipping the Script: From Inequality to Equality DANIELLE ALLEN The current focus on inequality, argues Allen, makes it more imperative than ever to better understand the concept of ?equality.? What It Means to Be Entitled RACHEL SHERMAN Based on research among New Yorkers in the ?1 percent,? Sherman uncovers the ways they understand and legitimize their wealth. Social Science Research Council One Pierrepont Plaza, 15th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 You are receiving this mailing because you have indicated that you would like to receive news and announcements from the Social Science Research Council. Click *here * to manage your subscription preferences or unsubscribe. -- Who says development is not a life long process has either not lived long enough, or has lived too long. Anon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190129/9394fd1a/attachment-0001.html From annalie.pistorius@smu.ac.za Wed Jan 30 00:03:55 2019 From: annalie.pistorius@smu.ac.za (Annalie Pistorius) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:03:55 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> Message-ID: <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> What about the inter-cultural historical? Annalie (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Packer Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. Adam _____ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. Huw On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! James On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". James PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! _______________________________________________________ James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: Harshad, "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. Hope that helps. Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: Hi, I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" Your views will help me in my work. Regards, Image removed by sender. Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. Martin "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/ca172b34/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/ca172b34/attachment.jpe From andyb@marxists.org Wed Jan 30 00:14:31 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:14:31 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> Message-ID: Where there is a state there is most likely inequality and injustice, Annalie. Where do you see inequality and injustice as arising from? andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 7:03 pm, Annalie Pistorius wrote: > > What about the inter-cultural historical? > > Annalie > > (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of > *Martin Packer > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild > life system? > > Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally > considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than > subjective or objective. So it could be said that what > this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is > intersubjectivity. > > Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, > that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging > or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word > has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for > example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms > that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The > materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me > to be a very good example of this. > > Martin > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including > intersubjective actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, > Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of > Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. > > Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the > "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of > the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and > Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that > this means that every action is mediated by material > culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than > anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about > the importance of ownership of the means of production. > For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. > > Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises > the constructive role of language use, but it means that > the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" > role. :) > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: > > There was a general recognition in the social sciences > (including philosophy) some time ago that it is > crucial to recognize the existence and importance of > ?intersubjective? phenomena. ?Language, for example, > is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy > notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think > Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise > from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. > > Martin > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > When you get the electric chair for murdering someone > that is not a linguistic construct. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: > > Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term > 'quasi-objective form',?as the medium through > which concepts like inequality and injustice?are > made objective, language, is itself inherently > subjective. For example, justice can be given > objective form in law, but the law itself is > comprised of language, customs, traditions, > beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective > form is not universal, but will differ depending > on cultural?context. Hence quasi-objective. > Concepts like inequality are given objective form, > but it doesn't mean that they are objective > in?nature,?due to the mediating role of?language. > > Adam > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf > of Andy Blunden > > *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 > *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in > wild life system? > > Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is > not a matter of precision but of relativity. > "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as > is "injustice," but its contestation is > necessarily in a social context and with social > content. Justice and equality are given objective > form in law and social policy in definite, > really-existing states or organisations > challenging for state power, not the opinion of > individuals. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is > limited to a certain construal. One can be > quite precise and objective about that construal. > > Huw > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > I can't agree that with your suggestion, > Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with > which Harshad used it) is something > subjective, in the eye of the beholder. > Such a view would be very pernicious > politically. The fact is that states have > emerged and developed over many centuries > so as to makes objective certain concepts > of justice, among which are various > qualified and nuances notions of equality. > This is not figment of my imagination. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > We find "wild life" systems that are > imbalanced and subject to radical changes. > > Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive > construct and predicated on an > ontological scope. We find the > condition of inequality (or > comparison) in our thinking and > behaviour. Every living thing "finds" > inequalities. We do not find > inequality, we find the awareness of > inequality. > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma > > wrote: > > Should you find inequality?within > a wildlife system, that must be a > political, ideological precept! > > James > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, > James Ma > wrote: > > Not only is it meaningless but > also preposterous. To?maintain > that all members of the same > species are equal, as Anne > Moir and David Jessel put it, > is to "build a society based > on a biological and scientific > lie". > > James > > PS: I'm apolitical?- anything > political, ideological just > doesn't speak to me! > > */_______________________________________________________/* > > */James Ma /*/Independent > Scholarhttps://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > / > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, > Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > Harshad, > > "Inequality" is a > meaningless concept when > referred to Nature. > Likewise "Injustice." > > Justice and equality are > relevant only to the > extent that the subjects > are living in an > 'artificial' world, out of > Nature. Natural disasters > and the plenitude of > Nature have these > dimensions only to the > extent they are imposed on > or made available to > different classes of > people by the social system. > > Hope that helps. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, > Harshad Dave wrote: > > Hi, > > I am working on one > article. I want to > know your views on > following query. > > "Do we find > Inequalities exists in > wild life system?" > > Your views will help > me in my work. > > Regards, > > Image removed by sender. > > Harshad Dave > > Email:hhdave15@gmail.com > > > This message and any attachment are intended > solely for the addressee and may contain > confidential information. If you have received > this message in error, please send it back to me, > and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy > or disclose the information contained in this > message or in any attachment. Any views or > opinions expressed by the author of this email do > not necessarily reflect the views of The > University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This > message has been checked for viruses but the > contents of an attachment may still contain > software viruses which could damage your computer > system: you are advised to perform your own > checks. Email communications with The University > of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as > permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. > > Martin > > /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman or?Dr. > Lowie or discuss matters?with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, > I?become at?once?aware that my partner does not understand > anything in the matter, and I end usually?with the?feeling > that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/0a9141ec/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/0a9141ec/attachment.jpg From robsub@ariadne.org.uk Wed Jan 30 01:55:44 2019 From: robsub@ariadne.org.uk (robsub@ariadne.org.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:55:44 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <6D6D1881-1FCB-46F1-9BC8-4900B692877E@gmail.com> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> <5B6C84BB-5696-4499-A136-4ADBA8873B2F@cantab.net> <6D6D1881-1FCB-46F1-9BC8-4900B692877E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <98d120c4-ff76-3dec-bbbf-e8ac9e55f0df@ariadne.org.uk> FWIW I suggest neoliberalism is still working in the UK the way it always has, siphoning income and wealth upwards, and also still managing quite effectively to hide the fact that it does that. Discontent arises not from the perception that neoliberalism works that way, but because it is less possible to hide the manifest consequences of rank inequality. And I suggest that that is only indirectly linked to the convulsions over Brexit. Brexit has many causes, but two stand out for me. The first is the long standing campaign by the UK chapter of neoliberal inc to persuade the people that any problems in their lives are caused by the EU. (They probably did not intend the UK to leave the EU, but,once that decision was made, they started to take full advantage.) The second is the English nostalgia for empire which remains an extraordinarily powerful feeling in many sections of the population. Its current manifestation is a belief that the world owes us pre-eminence. And a final FWIW, while the conservative party is currently at war with itself, I do not believe it will split. Its modus operandi is to hold on to power. Its problem at the moment is that too many of its representatives actually believe the doctrines they propound. Once we are past brexit, the greyer and wiser among them will knock the doctrinaire heads together and tell them to get a grip. Rob On 30/01/2019 03:01, Helena Worthen wrote: > So what does ?no longer working? refer to? > > In Vietnam, it?s mass wildcat strikes that make investors wary on the > one hand and on the other pushes the government to re-think their > labor code to encourage collective bargaining. > > In the US, one of the issues for the LA teachers was privatization of > public schools (charter schools).The outcome of the strike was an > agreement that the District would support legislation at the state > level to put a cap on charter schools. > > Step by step. > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > > > >> On Jan 30, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: >> >> The theory I most favour is that the most recent, but also former, >> ideologies of capitalist rule have objectively lost their efficacy. >> The neo-liberal ideology (putting all social functions in the market >> place) is no longer working. This creates a crisis in all the parties >> which have relied on this strategy. It will also affect the >> centre-left, but in the Anglosphere, at this point, they are having >> an easier time, promoting a little bit of Keynesianism. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 30/01/2019 1:16 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >>> As far as I can tell ? based I confess only on reading New York >>> Times articles ? something similar is happening in the US. And in >>> the UK the Conservative party is fracturing. >>> >>> If one wanted to try to bring about these kinds of change one >>> wouldn?t know where to start, would one? Or is it just me, unable to >>> figure out where the levers of change are hidden? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Andy Blunden >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Fortunately, we have an election in May, and since the government >>>> has already lost their majority, they can't do too much damage, >>>> just paralysis. It's an "unreal" government. >>>> >>>> The interesting phenomenon is that in country electorates and in >>>> wealthy "leafy" suburban seats, where respectively the National >>>> Party and Liberal Party (both right-wing parties) have held >>>> impregnable majorities since time immemorial, Independent >>>> candidates are popping up to challenge them and in several cases >>>> recently (in State elections and in Federal by-elections) they have >>>> toppled them. The extreme right is also fragmenting. It used to be >>>> a joke about Trotskyists and Maoists, but nowadays it seems you >>>> can't have two right-wingers in the same room without a faction >>>> fight and a split. So the political landscape is changing rapidly, >>>> and to the better here. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 30/01/2019 12:24 pm, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>> That?s odd! ?In contrast, the British government is handling >>>>> Brexit in such a rational and mature manner! >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> as Mike says, we notice them when there's a "perturbation"! >>>>>> >>>>>> December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, but the >>>>>> current Australian government is still promoting coal, so what >>>>>> does that tell us? >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course Taylor also >>>>>>> wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on Hegel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your spellchecker. ?:) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to forget, is >>>>>>> that they become invisible in action. Language seems like a >>>>>>> window on another person?s consciousness; the plough is simply >>>>>>> handy when the soil needs turning. The government is just those >>>>>>> idiots in Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice the myriad >>>>>>> of mediators, they seem like simple links between us and >>>>>>> whatever we?re interacting with, when in fact neither would >>>>>>> exist without them. Without language, ploughs, and governments >>>>>>> life would be brutish and short. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both defending >>>>>>>> the same view. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I thought >>>>>>>> it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his 1945 "Open >>>>>>>> Society," but his meaning has been supplanted by others much >>>>>>>> later. I think he used the term to mean something "in between" >>>>>>>> objective truth (things fall when you drop them) and subjective >>>>>>>> truth (heights are scary), which is culturally produced >>>>>>>> (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic disorder). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who began to >>>>>>>> use "intersubjectivity" as a means of "operationalising" a >>>>>>>> "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and >>>>>>>> 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, >>>>>>>> but I don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity reading >>>>>>>> down to the detailed level that this later intersubjective >>>>>>>> reading did. I agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a "merging >>>>>>>> of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age kind of thing, >>>>>>>> or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my spellchecker keeps telling me >>>>>>>> there's no such word as "intersubjectivity.") >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul Redding >>>>>>>> (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian Hegelian) on the >>>>>>>> question of how he understood me telling him "It's raining >>>>>>>> here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our >>>>>>>> interaction was *mediated* by 2 computers and the internet and >>>>>>>> by the English language, but he utterly rejected this, >>>>>>>> insisting that the only sense in which our communication of >>>>>>>> mediated was that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, >>>>>>>> and so we both had experience of rain. We never got past that >>>>>>>> point. The concept of artefact-mediation was utterly >>>>>>>> impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>> I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You seem to >>>>>>>>> be attributing to me the view that I am attributing to James, >>>>>>>>> and questioning: namely that ?intersubjectivity? is two (or >>>>>>>>> more) subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and >>>>>>>>> objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will never >>>>>>>>> be sufficient, because it neglects a third phenomenon which is >>>>>>>>> primary: the shared, public practices (involving?artifacts) in >>>>>>>>> which people are always involved, and into which they are >>>>>>>>> born. I think you hold the same opinion! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. Some of >>>>>>>>> us here are using??intersubjectivity? to refer to some kind of >>>>>>>>> fusing of subjectivities. That is a real phenomenon, I concur. >>>>>>>>> I still remember many years ago finding the perfect partner >>>>>>>>> for mixed badminton: it was though we played as one! And also >>>>>>>>> those rare occasions dancing salsa with the right partner. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I want to use the term??intersubjectivity? the way Charles >>>>>>>>> Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation and The Sciences >>>>>>>>> of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena >>>>>>>>> of intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) Taylor >>>>>>>>> wanted to draw to our attention??the social matrix in which >>>>>>>>> individuals find themselves and act,???the background to >>>>>>>>> social action,? including??a common language? which??is >>>>>>>>> constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He insisted that >>>>>>>>> it is not simply consensus among individuals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We could call >>>>>>>>> them intersujectivity-1 and intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new >>>>>>>>> word for what Taylor was talking about. What?s important is >>>>>>>>> the observation that there are phenomena that cannot be >>>>>>>>> reduced to subjects and objects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Obviously these practices and institutions will involve >>>>>>>>> material?artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. But >>>>>>>>> these artifacts will be defined within the practices. The fact >>>>>>>>> that the US government cannot get rid of guns is not due to >>>>>>>>> their number, it is due to the fact that the *right* to own a >>>>>>>>> gun is (on one interpretation) defined by the texts and >>>>>>>>> practices of government as one that cannot be legally >>>>>>>>> infringed. The government is perfectly within *its* rights to >>>>>>>>> destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid >>>>>>>>> trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its >>>>>>>>> meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal matter, not >>>>>>>>> something that individuals negotiate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the CHAT >>>>>>>>>> standpoint because the literature I have seen which tries to >>>>>>>>>> build a social theory on the basis of subject-subject >>>>>>>>>> interactions, ignores the artefacts being used, and in >>>>>>>>>> particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts relative to >>>>>>>>>> the interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I have >>>>>>>>>> come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel >>>>>>>>>> interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do also see >>>>>>>>>> it in strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by >>>>>>>>>> either subsuming the mediating artefact into the subject >>>>>>>>>> itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my >>>>>>>>>> hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather than a >>>>>>>>>> means. Such interpretations fail to explain why today can be >>>>>>>>>> any different from yesterday, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We cold say that mediated interactions are still >>>>>>>>>> intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions with >>>>>>>>>> other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really existing >>>>>>>>>> step beyond the step which the intersubjective turn made >>>>>>>>>> relative to methodological individualism and abstract social >>>>>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ontologically, the distinction is this: the /meaning /of an >>>>>>>>>> artefact is established intersubjectively, so to speak, but >>>>>>>>>> /the artefact itself/ is still material and objective, and >>>>>>>>>> this constrains the meanings which can be attached to it. For >>>>>>>>>> example, the sheer existence of 400 million guns in the USA >>>>>>>>>> is a social problem over and above the place of guns in the >>>>>>>>>> thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A government >>>>>>>>>> simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of >>>>>>>>>> people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is >>>>>>>>>> not just due to the poor preparedness of their people and >>>>>>>>>> governments, but the objective vulnerability of people due to >>>>>>>>>> the state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good >>>>>>>>>> your education system will be if you have no teachers, no >>>>>>>>>> books and no schools. Of course the simple objective >>>>>>>>>> existence of the relevant things is not the whole business, >>>>>>>>>> but it is something else. And the /nature/ of the >>>>>>>>>> constellation of existing artefacts is something else, over >>>>>>>>>> and above their existence. EG all the school books are >>>>>>>>>> written in a foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is >>>>>>>>>> a product of past history, you could say, which was >>>>>>>>>> intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as the >>>>>>>>>> interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally >>>>>>>>>>> considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than >>>>>>>>>>> subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this >>>>>>>>>>> discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is >>>>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that >>>>>>>>>>> you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or >>>>>>>>>>> sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has >>>>>>>>>>> been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for >>>>>>>>>>> example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms >>>>>>>>>>> that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The >>>>>>>>>>> materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to >>>>>>>>>>> be a very good example of this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including >>>>>>>>>>>> intersubjective actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of >>>>>>>>>>>> Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the >>>>>>>>>>>> "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of >>>>>>>>>>>> the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and >>>>>>>>>>>> Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that >>>>>>>>>>>> this means that every action is mediated by material >>>>>>>>>>>> culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than >>>>>>>>>>>> anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about >>>>>>>>>>>> the importance of ownership of the means of production. For >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. >>>>>>>>>>>> Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises >>>>>>>>>>>> the constructive role of language use, but it means that >>>>>>>>>>>> the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" >>>>>>>>>>>> role. :) >>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a general recognition in the social sciences >>>>>>>>>>>>> (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to >>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize the existence and importance of >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?intersubjective? phenomena. ?Language, for example, is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, >>>>>>>>>>>>> subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis >>>>>>>>>>>>> of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you get the electric chair for murdering someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not a linguistic construct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concepts like inequality and injustice are made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, justice can be given objective form in law, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective form is not universal, but will differ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature,?due >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the mediating role of?language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.eduon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf of Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life system? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contestation is necessarily in a social context and with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> social content. Justice and equality are given objective >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form in law and social policy in definite, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really-existing states or organisations challenging for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state power, not the opinion of individuals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain construal. One can be quite precise and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective about that construal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it) is something subjective, in the eye of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politically. The fact is that states have emerged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and developed over many centuries so as to makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective certain concepts of justice, among which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are various qualified and nuances notions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equality. This is not figment of my imagination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and subject to radical changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicated on an ontological scope. We find the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition of inequality (or comparison) in our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the awareness of inequality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should you find inequality?within a wildlife >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, that must be a political, ideological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precept! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not only is it meaningless but also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preposterous. To?maintain that all members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the same species are equal, as Anne >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a society based on a biological and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific lie". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I'm apolitical?- anything political, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideological just doesn't speak to me! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */_______________________________________________________/* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scholar//https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Inequality" is a meaningless concept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when referred to Nature. Likewise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Injustice." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Justice and equality are relevant only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the extent that the subjects are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living in an 'artificial' world, out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Nature. Natural disasters and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plenitude of Nature have these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimensions only to the extent they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imposed on or made available to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different classes of people by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> social system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on one article. I want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know your views on following query. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do we find Inequalities exists in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wild life system?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your views will help me in my work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harshad Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email:hhdave15@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This message and any attachment are intended solely for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the addressee and may contain confidential information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have received this message in error, please send >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use, copy or disclose the information contained in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> China. This message has been checked for viruses but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contents of an attachment may still contain software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viruses which could damage your computer system: you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advised to perform your own checks. Email communications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman or?Dr. Lowie >>>>>>>>>>> or discuss matters?with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I?become >>>>>>>>>>> at?once?aware that my partner does not understand anything >>>>>>>>>>> in the matter, and I end usually?with the?feeling that this >>>>>>>>>>> also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/6b03138d/attachment.html From annalie.pistorius@smu.ac.za Wed Jan 30 04:29:16 2019 From: annalie.pistorius@smu.ac.za (Annalie Pistorius) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:29:16 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> Message-ID: <014601d4b897$80ad23b0$82076b10$@smu.ac.za> Yes it seems that all states and states of minds ultimately become oppressive, or narrow-minded ? we are born into that narrowness/states (they pre-existed before us) and some of us then rebel against that (what we come to know and experience about it) and create other intersubjective norms; but some others don?t know about that neither do they participate in that; somewhere then a leader is claiming to take care of promises but does something else. Objective things cannot be described, their descriptions are inter-subjective (which includes the subjective, if that is possible, I don?t think it is possible to think on your own to form a subjective opinion really because it is done against a norm). The map is not the territory (Bateson). We don?t see the territory, we see the map and make up different maps of the same territory; thus they are all limited and as narrow as our intersubjective creations. From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:15 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Where there is a state there is most likely inequality and injustice, Annalie. Where do you see inequality and injustice as arising from? andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 7:03 pm, Annalie Pistorius wrote: What about the inter-cultural historical? Annalie (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Packer Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. Adam _____ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. Huw On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! James On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". James PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! _______________________________________________________ James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: Harshad, "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. Hope that helps. Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: Hi, I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" Your views will help me in my work. Regards, Imageremoved bysender. Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. Martin "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/037cac87/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/037cac87/attachment.jpe From hhdave15@gmail.com Wed Jan 30 04:48:17 2019 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:18:17 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <014601d4b897$80ad23b0$82076b10$@smu.ac.za> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> <014601d4b897$80ad23b0$82076b10$@smu.ac.za> Message-ID: Hi, I give you few cases that anyone might have observed while viewing documentary on Discovery, Animal Planet, National Geographic and other like channels. *Case 1* Generally lions make their living in a group. It is observed that lioness takes active part in the hunting and preying a kill. There are many cases (most of the cases) where total efforts, toll and trouble are taken by one or more lioness to kill a prey. But as soon as the leader of the group approaches there, all the lioness and young cubs have to leave the carcass and the lion eats making full stomach without care of others share. Does this act amount to an inequality? *Case 2 *A female Cheetah with her two or three cubs preys a deer with her hard effort and unfortunately a hyena spots her. The hyena rushes to the place and the hungry Cheetah had to abandon the carcass and it is grabbed by the hyenas. Does this act amount to an inequality? *Case 3 *I recall one documentary. A group of African wild dogs were inhabiting at one place. There were two females who gave birth to few puppies. One female was young and second one was elder then the first one and she was cheeky as well as experienced leader. She grabbed all the puppies of the young female dog and nourished them with her own, but she never allow the original young mother near to her puppies. This continued for many days. Events and occasions in the documentary showed the measurable condition of the young mother without her kids/puppies was searching single occasion or opportunity to feed her own kids if the older female remains inadvertent or remiss. Unfortunately she never got such opportunity and her milk dried out. Does this act amount to an inequality? There are innumerable cases where powerful member of the group does not permit others access to the female to mate with other males of the same group. The inferior or the male who are unable to fight with the leader one has to frequently express a gesture of his body language accepting all the superiority of the leader male. Does this act amount to an inequality? When nature itself has not design two animals equal, and two animals of the same specie are different in many ways then it seems that claim for equality is against the natural law even in human society. Regards, Harshad Dave On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 6:02 PM Annalie Pistorius Yes it seems that all states and states of minds ultimately become > oppressive, or narrow-minded ? we are born into that narrowness/states > (they pre-existed before us) and some of us then rebel against that (what > we come to know and experience about it) and create other intersubjective > norms; but some others don?t know about that neither do they participate in > that; somewhere then a leader is claiming to take care of promises but does > something else. > > Objective things cannot be described, their descriptions are > inter-subjective (which includes the subjective, if that is possible, I > don?t think it is possible to think on your own to form a subjective > opinion really because it is done against a norm). The map is not the > territory (Bateson). We don?t see the territory, we see the map and make up > different maps of the same territory; thus they are all limited and as > narrow as our intersubjective creations. > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:15 AM > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? > > > > Where there is a state there is most likely inequality and injustice, > Annalie. > Where do you see inequality and injustice as arising from? > > andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 30/01/2019 7:03 pm, Annalie Pistorius wrote: > > What about the inter-cultural historical? > > Annalie > > (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [ > mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] *On > Behalf Of *Martin Packer > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? > > > > Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an > intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it > could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is > intersubjectivity. > > > > Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be > reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. > Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles > Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that > exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? > material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective > actions, *essentially* artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended > "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of > reason" is no accident. > > Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of > action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition > to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on > this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. > Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its > means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of > production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. > > Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive > role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. > the more "honourable" role. :) > > andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: > > There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including > philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and > importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not > subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even > objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise > from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a > linguistic construct. > > andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: > > Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective > form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and > injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. > For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself > is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The > manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ > depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like > inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are > objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. > > > > Adam > ------------------------------ > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > *Sent:* 29 January 2019 08:16:35 > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? > > > > Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of > precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, > as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context > and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in > law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations > challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. > > andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. > One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. > > > > Huw > > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: > > I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the > meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of > the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is > that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes > objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified > and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. > > andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical > changes. > > > > Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an > ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in > our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do > not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. > > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: > > Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a > political, ideological precept! > > > > James > > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: > > Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all > members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put > it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". > > James > > PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to > me! > > *_______________________________________________________* > > *James Ma **Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Harshad, > > "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise > "Injustice." > > Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are > living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the > plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are > imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social > system. > > Hope that helps. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. > > > > "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" > > > > Your views will help me in my work. > > > > Regards, > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > Harshad Dave > > Email: hhdave15@gmail.com > > > > > > > > This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and > may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in > error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not > use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any > attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do > not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo > China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an > attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your > computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email > communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be > monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > *"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss > matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my > partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with > the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)* > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/79a1c752/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 386 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/79a1c752/attachment.jpg From mpacker@cantab.net Wed Jan 30 06:05:25 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:05:25 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> Message-ID: <04135A87-5196-4C25-959B-EEA5A6D29759@cantab.net> What are you referring to as the "inter-cultural historical,? Annalie? Martin > On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:03 AM, Annalie Pistorius wrote: > > What about the inter-cultural historical? > Annalie > (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/f9e75bfe/attachment.html From annalie.pistorius@smu.ac.za Wed Jan 30 07:20:58 2019 From: annalie.pistorius@smu.ac.za (Annalie Pistorius) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:20:58 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <04135A87-5196-4C25-959B-EEA5A6D29759@cantab.net> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> <04135A87-5196-4C25-959B-EEA5A6D29759@cantab.net> Message-ID: <01a401d4b8af$45384450$cfa8ccf0$@smu.ac.za> >From what I gather in this rich conversation here, the intersubjective is cultural and lived through symbols/language (how we categorise things) and embodied through tool-using...a form of life (Wittgenstein). Adding to that, the inter-cultural historical ? intersubjective life from within multi cultures and their interaction. For example, people live forms of life without fully understanding its political origin (they use and live it, and were born into it) and are thus co-creating from a different cultural state than the generation/people who originated it; or, there are suppressions of historical forms of life (cultures) by one dominant culture; thus inter-cultural survival entail injustices - trying to live up to dominant forms from marginal positions. From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Martin Packer Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2019 4:05 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? What are you referring to as the "inter-cultural historical,? Annalie? Martin On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:03 AM, Annalie Pistorius > wrote: What about the inter-cultural historical? Annalie (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/61f4d9c9/attachment.html From Peg.Griffin@att.net Wed Jan 30 12:16:53 2019 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:16:53 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <654734EE-32C5-4642-9CED-1B408AAFA6D3@cantab.net> <4e881fa1-9c6b-dbd3-17c9-708cf2b26884@marxists.org> <85480812-780F-4D95-BBDA-31FE929D1B82@cantab.net> <88269160-0124-b8f1-93df-fbc8911f1559@marxists.org> <55371D71-1012-4837-8753-A913F8A752B1@cantab.net> <5B6C84BB-5696-4499-A136-4ADBA8873B2F@cantab.net> <6D6D1881-1FCB-46F1-9BC8-4900B692877E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <005d01d4b8d8$be3b48b0$3ab1da10$@att.net> And the work and play to ?keep capitalism safe from democracy? (MacLean, 2017:xx) goes on among the leisure class. Here?s a little article someone sent me about a dinner party game at the Mercers: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/02/a-parlor-game-at-rebekah-mercers-has-no-get-out-of-jail-free-card It?s unlikely we can get good field notes about the structuring work of the leisure class; the cost of participant observation is way out of budget range! Articles like this about inequities paraded in and by the leisure class might be interesting and useful. What about cultural artifacts like their Rules of Play game ? is it modern/post-modern monopoly? It?s probably not just about reliving one political campaign in one location, right? (IMHO, the Kochs, their minions, handiwork, and allies are fairly easy to find in the US (even if it?s too often too late by the time we do) but the Mercers are tougher to find. There seem to be lots of hints from their allies, handiwork and minions outside of the US nowadays, though. From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:13 PM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? It is succeeding in shifting vast amounts of wealth into the pockets of an incredibly small minority world-wide (For whom the bell tolls?), but it has lost the consensus which enabled it to be a hegemonic ideology and social policy. Obviously, Vietnam is not in the same place. Every country is having different crises, but I was referencing the crisis affecting capital on a world scale. It is manifested differently from country-to-country. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 2:01 pm, Helena Worthen wrote: So what does ?no longer working? refer to? In Vietnam, it?s mass wildcat strikes that make investors wary on the one hand and on the other pushes the government to re-think their labor code to encourage collective bargaining. In the US, one of the issues for the LA teachers was privatization of public schools (charter schools).The outcome of the strike was an agreement that the District would support legislation at the state level to put a cap on charter schools. Step by step. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com On Jan 30, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: The theory I most favour is that the most recent, but also former, ideologies of capitalist rule have objectively lost their efficacy. The neo-liberal ideology (putting all social functions in the market place) is no longer working. This creates a crisis in all the parties which have relied on this strategy. It will also affect the centre-left, but in the Anglosphere, at this point, they are having an easier time, promoting a little bit of Keynesianism. Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 1:16 pm, Martin Packer wrote: As far as I can tell ? based I confess only on reading New York Times articles ? something similar is happening in the US. And in the UK the Conservative party is fracturing. If one wanted to try to bring about these kinds of change one wouldn?t know where to start, would one? Or is it just me, unable to figure out where the levers of change are hidden? Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: Fortunately, we have an election in May, and since the government has already lost their majority, they can't do too much damage, just paralysis. It's an "unreal" government. The interesting phenomenon is that in country electorates and in wealthy "leafy" suburban seats, where respectively the National Party and Liberal Party (both right-wing parties) have held impregnable majorities since time immemorial, Independent candidates are popping up to challenge them and in several cases recently (in State elections and in Federal by-elections) they have toppled them. The extreme right is also fragmenting. It used to be a joke about Trotskyists and Maoists, but nowadays it seems you can't have two right-wingers in the same room without a faction fight and a split. So the political landscape is changing rapidly, and to the better here. Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 12:24 pm, Martin Packer wrote: That?s odd! In contrast, the British government is handling Brexit in such a rational and mature manner! Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: as Mike says, we notice them when there's a "perturbation"! December was the hottest month ever here in Australia, but the current Australian government is still promoting coal, so what does that tell us? Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 11:50 am, Martin Packer wrote: Yes, it struck me after hitting send that of course Taylor also wrote a huge book (and then a little one) on Hegel. Sounds like Paul Redding has been talking to your spellchecker. :) The power of mediators, and what makes them easy to forget, is that they become invisible in action. Language seems like a window on another person?s consciousness; the plough is simply handy when the soil needs turning. The government is just those idiots in Washington (or Canberra?)? When we notice the myriad of mediators, they seem like simple links between us and whatever we?re interacting with, when in fact neither would exist without them. Without language, ploughs, and governments life would be brutish and short. Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: I'm sure you're right, Martin. We are after all both defending the same view. "Intersubjectivity" is a slippery and changing word. I thought it was Karl Popper who introduced the word in his 1945 "Open Society," but his meaning has been supplanted by others much later. I think he used the term to mean something "in between" objective truth (things fall when you drop them) and subjective truth (heights are scary), which is culturally produced (falling is due to gravity, acrophobia is a panic disorder). There was a whole movement of Hegel interpreters who began to use "intersubjectivity" as a means of "operationalising" a "nonmetaphysical reading" of Hegel, in the 1980s I think, and 1990s. Charles Taylor was ahead of that curve, I would agree, but I don't think he took the spirit-is-human-activity reading down to the detailed level that this later intersubjective reading did. I agree with Charles Taylor - his work was pioneering. I don't know about this view of intersubjectivity as a "merging of subjectivities" unless we mean some New Age kind of thing, or crowd behaviour, etc. (BTW, my spellchecker keeps telling me there's no such word as "intersubjectivity.") I had a long and fruitless email conversation with Paul Redding (usually recognised as the "senior" Australian Hegelian) on the question of how he understood me telling him "It's raining here" (he's in Sydney). I wanted him to see that our interaction was mediated by 2 computers and the internet and by the English language, but he utterly rejected this, insisting that the only sense in which our communication of mediated was that in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, it rains, and so we both had experience of rain. We never got past that point. The concept of artefact-mediation was utterly impenetrable for him. He's a supporter of Robert Brandom, BTW. Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 10:55 am, Martin Packer wrote: I feel we?re still talking past each other, Andy. You seem to be attributing to me the view that I am attributing to James, and questioning: namely that ?intersubjectivity? is two (or more) subjectivities somehow meeting in interaction. I am trying to argue that to talk only of subjects and objects, or only of subjectivity and objectivity, will never be sufficient, because it neglects a third phenomenon which is primary: the shared, public practices (involving artifacts) in which people are always involved, and into which they are born. I think you hold the same opinion! One reason for the confusion is a terminological one. Some of us here are using ?intersubjectivity? to refer to some kind of fusing of subjectivities. That is a real phenomenon, I concur. I still remember many years ago finding the perfect partner for mixed badminton: it was though we played as one! And also those rare occasions dancing salsa with the right partner. But I want to use the term ?intersubjectivity? the way Charles Taylor used it in his article "Interpretation and The Sciences of Man" (1971). (Taylor is not the last word on the phenomena of intersubjectivity, but he was one of the first.) Taylor wanted to draw to our attention ?the social matrix in which individuals find themselves and act,? ?the background to social action,? including ?a common language? which ?is constitutive of? institutions and practices.? He insisted that it is not simply consensus among individuals. But I don?t feel dogmatic about the terminology. We could call them intersujectivity-1 and intersubjectivity-2. Or find a new word for what Taylor was talking about. What?s important is the observation that there are phenomena that cannot be reduced to subjects and objects. Obviously these practices and institutions will involve material artifacts; they couldn?t function otherwise. But these artifacts will be defined within the practices. The fact that the US government cannot get rid of guns is not due to their number, it is due to the fact that the *right* to own a gun is (on one interpretation) defined by the texts and practices of government as one that cannot be legally infringed. The government is perfectly within *its* rights to destroy a gun that has no owner. I would want, then, to avoid trying to draw a distinction between an artifact and its meaning: what *counts as* a gun is (again) a legal matter, not something that individuals negotiate. Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: Martin, I distinguish between intersubjectivity and the CHAT standpoint because the literature I have seen which tries to build a social theory on the basis of subject-subject interactions, ignores the artefacts being used, and in particular, the pre-existence of these artefacts relative to the interactions, and their materiality. (I admit that I have come to this conclusion from my study of Hegel interpretations, which is a limited domain. But I do also see it in strands of social theory as such.) This is achieved by either subsuming the mediating artefact into the subject itself (e.g. my voice is a part of me, the subject, as is my hand) or taking the mediator as the object rather than a means. Such interpretations fail to explain why today can be any different from yesterday, etc. We cold say that mediated interactions are still intersubjective, we just use things for our interactions with other subjects, but I see CHAT as a further really existing step beyond the step which the intersubjective turn made relative to methodological individualism and abstract social theory. Ontologically, the distinction is this: the meaning of an artefact is established intersubjectively, so to speak, but the artefact itself is still material and objective, and this constrains the meanings which can be attached to it. For example, the sheer existence of 400 million guns in the USA is a social problem over and above the place of guns in the thinking and behaviour of so many Americans. A government simply cannot get rid of them. For example, the propensity of people in some countries to suffer in natural disasters is not just due to the poor preparedness of their people and governments, but the objective vulnerability of people due to the state of infrastructure. There is a limit on how good your education system will be if you have no teachers, no books and no schools. Of course the simple objective existence of the relevant things is not the whole business, but it is something else. And the nature of the constellation of existing artefacts is something else, over and above their existence. EG all the school books are written in a foreign language, etc. The material artefacts is a product of past history, you could say, which was intersubjective, but intersubjectivity ends as soon as the interaction ends, but the artefact often lives on. I think CHAT has something important to contribute here. Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 2:17 am, Martin Packer wrote: Well, I was going to add that culture would be generally considered an intersubjective phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. So it could be said that what this discussion group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, Andy, that you may be reading the word as some kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. Which is indeed how the word has been used here not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms that exist in practices, not in individuals' minds. The materiality of culture ? material artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example of this. Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, including intersubjective actions, essentially artefact-mediated, Vygotsky transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no accident. Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating concept of the Logic making the transition to the Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and Marx picks up on this, that this means that every action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says "the plough is more honourable than anything produced by its means." For Marx, this is about the importance of ownership of the means of production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes Cultural Psychology what it is. Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way minimises the constructive role of language use, but it means that the language itself plays, maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: There was a general recognition in the social sciences (including philosophy) some time ago that it is crucial to recognize the existence and importance of ?intersubjective? phenomena. Language, for example, is not subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy notes, subjectivity and even objectivity (think Latour?s analysis of science in Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent upon intersubjective phenomena. Martin On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: When you get the electric chair for murdering someone that is not a linguistic construct. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) wrote: Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use the term 'quasi-objective form', as the medium through which concepts like inequality and injustice are made objective, language, is itself inherently subjective. For example, justice can be given objective form in law, but the law itself is comprised of language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. The manifestation of an objective form is not universal, but will differ depending on cultural context. Hence quasi-objective. Concepts like inequality are given objective form, but it doesn't mean that they are objective in nature, due to the mediating role of language. Adam _____ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 29 January 2019 08:16:35 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, Huw. It is not a matter of precision but of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously contested concept, as is "injustice," but its contestation is necessarily in a social context and with social content. Justice and equality are given objective form in law and social policy in definite, really-existing states or organisations challenging for state power, not the opinion of individuals. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it is limited to a certain construal. One can be quite precise and objective about that construal. Huw On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy Blunden wrote: I can't agree that with your suggestion, Huw, that inequality (in the meaning with which Harshad used it) is something subjective, in the eye of the beholder. Such a view would be very pernicious politically. The fact is that states have emerged and developed over many centuries so as to makes objective certain concepts of justice, among which are various qualified and nuances notions of equality. This is not figment of my imagination. andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: We find "wild life" systems that are imbalanced and subject to radical changes. Inequality is a perceptual/cognitive construct and predicated on an ontological scope. We find the condition of inequality (or comparison) in our thinking and behaviour. Every living thing "finds" inequalities. We do not find inequality, we find the awareness of inequality. On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, James Ma wrote: Should you find inequality within a wildlife system, that must be a political, ideological precept! James On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 07:56, James Ma wrote: Not only is it meaningless but also preposterous. To maintain that all members of the same species are equal, as Anne Moir and David Jessel put it, is to "build a society based on a biological and scientific lie". James PS: I'm apolitical - anything political, ideological just doesn't speak to me! _______________________________________________________ James Ma Independent Scholar https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 05:27, Andy Blunden wrote: Harshad, "Inequality" is a meaningless concept when referred to Nature. Likewise "Injustice." Justice and equality are relevant only to the extent that the subjects are living in an 'artificial' world, out of Nature. Natural disasters and the plenitude of Nature have these dimensions only to the extent they are imposed on or made available to different classes of people by the social system. Hope that helps. Andy _____ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 28/01/2019 4:00 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: Hi, I am working on one article. I want to know your views on following query. "Do we find Inequalities exists in wild life system?" Your views will help me in my work. Regards, Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. Martin "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190130/eeae52d0/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Jan 30 22:46:54 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:46:54 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> <014601d4b897$80ad23b0$82076b10$@smu.ac.za> Message-ID: Harshad, one might just as well say that there is inequality among mountains because some are higher than others, or for that matter that there is inequality among numbers. If that was the drift of your original question, obviously, we who can understand the English language can see inequality everywhere. I thought you were asking about inequality in the sense of justice and injustice. Annalie, I was not quite right in what I said about states. In traditional communities there are definite norms, ethical precepts, which have a cultural existence and are maintained by the traditional non-state structures. But in such communities, injustice or inequality could only be experienced by individuals - perhaps due to a grudge or some rivalry, so that the relevant cultural norms were violated. The point is that *injustice *can only arise *where there is justice*, inequality where equality, in whatever formulation it is given in that community, is upheld as a *norm*, and consequently, can be violated. But it is only in states where whole classes of people can experience injustice. Questions of the distinction between law and rights and the issue of civil disobedience are very complex. But obviously, injustice and inequality are not solved by going to a "state of nature" but only by "improving" the functioning of the state. If the state has been captured by a sectional interest, then it is not? state in the proper sense of the word at all, not a "true state." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 30/01/2019 11:48 pm, Harshad Dave wrote: > Hi, > I give you few cases that anyone might have observed while > viewing documentary on Discovery, Animal Planet, National > Geographic and other like channels. > > *Case 1*?Generally lions make their living in a group. It > is observed that lioness takes active part in the hunting > and preying a kill. There are many cases (most of the > cases) where total efforts, toll and trouble are taken by > one or more lioness to kill a prey. But as soon as the > leader of the group approaches there, all the lioness and > young cubs have to leave the carcass and the lion eats > making? full stomach without care of others share. Does > this act amount to an inequality? > > *Case 2 *A female Cheetah with her two or three cubs preys > a deer with her hard effort and unfortunately a hyena > spots her. The hyena rushes to the place and the hungry > Cheetah had to abandon the carcass and it is grabbed by > the hyenas. Does this act amount to an inequality? > > *Case 3 *I recall one documentary. A group of African wild > dogs were inhabiting at one place. There were two females > who gave birth to few puppies. One female was young and > second one was elder then the first one and she was cheeky > as well as experienced leader. She grabbed all the puppies > of the young female dog and nourished them with her own, > but she never allow the original young mother near to her > puppies. This continued for many days. Events and > occasions in the documentary showed the measurable > condition of the young mother without her kids/puppies was > searching single occasion or opportunity to feed her own > kids if the older female remains inadvertent or remiss. > Unfortunately she never got such opportunity and her milk > dried out. Does this act amount to an inequality? > There are innumerable cases where powerful member of the > group does not permit others access to the female to mate > with other males of the same group. The inferior or the > male who are unable to fight with the leader one has to > frequently express a gesture of his body language > accepting all the superiority of the leader male. Does > this act amount to an inequality? > When nature itself has not design two animals equal, and > two animals of the same specie are different in many ways > then it seems that claim for equality is against the > natural law even in human society. > Regards, > Harshad Dave > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 6:02 PM Annalie Pistorius > wrote: > > Yes it seems that all states and states of minds > ultimately become oppressive, or narrow-minded ? we > are born into that narrowness/states (they pre-existed > before us) and some of us then rebel against that > (what we come to know and experience about it) and > create other intersubjective norms; but some others > don?t know about that neither do they participate in > that; somewhere then a leader is claiming to take care > of promises but does something else. > > Objective things cannot be described, their > descriptions are inter-subjective (which includes the > subjective, if that is possible, I don?t think it is > possible to think on your own to form a subjective > opinion really because it is done against a norm). The > map is not the territory (Bateson). We don?t see the > territory, we see the map and make up different maps > of the same territory; thus they are all limited and > as narrow as our intersubjective creations. > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] *On Behalf > Of *Andy Blunden > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:15 AM > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in > wild life system? > > Where there is a state there is most likely inequality > and injustice, Annalie. > Where do you see inequality and injustice as arising from? > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 30/01/2019 7:03 pm, Annalie Pistorius wrote: > > What about the inter-cultural historical? > > Annalie > > (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On > Behalf Of *Martin Packer > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in > wild life system? > > Well, I was going to add that culture would be > generally considered an intersubjective > phenomenon, rather than subjective or objective. > So it could be said that what this discussion > group is about ? the C in XMCA ? is intersubjectivity. > > Should intersubjectivity be transcended? I think, > Andy, that you may be reading the word as some > kind of merging or sharing of subjectivities. > Which is indeed how the word has been used here > not long ago. But Charles Taylor, for example, > defined intersubjectivity as meanings and norms > that exist in practices, not in individuals' > minds. The materiality of culture ? material > artefacts ? seems to me to be a very good example > of this. > > Martin > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > It's my view, Martin, that in making actions, > including intersubjective > actions,/essentially/artefact-mediated, Vygotsky > transcended "intersubjectivity." His citing of > Marx citing Hegel on the "cunning of reason" is no > accident. > > Hegel has what he calls (in typical Hegel style) > the "syllogism of action." This is the culminating > concept of the Logic making the transition to the > Absolute Idea and Nature. Hegel points out, and > Marx picks up on this, that this means that every > action is mediated by material culture. Hegel says > "the plough is more honourable than anything > produced by its means." For Marx, this is about > the importance of ownership of the means of > production. For Vygotsky, it is what makes > Cultural Psychology what it is. > > Emphasising the culture in the middle in no way > minimises the constructive role of language use, > but it means that the language itself plays, > maybe. the more "honourable" role. :) > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 30/01/2019 1:41 am, Martin Packer wrote: > > There was a general recognition in the social > sciences (including philosophy) some time ago > that it is crucial to recognize the existence > and importance of ?intersubjective? > phenomena.? Language, for example, is not > subjective, it is intersubjective. As Andy > notes, subjectivity and even objectivity > (think Latour?s analysis of science in > Laboratory Life) arise from and are dependent > upon intersubjective phenomena. > > Martin > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:15 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > When you get the electric chair for murdering > someone that is not a linguistic construct. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 2:49 pm, Adam Poole (16517826) > wrote: > > Perhaps it may be more appropriate to use > the term 'quasi-objective form',?as the > medium through which concepts like > inequality and injustice?are made > objective, language, is itself inherently > subjective. For example, justice can be > given objective form in law, but the law > itself is comprised of language, customs, > traditions, beliefs, etc. The > manifestation of an objective form is not > universal, but will differ depending on > cultural?context. Hence quasi-objective. > Concepts like inequality are given > objective form, but it doesn't mean that > they are objective in?nature,?due to the > mediating role of?language. > > Adam > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on > behalf of Andy Blunden > > *Sent:*29 January 2019 08:16:35 > *To:*xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > *Subject:*[Xmca-l] Re: Do we find > Inequalities in wild life system? > > Mmm, "subjective" is a polysemous word, > Huw. It is not a matter of precision but > of relativity. "Inequality" is a famously > contested concept, as is "injustice," but > its contestation is necessarily in a > social context and with social content. > Justice and equality are given objective > form in law and social policy in definite, > really-existing states or organisations > challenging for state power, not the > opinion of individuals. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 1:50 am, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > It isn't "subjective", Andy. Rather it > is limited to a certain construal. One > can be quite precise and objective > about that construal. > > Huw > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 14:14, Andy > Blunden > wrote: > > I can't agree that with your > suggestion, Huw, that inequality > (in the meaning with which Harshad > used it) is something subjective, > in the eye of the beholder. Such a > view would be very pernicious > politically. The fact is that > states have emerged and developed > over many centuries so as to makes > objective certain concepts of > justice, among which are various > qualified and nuances notions of > equality. This is not? figment of > my imagination. > > andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 29/01/2019 12:59 am, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > We find "wild life" systems > that are imbalanced and > subject to radical changes. > > Inequality is a > perceptual/cognitive construct > and predicated on an > ontological scope. We find the > condition of inequality (or > comparison) in our thinking > and behaviour. Every living > thing "finds" inequalities. We > do not find inequality, we > find the awareness of inequality. > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 08:17, > James Ma > > wrote: > > Should you find > inequality?within a > wildlife system, that must > be a political, > ideological precept! > > James > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at > 07:56, James Ma > > > wrote: > > Not only is it > meaningless but also > preposterous. > To?maintain that all > members of the same > species are equal, as > Anne Moir and David > Jessel put it, is to > "build a society based > on a biological and > scientific lie". > > James > > PS: I'm apolitical?- > anything political, > ideological just > doesn't speak to me! > > */_______________________________________________________/* > > */James Ma > /*/Independent > Scholar//https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > / > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at > 05:27, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > Harshad, > > "Inequality" is a > meaningless > concept when > referred to > Nature. Likewise > "Injustice." > > Justice and > equality are > relevant only to > the extent that > the subjects are > living in an > 'artificial' > world, out of > Nature. Natural > disasters and the > plenitude of > Nature have these > dimensions only to > the extent they > are imposed on or > made available to > different classes > of people by the > social system. > > Hope that helps. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 28/01/2019 4:00 > pm, Harshad Dave > wrote: > > Hi, > > I am working > on one > article. I > want to know > your views on > following query. > > "Do we find > Inequalities > exists in wild > life system?" > > Your views > will help me > in my work. > > Regards, > > Image removed > by sender. > > Harshad Dave > > Email:hhdave15@gmail.com > > > This message and any attachment are > intended solely for the addressee and may > contain confidential information. If you > have received this message in error, > please send it back to me, and immediately > delete it. Please do not use, copy or > disclose the information contained in this > message or in any attachment. Any views or > opinions expressed by the author of this > email do not necessarily reflect the views > of The University of Nottingham Ningbo > China. This message has been checked for > viruses but the contents of an attachment > may still contain software viruses which > could damage your computer system: you are > advised to perform your own checks. Email > communications with The University of > Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored > as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. > > Martin > > /"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs.?Seligman > or?Dr. Lowie or discuss matters?with > Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I?become at?once?aware > that my partner does not understand anything in > the matter, and I end usually?with the?feeling > that this also applies to myself? (Malinowski, 1930)/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190131/097dd25d/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Thu Jan 31 06:49:43 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:49:43 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: <01a401d4b8af$45384450$cfa8ccf0$@smu.ac.za> References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> <04135A87-5196-4C25-959B-EEA5A6D29759@cantab.net> <01a401d4b8af$45384450$cfa8ccf0$@smu.ac.za> Message-ID: Annalie, If I am understanding you correctly, then yes once one starts to pay attention to ?the social matrix in which individuals find themselves and act,? a matrix which is prior to both subjects and objects (and I also have used Wittgenstein?s phrase ?form of life?), than all sorts of interesting questions arise. What happens when someone born and raised in one social matrix moves to another? What happens when people from two different social matrices come into contact? Can children born into a social matrix inhabit it differently from the way the previous generation did? What are the psychological consequences when one social matrix comes to suppress or dominate another? Does everyone within a social matrix develop into the same kind of person? Aren?t there inequities and exploitations within a social matrix? Martin > On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Annalie Pistorius > wrote: > > From what I gather in this rich conversation here, the intersubjective is cultural and lived through symbols/language (how we categorise things) and embodied through tool-using...a form of life (Wittgenstein). Adding to that, the inter-cultural historical ? intersubjective life from within multi cultures and their interaction. For example, people live forms of life without fully understanding its political origin (they use and live it, and were born into it) and are thus co-creating from a different cultural state than the generation/people who originated it; or, there are suppressions of historical forms of life (cultures) by one dominant culture; thus inter-cultural survival entail injustices - trying to live up to dominant forms from marginal positions. > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of Martin Packer > Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2019 4:05 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? > > What are you referring to as the "inter-cultural historical,? Annalie? > > Martin > > > > > >> On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:03 AM, Annalie Pistorius > wrote: >> >> What about the inter-cultural historical? >> Annalie >> (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190131/4106eb00/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Thu Jan 31 21:30:48 2019 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:00:48 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? In-Reply-To: References: <09ed28f4-07ab-a258-7e5b-9bec0a3dbf1b@marxists.org> <3e68a045-1762-755f-5b59-323243423802@marxists.org> <61749AD3-A7EA-4B25-92E9-CFB48D50A84D@cantab.net> <00a601d4b872$6f0be4e0$4d23aea0$@smu.ac.za> <04135A87-5196-4C25-959B-EEA5A6D29759@cantab.net> <01a401d4b8af$45384450$cfa8ccf0$@smu.ac.za> Message-ID: Andy, Generally I verify the happenings in the wild life on the same issue on which I contemplate within human society. The issue of inequality is one of them. When I tried to compare it in wild life system, I asked the subject question that is in discussion, but it surely pertains to inequalities we sense/find/face in human society. >From the healthy discussion on the topic among participants and exchange of views, I find some points to put here. many of them will surely help me in writing on the issue of *inequality* in human society. I think, there are two types of inequalities in human society. One group of inequalities might incorporate *legitimate* *inequalities (LI). *Second group is of* illegitimate inequalities (II).* LI are those inequalities that are basically founded on difference in over all ability between two persons in the society. Here over all ability gets constituted by various different types of abilities generally we acknowledge in man/women. Example: Two carpenters manufactures different items of wooden furniture where one of them has apparent lead in his products and their sale. II are those inequalities in human society that are basically founded on *unethical breach of preconditions* that are to be complied for the healthy functioning of the social systems and institutions. But, frequent breaching of *the preconditions* generate some typical inequalities among the people and such inequalities are responsible for social *stress* and *strain*. I label it as illegitimate inequalities (II). NB: I think, Andy, you refer *justice* and *injustice* in your views.... might pertain to illegitimate inequalities. I believe, it is the reason why we find a storm of controversial thought in our mind when we discuss, debate or think on inequalities in human society. When a legitimate inequality is under discussion our natural instinct supports and justifies the inequality. But, when an example of an illegitimate inequality is under discussion, naturally it generates indignation against the inequality. Example: When a poor man develops his manufacturing set up and becomes a reputed industrialist facing all the challenges and odds in his life, his living standard might be different than that of a middle class service man. If "jealousy" is not the weakness of the service man and he is a wise man, he may not have or should not have any complain against the inequality between the industrialist and him, because it is a legitimate inequality. When the industrialist retires or proceeds for heaven and his idiot son precedes (occupies) the position of the industrialist under legacy, the inequality now becomes an illegitimate inequality. Lastly, As you rightly said in your comment ".... we who can understand the English language can see inequality....", I should clarify that whatever I write and explain my views in English language, perhaps you might find it detest full as far as etiquette of the language is concerned as my mother tongue is different. I regret for such error and I request to take such missing with justice and good conscience. However, if you find any point creating confusion due to language please point out to me and I shall try to explain it further. Harshad Dave On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:22 PM Martin Packer wrote: > Annalie, > > If I am understanding you correctly, then yes once one starts to pay > attention to ?the social matrix in which individuals find themselves and > act,? a matrix which is prior to both subjects and objects (and I also have > used Wittgenstein?s phrase ?form of life?), than all sorts of interesting > questions arise. > > What happens when someone born and raised in one social matrix moves to > another? What happens when people from two different social matrices come > into contact? Can children born into a social matrix inhabit it differently > from the way the previous generation did? What are the psychological > consequences when one social matrix comes to suppress or dominate another? > Does everyone within a social matrix develop into the same kind of person? > Aren?t there inequities and exploitations within a social matrix? > > Martin > > > > > On Jan 30, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Annalie Pistorius < > annalie.pistorius@smu.ac.za> wrote: > > From what I gather in this rich conversation here, the intersubjective is > cultural and lived through symbols/language (how we categorise things) and > embodied through tool-using...a form of life (Wittgenstein). Adding to > that, the inter-cultural historical ? intersubjective life from within > multi cultures and their interaction. For example, people live forms of > life without fully understanding its political origin (they use and live > it, and were born into it) and are thus co-creating from a different > cultural state than the generation/people who originated it; or, there are > suppressions of historical forms of life (cultures) by one dominant > culture; thus inter-cultural survival entail injustices - trying to live up > to dominant forms from marginal positions. > > > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu *On > Behalf Of *Martin Packer > *Sent:* Wednesday, 30 January 2019 4:05 PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Do we find Inequalities in wild life system? > > What are you referring to as the "inter-cultural historical,? Annalie? > > Martin > > > > > > On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:03 AM, Annalie Pistorius < > annalie.pistorius@smu.ac.za> wrote: > > What about the inter-cultural historical? > Annalie > (Im a clinical psychologist from South Africa) > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190201/279d722e/attachment.html