[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Tue Oct 1 05:08:27 PDT 2019
Haydi, Marx /also/ said in the Rules of International
Workingmen’s Association:
"That all efforts aiming at the great end hitherto
failed from the want of *solidarity *between the
manifold divisions of labor in each country, and from
the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the
working classes of different countries"
and the Rules of International Workingmen’s Association
began with the maxim:
“the emancipation of the working classes must be
conquered by the working classes *themselves*.”
In my opinion, these two statements point to the foundations
of socialist ethics: self-emancipation and solidarity.
For his own reasons, writing in the 1860s, Marx chose not to
frame these principles as Ethical.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
On 1/10/2019 8:04 pm, Haydi Zulfei wrote:
>
> Dear Greg , Alfredo--
>
> It was said that the thread has come to be too tiresome
> but still it goes on and I’ve not read to the end yet.
>
> In the past we have discussed this point.
>
> This is Alfredo :
>
> Thanks Greg; I did not think you suggested capitalism is
> “ethical”, but I was questioning the notion that
> capitalism was a framework for ethical evaluation. I of
> course see it is a context within which all sorts of
> practices emerge, but that it itself provides an ethical
> framework crashes with my preconceptions of what ethics
> means. I think I need someone to help us clarify what
> “ethics” means.
> And this is Greg :
>
> …to my mind, capitalism is unethical and that it provides
> a rather unfortunate grounding for ethics and morality.
> (and you'll notice that this leads me directly to what I
> was chiding you for - an argument about the false
> consciousness of the proponents (pushers?) of capitalism!!).
>
> Cristopher J Arthur is a Hegelian. Let’s ponder over what
> he says :
>
> [[Moreover, besides political mediations, moral
> imperatives also have a place.
> If workers are class-conscious this by no means abolishes
> individual interests. Game theory has shown it is often
> impossible *to reduce common action
> for common benefit to the rational self-interest of each
> individual taken
> separately*. ‘Selling out’ often presents itself as a
> preferred option. Hence
> the need for mediation by ***proletarian morality
> expressed in such terms as
> ‘solidarity’, ‘class loyalty’, ‘revolutionary duty’; and
> the inculcation of contempt for ratebusters, scabs,
> ‘blue-eyed boys’ and the like***. The contradiction
> between class interest and individual interest is a lived
> experience that cannot be abolished in thought but only as
> a result of practical action to change
> the situation.
> Marx** worried** that morality, as an ideological
> superstructure, was *a bourgeois ambush* tying the workers
> to a ***fake universal***; he wanted to rely on
> class interest alone. It is interesting that when he *was
> forced* to include in the
> Rules of the WMIA phrases about ‘duty’, ‘right’ ‘truth’,
> ‘justice’, and ‘morality’,11 he wrote to Engels that they
> were so placed as to *‘do no harm’*.12 When
> this ‘place’ is examined the context is in the first
> instance that of members’
> *‘conduct towards each other’*; and in any event it is
> clear that such notions
> are *subordinate to the struggle against class rule*. Marx
> here as elsewhere
> failed to grasp that the necessary loyalty of individuals
> to their class cannot
> be reduced to a purely prudential calculation—Marx did not
> commit such a reduction What he did was tactical And as he
> did it in a way that it did no HARM then it was like he
> did not do it altogether--; the individual’s identity as a
> class warrior has to be socially constituted, and
> instrumental in this is the
>
> inculcation of the **appropriate values.**--that the Moral
> Values as habitual un-reflected ungrounded fake universals
> of no worked out “particularity” to be weighed as against
> bounded “Universality” as a WHOLE are beyond CONCRETE
> COGNITION.]]
>
> The markings well say what Ethics means at least in
> Capitalism as Marx depicts it. I fear to be too “too
> tiresome”.
>
> Just it remains for dear Greg to object that we are again
> glancing at the point extraneously , that is we have not
> installed our VISION DEVICE within Capitalism. And it’s up
> to us to say that when the “Internal value” has reached us
> as Unethical/Counter-ethical , then it’s not just
> impermissible for us to advocate the Evil but to make a
> haste to uproot it.
>
>
> [Marx’s Verbatim :I saw that it was impossible to make
> anything out of the stuff. In order to justify the
> extremely strange way in which I intended to present the
> "sentiment" already "voted for", I wrote an Address to the
> Working Classes (which was not in the original plan: a
> sort of review of the adventures of the working classes
> since 1845); on the pretext that everything material was
> included in the address and that we ought not to repeat
> the same things three times over, I altered the whole
> preamble, threw out the declaration of principles, and
> finally replaced the 40 rules with 10. Insofar as
> international politics come into the address, I speak of
> countries, not of nationalities, and denounce Russia, not
> the lesser nations. My proposals were all accepted by the
> subcommittee. Only I was obliged to insert two phrases
> about "duty" and "right" into the preamble to the
> statutes, ditto "truth, morality, and justice", but these
> are placed in such a way that they can do no harm.]
>
> [For these reasons –
>
> The International Working Men's Association has been founded.
>
> It declares:
>
> That all societies and individuals adhering to it will
> acknowledge truth, justice, and morality as the basis of
> their conduct toward each other and toward all men,
> without regard to color, creed, or nationality;…]
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 30, 2019, 09:34:04 AM GMT+3:30,
> Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Greg; I did not think you suggested capitalism is
> “ethical”, but I was questioning the notion that
> capitalism was a framework for ethical evaluation. I of
> course see it is a context within which all sorts of
> practices emerge, but that it itself provides an ethical
> framework crashes with my preconceptions of what ethics
> means. I think I need someone to help us clarify what
> “ethics” means.
> Alfredo
>
> On 30 Sep 2019, at 07:44, Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> I appreciate your generosity in reading/responding as
>> well as your forthrightness (without which, conversation
>> can feel a bit empty). And I entirely respect and
>> appreciate your position.
>>
>> One point of clarification: on the relativism front I was
>> simply making a statement of fact, capitalism provides a
>> framework that people use to make ethical judgments. I
>> wasn't suggesting that capitalism is ethical. I might add
>> that as an anthropologist I believe that it is possible
>> to judge beliefs and practices but that this can only be
>> done after a deep understanding of the entire context of
>> those beliefs and practices. I've had a lot of experience
>> with capitalism and I'm pretty comfortable saying that,
>> to my mind, capitalism is unethical and that it provides
>> a rather unfortunate grounding for ethics and morality.
>> (and you'll notice that this leads me directly to what I
>> was chiding you for - an argument about the false
>> consciousness of the proponents (pushers?) of capitalism!!).
>>
>> And I agree with Andy about the important contributions
>> of others in this thread but I'm lacking the bandwidth to
>> adequately acknowledge/engage right now.
>>
>> And still wondering if we could hear more from/about
>> Vaedboncoeur and her work? Maybe there is a publication
>> that someone could point us to?
>> Beth Ferholt's work seems quite relevant as well.
>> (but perhaps this thread is a bit too tiresome?).
>>
>> Very best,
>> greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:11 PM Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks a lot Greg for your help and care, I really
>> appreciate it and it is very helpful. And thanks also
>> for emphasizing the importance of bridging across
>> positions and trying to understand the phenomenon not
>> only from our (often privileged) point of view, but
>> also from that of others, even those with opposed
>> belief systems. I truly appreciate that.
>>
>> Let me try to follow the signposts you nicely
>> identified:
>>
>> 1. I see that my language lent itself to that
>> reading. I believe the root of our differences is
>> that I am trying to discuss denialism as a given
>> historical practice, and not as something
>> individual. At the individual level, both deniers
>> and people who accept the science do so out of
>> trust; just as you say, the one can argue that
>> the other is the one who is wrong or trusting the
>> wrong people. From the socio-historical
>> perspective, however, neither position is the
>> “free” choice of individuals who came upon the
>> thought and believed it. Climate science
>> communication and dissemination has its channels
>> and ways to reach the public, just as climate
>> science denial does. It so happens, though, that
>> climate science denial was born of an explicit
>> attempt to generate doubt in people, to confuse
>> them and manipulate them for profit. This is well
>> documented in the links I shared earlier. If both
>> science and science denial have a function of
>> persuading, and we cannot differentiate between
>> the two, then I think we have a big problem. What
>> I am saying is that we should be able to
>> differentiate between the two. I am not saying
>> people who believe climate change is real is more
>> conscious or better conscious or any other
>> privilege; they may be acting out of pure habit
>> and submission. I am saying, though, that if
>> people would engage in critical inquiry and
>> question the history of their reasoning habits,
>> then they may be better equipped to decide; both
>> sides. It so happens, however, that, if we all
>> would engage in such exercise, one side would
>> find out they are (involuntarily perhaps)
>> supporting actions that really harm people. In
>> today’s modern societies, not finding out is
>> truly an exercise of faith.
>> 2. You invite us to try to understand what the
>> frameworks are within which people may see
>> choosing to deny climate science as “good” or the
>> “right” thing to do, and I applaud and support
>> that goal. I think that framework is the sort of
>> sociocultural object I am trying to discuss. Yet,
>> by the same token, I’d invite anyone to consider
>> the views and positions of those who are already
>> suffering the consequences of global warming, and
>> I wonder what justifies ignoring their suffering.
>> This can be extrapolated to a myriad practices in
>> which all of we engage, from buying phones to
>> going to the toilette; we live by the suffering
>> of others. And when we do so, we are wrong, we
>> are doing wrong. That’s my view, but perhaps I am
>> wrong. I believe human rights are not partisan,
>> or negotiable; again, my leap of trust.
>> 3. Thanks for sharing your experience with your
>> acquainted. I’d like to clarify that, when using
>> the language of criminality, I refer to the
>> people directly involved in making conscious
>> decisions, and having recurred to science, to
>> then not just ignore the science but also present
>> it wrongly, making it possible for denial
>> practices to thrive. People like the one you
>> describe are having to deal with what it’s been
>> left for them, and I totally empathize.
>>
>> Finally, you explicitly state that you do not want to
>> relativize, but then you also say that “If capitalism
>> is the framework for evaluating ethical behavior,
>> then there is every reason to believe that EM execs
>> are acting ethically”. To me, the suggestion that
>> capitalism can be an ethical framework suggests a
>> treatment of ethics as fundamentally arbitrary
>> (meaning that any framework can be defined to
>> evaluate ethical behavior). I am not sure I am ready
>> to accept that assertion.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf
>> of Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me of the importance of my own
>> humility with respect to the positions of others.
>> (conclusion jumping is an unfortunate consequence of
>> trying to respond quickly enough on a listserve to
>> remain relevant - or at least that's a challenge for
>> me).
>>
>> Thank you for clarifying that your position is not to
>> dehumanize. I appreciate that.
>>
>> Let me see if I can recover what it was from your
>> prior email that provoked my response and I'll do my
>> best to stick more closely to your words
>> (respectfully) and what I didn't quite understand.
>>
>> Here is the quote from your post: "I agree on the
>> difficulties, but I would like to emphasize that
>> being on the right or the wrong side in issues of
>> climate change in today’s Global societies is a
>> matter of having fallen pray to self-interested
>> manipulation by others, or of being yourself one
>> engaged in manipulating others for your own."
>>
>> This language of "fallen pray..." or, worse,
>> "being... engaged in manipulating others..." were
>> both phrases that I read to mean that this is
>> something that THEY do and something that WE don't do
>> (and ditto for the psychological studies that explain
>> "their" behavior in terms of deterministic
>> psychological principles - rather than as agentive
>> humans (like us?)). But it seems that maybe I've
>> misread you?
>>
>> I think calling them "criminals" is a little better
>> but doesn't capture the systemic nature of what they
>> are doing or why it is that many people would say
>> that they are doing good. Or to put it another way,
>> I'd like to better understand the minds and life
>> situations and experiences of these criminals - what
>> are the frameworks within which their actions make
>> sense as good and right and just and true. The point
>> is not to relativize but to understand (this is the
>> anthropologists' task).
>>
>> Relatedly, I may have mistakenly assumed that your
>> question was somewhat tongue-in-cheek: "the motives
>> of these corporations never were the “feel that this
>> is the ethically good and right position for
>> humanity”. Or do we?"
>>
>> I think that this is a real question and for my two
>> cents I would suggest that the answers to this
>> question are important to the work of climate justice.
>>
>> As I mentioned in the p.s. above, I recently had the
>> opportunity to push the ExxonMobil recruiter on these
>> issues. He's been working for them for about 7 years.
>> He was conflicted when first joining ExxonMobil
>> (hereafter EM) but I could sense how hard he
>> continues to work to justify working for EM. A brief
>> summary of his justification (and I took this to be
>> EM's justification) could be summed up with: "just as
>> there was an iron age in which innovations were
>> essential to the development of human beings, we are
>> now in the oil age". He acknowledged that oil is a
>> problem but then pointed out that everything in the
>> room was enabled by oil - whether because it
>> was transported there by gas-powered vehicles or
>> because of the massive amounts of plastic, rubber,
>> and other products that are made from oil and are
>> everywhere in our everyday lives. His argument was
>> that this is the way it is right now. Our lives (and
>> our current "progress") are entirely dependent upon
>> oil. And he clarified that EM's position is to find
>> ways to transition away from oil dependency but
>> remain as central to the world as they are now. He
>> saw his position as one in which he could be on the
>> "inside" and help to enable this transition and change.
>>
>> Now my point is NOT that he is right in all of what
>> he says (or that EM is not a central cause of the
>> problem that he seems not to be able to see). At the
>> end of the day, I personally concluded that he is an
>> oil apologist (and I did my best to point this out to
>> him and to the potential ethical ironies of his
>> work). Rather, my point is that I took him at his
>> word that he genuinely believes what he says and that
>> he did not "fall prey" to the manipulations of others
>> and is not himself manipulating others to further his
>> own interests. He does feel conflicted about his work
>> but at the end of the day he feels that he is doing
>> what is ethically good and right for humanity.
>>
>> And to take this one step further, I think that in
>> order to evaluate whether something is ethical or
>> not, we need some kind of framework within which to
>> make such a determination. If capitalism is the
>> framework for evaluating ethical behavior, then there
>> is every reason to believe that EM execs are acting
>> ethically.
>>
>> Let me know where I've misread you and/or
>> misunderstood you.
>>
>> With apologies,
>>
>> greg
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 9:59 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Greg, for reminding us of the importance
>> of humility. Please, let us all realize of the
>> humanity of deniers, as much as those of anyone
>> else. But no, I am not saying that they are the
>> ones who live in a world of false consciousness.
>> Please, if I wrote that somewhere, help me
>> correct it, cause I did not intend to write so. I
>> never said Exxon staff were not human, Greg. I
>> said they are criminals. I am not alone in this:
>> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/24/climate-justice-ecocide-humanity-crime/
>>
>> I am more than happy to disagree, but your
>> misrepresentation of what I just wrote went
>> beyond what I can explain or understand in the
>> language that I use. So, I think I’ll need help
>> to find common ground and continue dialogue.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of Greg Thompson
>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> You point to an important possibility that I
>> would not want to rule out, the possibility of
>> false consciousness. Yet, I'd like to also just
>> point to the fact that one must undertake such a
>> claim with the utmost of humility since "they"
>> are making precisely the same kind of claim about
>> you.
>>
>> You say that THEY are the ones who live in a
>> world of false consciousness, while WE are the
>> ones who are awake to the reality of things. This
>> is precisely what climate deniers say of you!!!
>> They say that you are caught up in the
>> pseudo-science of climate change that works to
>> further the introduce governmental control over
>> our daily lives (an outcome that for them is just
>> as monstrous as what you describe).
>>
>> We can stand and shout and say that we are right
>> and they are wrong, but we have to recognize that
>> they are doing the same thing. We could try and
>> kill them off since we are convinced that they
>> are murders, but they might do the same. To me it
>> seems, there is still something more that is needed.
>>
>> Another way to go about this is to seek some kind
>> of true understanding across these divides.
>> Rather than dismissing "them" as a bunch of
>> manipulators who are just trying to get theirs or
>> a bunch of dupes who are going along with a line
>> that they've been sold, why not try to engage
>> "them" as humans just like "we" are humans? How
>> many climate change deniers have we actually
>> talked to and treated as humans? (but, you
>> object, they aren't human!)
>>
>> I don't think that this needs to be ALL of the
>> work of climate justice, but I do think that it
>> should be part of this work. And it happens to be
>> one that is sorely lacking in many approaches.
>> (and just to be clear, I'm not saying that it is
>> lacking in yours, Alfredo, I'm just posing the
>> question, perhaps you know and have had
>> conversation with many deniers and realize their
>> humanity).
>>
>> -greg
>>
>> p.s., I spoke with a recruiter for ExxonMobil
>> this past week and he noted that their new CEO
>> stated unequivocally that man-made climate change
>> is real and that oil is a major cause of it.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Alfredo Jornet
>> Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Andy,
>>
>> I see and Greg’s point. I can see that not
>> everyone denying climate change is
>> necessarily a “bad” person or the evil in and
>> of themselves.
>>
>> However, I cannot agree with the statement
>> that “everyone acts because they think it
>> right to do so”. I’ve done (and keep doing)
>> enough stupid (and wrong!) things in my life
>> to be convinced of the falsehood of that
>> statement. That statement, in my view, would
>> ONLY apply to (a) instances in which people
>> indeed ponder/consider what they are about to
>> do before they do it, and (b) the nature of
>> their pondering is in fact ethical.
>>
>> Should we refer to Exxon corporate
>> decision-makers who initiated misinformation
>> campaigns to cast doubt on climate science as
>> psychopaths (as per your definition)? Would
>> that be fair to people with actual
>> pathologies? I’d rather call them criminals.
>>
>> You seem to assume (or I misread you as
>> assuming) that all actions are taken based on
>> a pondering on what is right or wrong, even
>> when that pondering has not taken place.
>> First, I don’t think we always act based on
>> decision-making. Second, not every
>> decision-making or pondering may consider
>> ethical dimensions of right or wrong. I
>> invite you to consider how many people among
>> those who deny the climate science has
>> actually gone through an ethical pondering
>> when they “choose” to deny the science. My
>> sense is that most deniers do not “choose,”
>> but rather enact a position that is, in the
>> metaphorical terms that the author of the
>> article that Anne-Nelly has shared uses, in
>> the air they breath within their communities.
>> I am of the view that exercising ethics, just
>> as exercising science denial in the 21st
>> century, is engaging in a quite definite
>> historical practice that has its background,
>> resources, and patterns or habits. I think
>> that if we exercised (practiced) more of
>> ethics, science denial would be less of a
>> “right” choice. That is, decision-making is a
>> sociocultural endeavor, not something an
>> individual comes up with alone. Sometimes we
>> cannot choose how we feel or react, but we
>> can choose who we get together to, the types
>> of cultures within which we want to generate
>> habits of action/mind.
>>
>> We cannot de-politicize science, for it is
>> only in political contexts that science comes
>> to effect lives outside of the laboratory.
>> But we can generate cultures of critical
>> engagement, which I think would bring us
>> closer to your option (3) at the end of your
>> e-mail when you ponder whether/how to
>> disentangle bipartisanism and scientific
>> literacy. I don’t think then relativism (that
>> you act ethically or not depending on what
>> you think it’s right or not, independently of
>> whether great amounts of suffering happen
>> because of your actions) is what would
>> thrive. Rather, I believe (and hope!)
>> **humanity** would thrive, for it would
>> always ponder the question Dewey posed when
>> considering why we should prefer democracy
>> over any other forms of political
>> organization, such as fascism:
>>
>> “Can we find any reason that does not
>> ultimately come down to the belief that
>> democratic social arrangements promote a
>> better quality of human experience, one which
>> is more widely accessible and enjoyed, than
>> do nondemocratic and antidemocratic forms of
>> social life? Does not the principle of regard
>> for individual freedom and for decency and
>> kindliness of human relations come back in
>> the end to the conviction that these things
>> are tributary to a higher quality of
>> experience on the part of a greater number
>> than are methods of repression and coercion
>> or force?” (Dewey, Experience and Education,
>> chapter 3).
>>
>> Please, help me see how Exxon leaders
>> considered any of these when they chose to
>> deny the science, and thought it was right. I
>> know voters did not “choose” in the same way
>> (Exxon staff trusted the science, indeed!).
>> But it is back there where you can find an
>> explanation for climate change denial today;
>> it is in the cultural-historical pattern of
>> thinking they contributed engineering, along
>> with political actors, and not in the
>> individual head of the person denying that
>> you find the explanation.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28
>> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo, I think Greg's point is basically
>> right, that is, everyone acts because they
>> think it right to do so. The only exception
>> would be true psychopaths. The issue is:
>> /why/ does this person believe this is the
>> right thing to do and believe that this is
>> the person I should trust and that this is
>> the truth about the matter?
>>
>> Take Darwinian Evolution as an example. In
>> the USA, this question has been
>> "politicised," that is, people either accept
>> the science or not according to whether they
>> vote Democrat or Republican. There are
>> variants on this, and various exceptions, but
>> for the largest numbers belief in the Bible
>> or belief in the Science textbook are choices
>> of being on this side or the other side. This
>> is not the case in many other countries where
>> Evolution is simply part of the Biology lesson.
>>
>> In the UK, Anthropogenic climate change is
>> not a Party question either. People believe
>> it whether they vote Tory or Labour. Still,
>> how much people change their lives, etc.,
>> does vary, but that varies according to other
>> issues; it is not a Party question.
>>
>> In Australia, Anthropogenic climate change is
>> a Party question, even though this year
>> right-wing political leaders no longer openly
>> scorn climate science, but everyone knows
>> this is skin deep. But like in the UK,
>> Evolution is not a partisan question and eve
>> the right-wing support public health (though
>> it was not always so).
>>
>> The strategic questions, it seems to me are:
>> (1) is it possible to break a single issue
>> away from the partisan platform, and for
>> example, get Republicans to support the
>> teaching of Biology and sending their kids to
>> science classes with an open mind? Even while
>> they still support capital punishment and
>> opposed abortion and public health? Or (2) Is
>> it possible to lever a person away from their
>> partisan position on a scientific or moral
>> question, without asking for them to flip
>> sides altogether? or (3) Is it easier to work
>> for the entire defeat of a Party which
>> opposes Science and Humanity (as we see it)?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>>
>> On 29/09/2019 8:16 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Anne-Nelly, I had not read this
>> one. Very telling! __
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>>
>> On 29 Sep 2019, at 10:20, PERRET-CLERMONT
>> Anne-Nelly
>> <Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch
>> <mailto:Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> You probably remember this very
>> interesting report from a journalist :
>>
>> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/6/8/1863530/-A-close-family-member-votes-Republican-Now-I-understand-why-The-core-isn-t-bigotry-It-s-worse
>>
>> I like to mention it because it
>> contributes to illustrate your point,
>> shading light on powerful
>> micro-mechanisms.
>>
>> Anne-Nelly
>>
>> Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
>>
>> Institut de psychologie et éducation
>> Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines
>>
>> Université de Neuchâtel
>>
>> Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement:
>> Espace Louis-Agassiz 1)
>>
>> CH- 2000 Neuchâtel (Suisse)
>>
>> http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont
>>
>> A peine sorti de presse:
>> https://www.socialinfo.ch/les-livres/38-agir-et-penser-avec-anne-nelly-perret-clermont.html
>>
>> *De :
>> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
>> *Répondre à : *"eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019
>> à 09:45
>> *À : *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer
>> <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>> <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
>> *Objet : *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> Thanks, we are on the same page. But
>> you write: «most climate change
>> deniers are such because they feel
>> that this is the ethically good and
>> right position for humanity». I agree
>> on the difficulties, but I would like
>> to emphasize that being on the right
>> or the wrong side in issues of
>> climate change in today’s Global
>> societies is a matter of having
>> fallen pray to self-interested
>> manipulation by others, or of being
>> yourself one engaged in manipulating
>> others for your own.
>>
>> When you pick up a scientific article
>> (very unlikely if you are a denier)
>> or a press article, and read that the
>> Earth is warming due to human
>> civilization, and then think, “nah,
>> bullshit”, you most likely are
>> inclined to infer that way cause
>> that’s a cultural pattern of thinking
>> characteristic of a group or
>> community you belong to. There are
>> out there many psychology studies
>> showing the extent to which
>> “opinions” on climate science vary
>> not with respect to how much one
>> knows or understand, but rather with
>> respect to your religious and
>> political affiliation (see, for
>> example,
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547
>> ).
>>
>> My point being that, when you deny
>> climate change today, you engage in a
>> practice that has a very definite
>> historical origin and motive, namely
>> the coordinated, systematic actions
>> of a given set of fossil fuel
>> corporations that, to this date,
>> continue lobbying to advance their
>> own interests, permeating through
>> many spheres of civic life, including
>> education:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
>>
>> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Greenpeace_Dealing-in-Doubt-1.pdf?53ea6e
>>
>> We know that the motives of these
>> corporations never were the “feel
>> that this is the ethically good and
>> right position for humanity”. Or do we?
>>
>> Again, educating about (climate)
>> **justice** and accountability may be
>> crucial to the “critical” approach
>> that has been mentioned in prior
>> e-mails.
>>
>> I too would love seeing Jen V.
>> chiming in on these matters.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From:
>> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> on behalf of Greg Thompson
>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at
>> 04:15
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur
>> <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>> <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo and Artin, Yes and yes.
>>
>> Alfredo, yes, I wasn't suggesting
>> doing without them, but simply that
>> something more is needed perhaps an
>> "ethical dimension" is needed
>> (recognizing that such a thing is
>> truly a hard fought accomplishment -
>> right/wrong and good/evil seems so
>> obvious from where we stand, but
>> others will see differently; most
>> climate change deniers are such
>> because they feel that this is the
>> ethically good and right position for
>> humanity not because they see it as
>> an evil and ethically wrong position).
>>
>> Artin, I wonder if Dr. Vadeboncoeur
>> might be willing to chime in?? Sounds
>> like a fascinating and important take
>> on the issue. Or maybe you could
>> point us to a reading?
>>
>> (and by coincidence, I had the
>> delight of dealing with Dr.
>> Vadebonceour's work in my data
>> analysis class this week via LeCompte
>> and Scheunsel's extensive use of her
>> work to describe data analysis
>> principles - my students found her
>> work to be super interesting and very
>> helpful for thinking about data
>> analysis).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> greg
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:19 AM
>> Goncu, Artin <goncu@uic.edu
>> <mailto:goncu@uic.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> The varying meanings and
>> potential abuses of the
>> connection between imagination
>> and trust appear to be activity
>> specific. This can be seen even
>> in the same activity, i.e., trust
>> and imagination may be abused.
>> For example, I took pains for
>> many years to illustrate that
>> children’s construction of
>> intersubjectivity in social
>> imaginative play requires trust
>> in one another. Children make the
>> proleptic assumption that their
>> potential partners are sincere,
>> know something about the topics
>> proposed for imaginative play,
>> and will participate in the
>> negotiations of assumed joint
>> imaginative pasts and anticipated
>> futures. However, this may not
>> always be the case. As Schousboe
>> showed, children may abuse play
>> to institute their own abusive
>> agendas as evidenced in her
>> example of two five year old
>> girls pretending that actual
>> urine in a bottle was soda pop
>> trying to make a three year old
>> girl to drink it. This clearly
>> supports exploring how we
>> can/should inquire what Alfredo
>> calls the third dimension. More
>> to the point, how do we teach
>> right from wrong in shared
>> imagination? Vadeboncoeur has
>> been addressing the moral
>> dimensions of imagination in her
>> recent work.
>>
>> Artin
>>
>> Artin Goncu, Ph.D
>>
>> Professor, Emeritus
>>
>> University of Illinois at Chicago
>>
>> www.artingoncu.com/
>> <http://www.artingoncu.com/>
>>
>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 28,
>> 2019 9:35 AM
>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and
>> Science
>>
>> Yes, Greg, I agree there is all
>> grounds and rights to question
>> trust and imagination, but I am
>> less inclined to think that we
>> can do without them both. So, if
>> there is a difference between
>> imaginative propaganda aimed at
>> confusing the public, and
>> imaginative education that grows
>> from hope and will for the common
>> good, then perhaps we need a
>> third element that discerns good
>> from evil? Right from wrong? That
>> may why, in order for people to
>> actually engage in
>> transformational action, what
>> they need the most is not just to
>> understand Climate Change, but
>> most importantly, Climate
>> Justice. Don’t you think?
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From:
>> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> on behalf of Greg Thompson
>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September
>> 2019 at 16:05
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and
>> Science
>>
>> Note that there is a great deal
>> of trust and imagination going on
>> right now in the US. We have the
>> most imaginative president we’ve
>> had in years. He can imagine his
>> way to bigly approval ratings and
>> a massive inaugural turnout. He
>> imagines that trying to get dirt
>> on an opponent is a “beautiful
>> conversation”. And if you watch
>> the media these days, he has a
>> cadre of others who are doing
>> additional imagining for him as
>> well - they are imagining what
>> the DNC is trying to do to ouster
>> this president, they are
>> imagining what Joe Biden might
>> really have been up to with that
>> prosecutor. And what makes
>> matters worst is that there is a
>> rather large contingent of people
>> in the US who trust this cadre of
>> imaginative propagandists and who
>> trust Trump and believe that they
>> are the only ones who have the
>> real truth.
>>
>> So I guess I’m suggesting there
>> might be reason to question
>> imagination and trust (and this
>> all was heightened for me by a
>> dip into the imaginative and
>> trust-filled land of conservative
>> talk radio yesterday - but you
>> can find the same message from
>> anyone who is a Trump truster -
>> including a number of politicians
>> who are playing the same game of
>> avoiding the facts (no one on
>> those talk shows actually
>> repeated any of the damning words
>> from Trumps phone call) while
>> constructing an alternative
>> narrative that listeners trust).
>>
>> Sadly,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:17 AM
>> Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Henry, all,
>>
>> Further resonating with Beth
>> et al’s letter, and with what
>> Henry and Andy just wrote, I
>> too think the point at which
>> trust and imagination meet is
>> key.
>>
>> A couple of days ago, I
>> watched, together with my two
>> daughters (10 and 4 years old
>> respectively) segments of the
>> /Right to a Future /event
>> organized by The Intercept
>> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/greta-thunberg-naomi-klein-climate-change-livestream/,
>> where young and not-so-young
>> activists and journalists
>> discussed visions of 2029 if
>> we, today, would lead radical
>> change. It was a great chance
>> to engage in some
>> conversation with my children
>> about these issues, specially
>> with my older one; about hope
>> and about the importance of
>> fighting for justice.
>>
>> At some point in a follow-up
>> conversation that we had in
>> bed, right before sleep, we
>> spoke about the good things
>> that we still have with
>> respect to nature and
>> community, and I–perhaps not
>> having considered my
>> daughter’s limited awareness
>> of the reach of the
>> crisis–emphasized that it was
>> important to value and enjoy
>> those things we have in the
>> present, when there is
>> uncertainty as to the
>> conditions that there will be
>> in the near future. My
>> daughter, very concerned,
>> turned to me and, with what I
>> felt was a mix of fair and
>> skepticism, said: “but dad,
>> are not people fixing the
>> problem already so that
>> everything will go well?”
>>
>> It truly broke my heart. I
>> reassured her that we are
>> working as hard as we can,
>> but invited her not to stop
>> reminding everyone that we
>> cannot afford stop fighting.
>>
>> My daughter clearly exhibited
>> her (rightful) habit of trust
>> that adults address problems,
>> that they’ll take care of us,
>> that things will end well, or
>> at least, that they’ll try
>> their best. In terms of
>> purely formal scientific
>> testing, it turns out that my
>> daughter’s hypothesis could
>> easily be rejected, as it is
>> rather the case that my
>> parent’s generation did very
>> little to address problems
>> they were “aware” of (another
>> discussion is what it is
>> meant by “awareness” in cases
>> such as being aware of the
>> effects of fossil fuels and
>> still accelerating their
>> exploitation). Yet, it would
>> totally be against the
>> interest of science and
>> society that my daughter
>> loses that trust. For if she
>> does, then I fear she will be
>> incapable of imagining a
>> thriving future to demand and
>> fight for. I fear she will
>> lose a firm ground for
>> agency. Which teaches me that
>> the pedagogy that can help in
>> this context of crisis is one
>> in which basic trust in the
>> good faith and orientation
>> towards the common good of
>> expertise is restored, and
>> that the only way to restore
>> it is by indeed acting
>> accordingly, reclaiming and
>> occupying the agency and
>> responsibility of making sure
>> that younger and older can
>> continue creatively imagining
>> a future in which things will
>> go well at the end.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From:
>> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Saturday, 28
>> September 2019 at 04:38
>> *To:
>> *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Trust and
>> Science
>>
>> Science is based on trust,
>> isn't it, Henry. Only a
>> handful of people have
>> actually measured climate
>> change, and then probably
>> only one factor. If we have a
>> picture of climate change at
>> all, for scientists and
>> non-scientists alike, it is
>> only because we /trust/ the
>> institutions of science
>> sufficiently. And yet,
>> everyone on this list knows
>> how wrong these institutions
>> can be when it comes to the
>> area of our own expertise. So
>> "blind trust" is not enough,
>> one needs "critical trust" so
>> to speak, in order to know
>> anything scientifically. Very
>> demanding.
>>
>> Important as trust is, I am
>> inclined to think trust and
>> its absence are symptoms of
>> even more fundamental
>> societal characteristics,
>> because it is never just a
>> question of *how much* trust
>> there is in a society, but
>> *who* people trust. It seems
>> that nowadays people are
>> very erratic about *who *they
>> trust about *what *and who
>> they do not trust.
>>
>> Probably the agreement you
>> saw between Huw and me was
>> probably pretty shaky, but we
>> have a commonality in our
>> trusted sources, we have
>> worked together in the past
>> and share basic respect for
>> each other and for science.
>> Workable agreement. I despair
>> over what I see happening in
>> the UK now, where MPs
>> genuinely fear for their
>> lives because of the level of
>> hatred and division in the
>> community, which is beginning
>> to be even worse than what
>> Trump has created in the US.
>> A total breakdown in trust
>> *alongside* tragically
>> misplaced trust in a couple
>> of utterly cynical criminals!
>> The divisions are just as
>> sharp here in Oz too, but it
>> has not go to that
>> frightening level of menace
>> it has reached in the UK and US.
>>
>> Greta Thunberg talks of a
>> plural, collective "we" in
>> opposition to a singular
>> personal "you." She
>> brilliantly, in my opinion,
>> turns this black-and-white
>> condition of the world around
>> in a manner which just could
>> turn it into its negation.
>> Her use of language at the UN
>> is reminiscent of Churchill's
>> "we fill fight them on the
>> beaches ..." speech and
>> Martin Luther King's "I have
>> a dream" speech. There's
>> something for you linguists
>> to get your teeth into!
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> On 28/09/2019 2:42 am, HENRY
>> SHONERD wrote:
>>
>> Andy and Huw,
>>
>> This is a perfect example
>> of what I was talking
>> about in the discussion
>> of your article on
>> Academia: Two
>> philosophers having a
>> dialog about the same
>> pholosophical object, a
>> dialog manifesting an
>> experience of common
>> understanding. In the
>> same way that two
>> mathematicians might
>> agree on a mathematical
>> proof. I have to believe
>> that you are not bull
>> shitting, that you really
>> have understood each
>> other via your language.
>> So, of course this is of
>> interest to a linguist,
>> even though he/I don’t
>> really get the “proof”. I
>> may not understand the
>> arguments you are making,
>> but I can imagine, based
>> on slogging through
>> thinking as a lingist,
>> what it’s like to get it.
>>
>> I think this relates to
>> the problem in the world
>> of a lack of trust in
>> scientific expertise, in
>> expertise in general.
>> Where concpetual thinking
>> reigns. So many climate
>> deniers. So many
>> Brexiters. But can you
>> blame them entirely?
>> Probably it would be
>> better to say that trust
>> isn’t enough. The problem
>> is a lack of connection
>> between trust and the
>> creative imagination.
>> It’s what Beth Fernholt
>> and her pals have sent to
>> the New Yorker.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2019, at
>> 6:40 AM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Huw.
>>
>> The
>> interconnectedness of
>> the "four concepts,"
>> I agree, they imply
>> each other, but
>> nonetheless, they
>> remain distinct
>> insights. Just
>> because you get one,
>> you don't necessarily
>> get the others.
>>
>> Hegel uses the
>> expression "true
>> concept" only rarely.
>> Generally, he simply
>> uses the word
>> "concept," and uses a
>> variety of other
>> terms like "mere
>> conception" or
>> "representation" or
>> "category" to
>> indicate something
>> short of a concept,
>> properly so called,
>> but there is no
>> strict categorisation
>> for Hegel. Hegel is
>> not talking about
>> Psychology, let alone
>> child psychology.
>> Like with Vygotsky,
>> all thought-forms (or
>> forms of activity)
>> are just phases (or
>> stages) in the
>> development of a
>> concept. Reading your
>> message, I think I am
>> using the term "true
>> concept" in much the
>> same way you are.
>>
>> (This is not relevant
>> to my article, but I
>> distinguish "true
>> concept" from "actual
>> concept." All the
>> various forms of
>> "complexive thinking"
>> fall short, so to
>> speak, of "true
>> concepts," and
>> further development
>> takes an abstract
>> concept, such as
>> learnt in lecture 101
>> of a topic, to an
>> "actual concept". But
>> that is not relevant
>> here. Hegel barely
>> touches on these issues.)
>>
>> I don't agree with
>> your specific
>> categories, but yes,
>> for Vygotsky,
>> chapters 4, 5 and 6
>> are all talking about
>> concepts in a
>> developmental sense.
>> There are about 10
>> distinct stages for
>> Vygotsky. And they
>> are not equivalent to
>> any series of stages
>> identified by Hegel.
>> Vgotsky's "stages"
>> were drawn from a
>> specific experiment
>> with children;
>> Hegel's Logic is cast
>> somewhat differently
>> (the Logic is not a
>> series of stages) and
>> has a domain much
>> larger than Psychology.
>>
>> The experienced
>> doctor does not use
>> what I would call
>> "formal concepts" in
>> her work, which are
>> what I would call the
>> concepts they learnt
>> in Diagnostics 101
>> when they were a
>> student. After 20
>> years of experience,
>> these formal concepts
>> have accrued
>> practical life
>> experience, and
>> remain true concepts,
>> but are no longer
>> "formal." Of course,
>> the student was not
>> taught pseudoconcepts
>> in Diagnostics 101.
>> But all this is
>> nothing to do with
>> the article in question.
>>
>> Hegel and Vygotsky
>> are talking about
>> different things, but
>> even in terms of the
>> subject matter, but
>> especially in terms
>> of the conceptual
>> form, there is more
>> Hegel in "Thinking
>> and Speech" than
>> initially meets the eye.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social
>> Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> On 27/09/2019 4:32
>> pm, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> The "four
>> concepts", for
>> me, are four
>> aspects of one
>> understanding --
>> they imply each
>> other.
>>
>> Quoting this passage:
>>
>>
>> "The ‘abstract
>> generality’
>> referred to above
>> by Hegel,
>> Vygotsky aptly
>> called a
>> ‘pseudoconcept’ -
>> a form of
>> abstract
>> generalization,
>> uniting objects
>> by shared common
>> features, which
>> resembles
>> conceptual
>> thinking because,
>> within a limited
>> domain
>> ofexperience,
>> they subsume the
>> same objects and
>> situations as the
>> true concept
>> indicated by the
>> same word.
>> The pseudoconcept
>> is not the
>> exclusive
>> achievement of
>> the child. In our
>> everyday lives,
>> our thinking
>> frequently occurs
>> in
>> pseudoconcepts.
>> From the
>> perspective of
>> dialectical
>> logic, the
>> concepts that we
>> find in our
>> living speech are
>> not concepts in
>> the true sense of
>> the word. They
>> are actually
>> general
>> representations
>> of things. There
>> is no doubt,
>> however, that
>> these
>> representations
>> are a
>> transitional
>> stage between
>> complexes or
>> pseudoconcepts
>> and true
>> concepts.
>> (Vygotsky,
>> 1934/1987, p. 155)"
>>
>> My impression
>> from your text,
>> Andy, is that you
>> are misreading
>> Vygotsky's
>> "Thinking and
>> Speech". Implicit
>> LSV's whole text
>> of vol. 1 is an
>> appreciation for
>> different kinds
>> of conception (3
>> levels: pseudo,
>> formal, and
>> dialectical), but
>> the terminology
>> of "concept" is
>> only applied to
>> the formal
>> concept, i.e.
>> where Vygotsky
>> writes "concept"
>> one can read
>> "formal concept".
>>
>> In vol. 1,
>> the analysis of
>> the trajectory of
>> the thought of
>> the child is
>> towards a growing
>> achievement of
>> employing formal
>> concepts. These
>> formal concepts
>> are only called
>> "true concepts"
>> (not to be
>> confused with
>> Hegel's true
>> concept) in
>> relation to the
>> pseudo (fake or
>> untrue) formal
>> concepts. The
>> pseudo concepts
>> pertain to a form
>> of cognition that
>> is considered by
>> Vygotsky (quite
>> sensibly) to
>> precede the
>> concepts of
>> formal logic.
>> This is quite
>> obvious to any
>> thorough-going
>> psychological
>> reading of the text.
>>
>> However, within
>> the frame of
>> analysis of the
>> text there is
>> another form of
>> conception which
>> is Vygotsky's
>> approach towards
>> a dialectical
>> understanding.
>> None of
>> Vygotsky's
>> utterances about
>> dialectics (in
>> this volume)
>> should be
>> conflated with
>> the "true
>> concept" which he
>> is using as a
>> short-hand for
>> the "true formal
>> concept",
>> similarly none of
>> Vygotsky's
>> utterances about
>> "pseudo concepts"
>> should be
>> confused with
>> formal concepts.
>>
>> I hope that helps,
>>
>> Huw
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Sep
>> 2019 at 06:37,
>> Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'd dearly
>> like to get
>> some
>> discussion
>> going on this:
>>
>> It will
>> be shown
>> that at
>> least
>> four
>> foundational
>> concepts
>> of
>> Cultural
>> Historical
>> Activity
>> Theory
>> were
>> previously
>> formulated
>> by Hegel,
>> viz., (1)
>> the unit
>> of
>> analysis
>> as a key
>> concept
>> for
>> analytic-synthetic
>> cognition,
>> (2) the
>> centrality
>> of
>> artifact-mediated
>> actions,
>> (3) the
>> definitive
>> distinction
>> between
>> goal and
>> motive in
>> activities,
>> and (4)
>> the
>> distinction
>> between a
>> true
>> concept
>> and a
>> pseudoconcept.
>>
>> https://www.academia.edu/s/7d70db6eb3/the-hegelian-sources-of-cultural-historical-activity-theory
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> --
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for
>> Social
>> Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20191001/6c89135c/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list