From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Sep 1 03:15:24 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 19:15:24 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Hegel for Social Movements Message-ID: I'm reading "Hegel for Social Movements", and I highly recommend it, particularly to Helena. Although Andy doesn't say very much about his own rich experience in trade unionism, it clearly illuminates a lot of his examples. I have three questions though. They are questions that I kept stumbling over when I read the Logic and I have yet to really find anything that answers them in Andy's book. First of all, why is Hegel so big on purity? He is always talking about pure being, and absolute idea. I guess I don't believe in purity--I not only don't believe it exists, I am not even sure it should exist. Secondly, one of the delights of Andy's book is that he likes to switch back and forth between (e.g.) the Logic and the Grundrisse. Bloomfield remarks that when he read Capital he thought it was a book about linguistics (because of the part on exchange value and use value, which does look kind of Saussurean if you squint a little!) A lot of what Andy is saying about how movements become first conscious of their own existence (there is a line like that in Malraux's "Les Conquerants"--les coolies ont decouvert ils existent, seulement qu'ils existent....), and then become conscious of their internal differences--these seem to be statements about the development of LANGUAGE and not simply language-pure consciousness. So why so little explicit treatment of language? Thirdly, Andy sometimes slips into Hegelian (rather than Marxist) politics, e.g. on Haiti (p. 55) and and when he considers "international law" an absolute (35). Haiti did not slip into neocolonialism because of some lack of international civil society but BECAUSE of that "international community" and still is! (Andy--I thought "immanent critique" (the practice, not the term) was Kant, not Hegel! How is Hegel's use of the practice different from Kant's?) David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190901/ad45d756/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Sep 1 06:30:11 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 23:30:11 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel for Social Movements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40656010-5246-b878-4ad5-9991664ada33@marxists.org> Glad you're enjoying it, David. I hope that I will have my copies soon too! Both you and Helena have managed to get copies before me! Your questions: (1) Hegel does tend to deal with topics in terms of the very end points and extremes, and this has brought a lot of criticism and misunderstandings down on his head, especially from our generation. Mainly I deal with it by simply ignoring the passages of Hegel which go to God and the Absolute Idea, World History and so on. I recently put an article on my website and Hegel and Teleology, in which I specifically advised people to read Hegel without obsessing on these excesses. I should have put something to this effect in the book. You are right there. (2) Hegel's writing on language are in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit, and they are not very interesting, I thought, in the context of linguistics today. But I can imagine that if Linguistics was your thing, then reading the Logic you would see Language everywhere. It is like that. But my book is "Hegel for Social Movements" not "Hegel for Linguists." (3) I must have not made myself clear, David, somehow. Hegel completely supported the Haitian Revolution and he was a complete Realist in International Relations, which he called "the animal kingdom of the spirit." He said states should honour treaties that they have entered into, but that's all. Quite confronting for the modern reader. It was Kant who promoted a "United Nations" and Fichte who used recognition of national sovereignty as a model for intersubjective relations. For Hegel, there was nothing higher than the nation state. The term "immanent critique" actually dates from the Frankfurt School. Hegel never used the term. But the Logic is clearly the model of immanent critique. Hegel was actually pretty dogmatic in how he critiqued his contemporary protagonists. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 1/09/2019 8:15 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > I'm reading "Hegel for Social Movements", and I highly > recommend it, particularly to Helena. Although Andy > doesn't say very much about his own rich experience in > trade unionism, it clearly illuminates a lot of his examples. > > I have three questions though. They are questions that I > kept stumbling over when I read the Logic and I have yet > to really find anything that answers them in Andy's book. > > First of all, why is Hegel so big on purity? He is always > talking about pure being, and absolute idea. I guess I > don't believe in purity--I not only don't believe it > exists, I am not even sure it should exist. > > Secondly, one of the delights of Andy's book is that he > likes to switch back and forth between (e.g.) the Logic > and the Grundrisse.??Bloomfield remarks that when he read > Capital he thought it was a book about linguistics > (because of the part on exchange value and use value, > which does look kind of Saussurean if you squint a > little!) A lot of what Andy is saying about how movements > become first conscious of their own existence (there is a > line like that in Malraux's "Les Conquerants"--les coolies > ont decouvert ils existent, seulement qu'ils > existent....), and then become conscious of their internal > differences--these seem to be statements about the > development of LANGUAGE and not simply language-pure > consciousness. So why so little explicit treatment of > language? > > Thirdly, Andy sometimes?slips into Hegelian (rather than > Marxist) politics, e.g. on Haiti (p.?55) and and when he > considers "international law" an absolute (35).?Haiti did > not?slip into?neocolonialism because of some lack of > international?civil society but BECAUSE of that > "international community" and still is! > > (Andy--I thought "immanent critique" (the practice, not > the term) was Kant, not Hegel! How is Hegel's use of the > practice different from Kant's?) > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190901/d7f1bcd3/attachment.html From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sun Sep 1 09:55:56 2019 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 09:55:56 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel for Social Movements In-Reply-To: <40656010-5246-b878-4ad5-9991664ada33@marxists.org> References: <40656010-5246-b878-4ad5-9991664ada33@marxists.org> Message-ID: <9F4CE5A5-047B-4C6E-84C0-EC4EEF740326@gmail.com> OK, OK, I get it. I am a bit behind in doing my reviewing assignments because of shifting house from Vermont back to CA. My first reaction after whipping through Andy's first chapter was an uncanny sense that this book was indeed written directly with me in mind. I guess ?Me? would mean any person who started out not being ?political? (in my case, an English comp and literature person) and came into the world of social movements by bumping up against reality often enough and now wants to make sense of it. OK, I?ll get on it! H helenaworthen@gmail.com helena.worthen1 > On Sep 1, 2019, at 6:30 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Glad you're enjoying it, David. I hope that I will have my copies soon too! Both you and Helena have managed to get copies before me! > > Your questions: (1) Hegel does tend to deal with topics in terms of the very end points and extremes, and this has brought a lot of criticism and misunderstandings down on his head, especially from our generation. Mainly I deal with it by simply ignoring the passages of Hegel which go to God and the Absolute Idea, World History and so on. I recently put an article on my website and Hegel and Teleology, in which I specifically advised people to read Hegel without obsessing on these excesses. I should have put something to this effect in the book. You are right there. > > (2) Hegel's writing on language are in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit, and they are not very interesting, I thought, in the context of linguistics today. But I can imagine that if Linguistics was your thing, then reading the Logic you would see Language everywhere. It is like that. But my book is "Hegel for Social Movements" not "Hegel for Linguists." > > (3) I must have not made myself clear, David, somehow. Hegel completely supported the Haitian Revolution and he was a complete Realist in International Relations, which he called "the animal kingdom of the spirit." He said states should honour treaties that they have entered into, but that's all. Quite confronting for the modern reader. It was Kant who promoted a "United Nations" and Fichte who used recognition of national sovereignty as a model for intersubjective relations. For Hegel, there was nothing higher than the nation state. > > The term "immanent critique" actually dates from the Frankfurt School. Hegel never used the term. But the Logic is clearly the model of immanent critique. Hegel was actually pretty dogmatic in how he critiqued his contemporary protagonists. > > Andy > Andy Blunden > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 1/09/2019 8:15 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >> I'm reading "Hegel for Social Movements", and I highly recommend it, particularly to Helena. Although Andy doesn't say very much about his own rich experience in trade unionism, it clearly illuminates a lot of his examples. >> >> I have three questions though. They are questions that I kept stumbling over when I read the Logic and I have yet to really find anything that answers them in Andy's book. >> >> First of all, why is Hegel so big on purity? He is always talking about pure being, and absolute idea. I guess I don't believe in purity--I not only don't believe it exists, I am not even sure it should exist. >> >> Secondly, one of the delights of Andy's book is that he likes to switch back and forth between (e.g.) the Logic and the Grundrisse. Bloomfield remarks that when he read Capital he thought it was a book about linguistics (because of the part on exchange value and use value, which does look kind of Saussurean if you squint a little!) A lot of what Andy is saying about how movements become first conscious of their own existence (there is a line like that in Malraux's "Les Conquerants"--les coolies ont decouvert ils existent, seulement qu'ils existent....), and then become conscious of their internal differences--these seem to be statements about the development of LANGUAGE and not simply language-pure consciousness. So why so little explicit treatment of language? >> >> Thirdly, Andy sometimes slips into Hegelian (rather than Marxist) politics, e.g. on Haiti (p. 55) and and when he considers "international law" an absolute (35). Haiti did not slip into neocolonialism because of some lack of international civil society but BECAUSE of that "international community" and still is! >> >> (Andy--I thought "immanent critique" (the practice, not the term) was Kant, not Hegel! How is Hegel's use of the practice different from Kant's?) >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190901/7b3a4475/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Sep 1 14:20:40 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 06:20:40 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel for Social Movements In-Reply-To: <9F4CE5A5-047B-4C6E-84C0-EC4EEF740326@gmail.com> References: <40656010-5246-b878-4ad5-9991664ada33@marxists.org> <9F4CE5A5-047B-4C6E-84C0-EC4EEF740326@gmail.com> Message-ID: Andy-- So it's not "Hegel for Linguists"? I'm not so sure. It depends what kind of linguist you are, I think. Systemic-functional linguistics is an explicitly Marxist approach (see Halliday's "The Influence of Marxism", in "Halliday in the Twenty-first Century"), and Halliday himself got his start in linguistics in one of the great social movements of the twentieth century--the Chinese revolution. Ruqaiya Hasan certainly knew Hegel better than I did. The reason I mention it is that, we are re-translating Chapter Five of T&S to be Chapter Ten of Pedology of the Adolescent (we thought this would involve minor changes, but our language skills have changed alot since we did T&S twelve years ago). Being rather "visual-illustrative" (there's a good Russian word for this, but no very good word in English), I got caught up in your God's Eye View of the Hegel universe on p. 157. And the left leg of it, the Logic, still looks to me like a map of Chapter Five/Ten. Syncretic heaps are pure being--they are based on quantity, quality, and measure. Complexes are syncretic heaps which are reorganized by reflection, by appearance, and ultimately (pseudoconceptually) by actuality. The real concept is the unity of subject, object, and idea--but also a recapitulation of the syncretic heap (Subject only), the complex (Object), and the Act-ual. Vygotsky struggles a little with the Logic because it's kind of "outside in": the genetic law insists that every function appears twice, first inter- and then intra-personally. That means that the child's own development happens for others before it happens for the child himself or herself. And that means that the starting point is not one but two. So for example Paula Towsey, in her paper in MCA ("Wolves in Sheep's Clothing", Towsey and Macdonald 2009), says that Vygotsky uses "pseudoconcept" in two contradictory ways--first, as an umbrella term that covers ALL the complexes (and that's how she's labelled her pictures). Secondly, as a unique stage WITHIN complexes--the highest, transitional form, the bridge to the concept. I think one way to resolve this contradiction is to say that Chapter Five/Ten is abstraction in action--it's a kind of desert island on which children play without adults, and the child's forms of thinking display what they would be without any adult influence. But what we see in "real" life is mostly pseudoconcepts, because in real life the starting point is not one but two. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:58 AM Helena Worthen wrote: > OK, OK, I get it. I am a bit behind in doing my reviewing assignments > because of shifting house from Vermont back to CA. My first reaction after > whipping through Andy's first chapter was an uncanny sense that this book > was indeed written directly with me in mind. I guess ?Me? would mean any > person who started out not being ?political? (in my case, an English comp > and literature person) and came into the world of social movements by > bumping up against reality often enough and now wants to make sense of it. > > OK, I?ll get on it! > > H > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 1, 2019, at 6:30 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Glad you're enjoying it, David. I hope that I will have my copies soon > too! Both you and Helena have managed to get copies before me! > > Your questions: (1) Hegel does tend to deal with topics in terms of the > very end points and extremes, and this has brought a lot of criticism and > misunderstandings down on his head, especially from our generation. Mainly > I deal with it by simply ignoring the passages of Hegel which go to God and > the Absolute Idea, World History and so on. I recently put an article on my > website and Hegel and Teleology, in which I specifically advised people to > read Hegel without obsessing on these excesses. I should have put something > to this effect in the book. You are right there. > > (2) Hegel's writing on language are in the Philosophy of Subjective > Spirit, and they are not very interesting, I thought, in the context of > linguistics today. But I can imagine that if Linguistics was your thing, > then reading the Logic you would see Language everywhere. It is like that. > But my book is "Hegel for Social Movements" not "Hegel for Linguists." > > (3) I must have not made myself clear, David, somehow. Hegel completely > supported the Haitian Revolution and he was a complete Realist in > International Relations, which he called "the animal kingdom of the > spirit." He said states should honour treaties that they have entered into, > but that's all. Quite confronting for the modern reader. It was Kant who > promoted a "United Nations" and Fichte who used recognition of national > sovereignty as a model for intersubjective relations. For Hegel, there was > nothing higher than the nation state. > > The term "immanent critique" actually dates from the Frankfurt School. > Hegel never used the term. But the Logic is clearly the model of immanent > critique. Hegel was actually pretty dogmatic in how he critiqued his > contemporary protagonists. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 1/09/2019 8:15 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > > I'm reading "Hegel for Social Movements", and I highly recommend it, > particularly to Helena. Although Andy doesn't say very much about his own > rich experience in trade unionism, it clearly illuminates a lot of his > examples. > > I have three questions though. They are questions that I kept stumbling > over when I read the Logic and I have yet to really find anything that > answers them in Andy's book. > > First of all, why is Hegel so big on purity? He is always talking about > pure being, and absolute idea. I guess I don't believe in purity--I not > only don't believe it exists, I am not even sure it should exist. > > Secondly, one of the delights of Andy's book is that he likes to switch > back and forth between (e.g.) the Logic and the Grundrisse. Bloomfield > remarks that when he read Capital he thought it was a book about > linguistics (because of the part on exchange value and use value, which > does look kind of Saussurean if you squint a little!) A lot of what Andy is > saying about how movements become first conscious of their own existence > (there is a line like that in Malraux's "Les Conquerants"--les coolies ont > decouvert ils existent, seulement qu'ils existent....), and then become > conscious of their internal differences--these seem to be statements about > the development of LANGUAGE and not simply language-pure consciousness. So > why so little explicit treatment of language? > > Thirdly, Andy sometimes slips into Hegelian (rather than Marxist) > politics, e.g. on Haiti (p. 55) and and when he considers "international > law" an absolute (35). Haiti did not slip into neocolonialism because of > some lack of international civil society but BECAUSE of that "international > community" and still is! > > (Andy--I thought "immanent critique" (the practice, not the term) was > Kant, not Hegel! How is Hegel's use of the practice different from Kant's?) > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190902/8adcf535/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Sep 1 17:53:49 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:53:49 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel for Social Movements In-Reply-To: References: <40656010-5246-b878-4ad5-9991664ada33@marxists.org> <9F4CE5A5-047B-4C6E-84C0-EC4EEF740326@gmail.com> Message-ID: <969b3ab5-34ac-36c3-939f-c1676558e6c7@marxists.org> Right. I never saw chs 5&6 of Thinking and Speech as being about Linguistics. I took them as being about /concept development/. There is indeed a vast synergy between Hegel and Vygotsky, when you line LSV's developmental psychology with Hegel's Logic. Striking. And the /differences /in detail are interesting too. But this close comparison of Vygotsky and Hegel is the topic of another book. This is for social movements. I "use" Vygotsky and CHAT people will see it, but until the last few pages it is a kinda hidden agenda. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 2/09/2019 7:20 am, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > So it's not "Hegel for Linguists"? I'm not so sure. It > depends what kind of linguist you are, I think. > Systemic-functional linguistics is an explicitly Marxist > approach (see Halliday's "The Influence of Marxism", in > "Halliday in the Twenty-first Century"), and Halliday > himself got his start in linguistics in one of the great > social movements of the twentieth century--the Chinese > revolution. Ruqaiya Hasan certainly knew?Hegel better than > I did. > > The reason I mention it is that, we are re-translating > Chapter Five of T&S to be Chapter Ten of Pedology of the > Adolescent (we thought this would involve minor changes, > but our language skills have changed alot since we did T&S > twelve years ago). Being rather "visual-illustrative" > (there's a good Russian word for this, but no very good > word in English),?I got caught up in your God's Eye View > of the Hegel universe on p. 157. And the left leg of it, > the Logic, still looks to me like a map of Chapter Five/Ten. > > Syncretic heaps are pure being--they are based on > quantity, quality, and measure. Complexes are syncretic > heaps which are reorganized by reflection, by appearance, > and ultimately (pseudoconceptually) by actuality. The real > concept is the unity of subject, object, and idea--but > also a recapitulation of the syncretic heap (Subject > only), the complex (Object), and the Act-ual. > > Vygotsky struggles a little with the Logic because it's > kind of "outside in": the genetic law?insists that every > function appears twice, first inter- and then > intra-personally. That means that the child's own > development happens for others before it happens for the > child himself or herself. And that means that the starting > point is not one but two. > > So for example Paula Towsey, in her paper in MCA ("Wolves > in Sheep's Clothing", Towsey and Macdonald 2009), says > that Vygotsky uses "pseudoconcept" in two contradictory > ways--first, as an umbrella term that covers ALL the > complexes (and that's how she's labelled her pictures). > Secondly, as?a unique stage?WITHIN complexes--the highest, > transitional form, the bridge to the concept. > > I think one way to resolve this contradiction is to say > that Chapter Five/Ten is?abstraction in action--it's a > kind of desert island on which children play without > adults, and the child's forms of thinking display what > they would be without any adult influence. But what we see > in "real" life is mostly pseudoconcepts, because in real > life the starting point is not one but two. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:58 AM Helena Worthen > > > wrote: > > OK, OK, I get it. I am a bit behind in doing my > reviewing assignments because of shifting house from > Vermont back to CA. My first reaction after whipping > through Andy's first chapter was an uncanny sense that > this book was indeed written directly with me in mind. > I guess ?Me? would mean any person who started out not > being ?political? (in my case, an English comp and > literature person) and came into the world of social > movements by bumping up against reality often enough > and now wants to make sense of it. > > OK, I?ll get on it! > > H > > helenaworthen@gmail.com > helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > > >> On Sep 1, 2019, at 6:30 AM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> Glad you're enjoying it, David. I hope that I will >> have my copies soon too! Both you and Helena have >> managed to get copies before me! >> >> Your questions: (1) Hegel does tend to deal with >> topics in terms of the very end points and extremes, >> and this has brought a lot of criticism and >> misunderstandings down on his head, especially from >> our generation. Mainly I deal with it by simply >> ignoring the passages of Hegel which go to God and >> the Absolute Idea, World History and so on. I >> recently put an article on my website and Hegel and >> Teleology, in which I specifically advised people to >> read Hegel without obsessing on these excesses. I >> should have put something to this effect in the book. >> You are right there. >> >> (2) Hegel's writing on language are in the Philosophy >> of Subjective Spirit, and they are not very >> interesting, I thought, in the context of linguistics >> today. But I can imagine that if Linguistics was your >> thing, then reading the Logic you would see Language >> everywhere. It is like that. But my book is "Hegel >> for Social Movements" not "Hegel for Linguists." >> >> (3) I must have not made myself clear, David, >> somehow. Hegel completely supported the Haitian >> Revolution and he was a complete Realist in >> International Relations, which he called "the animal >> kingdom of the spirit." He said states should honour >> treaties that they have entered into, but that's all. >> Quite confronting for the modern reader. It was Kant >> who promoted a "United Nations" and Fichte who used >> recognition of national sovereignty as a model for >> intersubjective relations. For Hegel, there was >> nothing higher than the nation state. >> >> The term "immanent critique" actually dates from the >> Frankfurt School. Hegel never used the term. But the >> Logic is clearly the model of immanent critique. >> Hegel was actually pretty dogmatic in how he >> critiqued his contemporary protagonists. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/09/2019 8:15 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >>> I'm reading "Hegel for Social Movements", and I >>> highly recommend it, particularly to Helena. >>> Although Andy doesn't say very much about his own >>> rich experience in trade unionism, it clearly >>> illuminates a lot of his examples. >>> >>> I have three questions though. They are questions >>> that I kept stumbling over when I read the Logic and >>> I have yet to really find anything that answers them >>> in Andy's book. >>> >>> First of all, why is Hegel so big on purity? He is >>> always talking about pure being, and absolute idea. >>> I guess I don't believe in purity--I not only don't >>> believe it exists, I am not even sure it should exist. >>> >>> Secondly, one of the delights of Andy's book is that >>> he likes to switch back and forth between (e.g.) the >>> Logic and the Grundrisse.??Bloomfield remarks that >>> when he read Capital he thought it was a book about >>> linguistics (because of the part on exchange value >>> and use value, which does look kind of Saussurean if >>> you squint a little!) A lot of what Andy is saying >>> about how movements become first conscious of their >>> own existence (there is a line like that in >>> Malraux's "Les Conquerants"--les coolies ont >>> decouvert ils existent, seulement qu'ils >>> existent....), and then become conscious of their >>> internal differences--these seem to be statements >>> about the development of LANGUAGE and not simply >>> language-pure consciousness. So why so little >>> explicit treatment of language? >>> >>> Thirdly, Andy sometimes?slips into Hegelian (rather >>> than Marxist) politics, e.g. on Haiti (p.?55) and >>> and when he considers "international law" an >>> absolute (35).?Haiti did not?slip >>> into?neocolonialism because of some lack of >>> international?civil society but BECAUSE of that >>> "international community" and still is! >>> >>> (Andy--I thought "immanent critique" (the practice, >>> not the term) was Kant, not Hegel! How is Hegel's >>> use of the practice different from Kant's?) >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Article: >>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story >>> without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s >>> construalism in understanding narratives by >>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> To link to this article: >>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> Some e-prints available at: >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190902/69c7c9a0/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Sep 2 16:41:08 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 08:41:08 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel for Social Movements In-Reply-To: <969b3ab5-34ac-36c3-939f-c1676558e6c7@marxists.org> References: <40656010-5246-b878-4ad5-9991664ada33@marxists.org> <9F4CE5A5-047B-4C6E-84C0-EC4EEF740326@gmail.com> <969b3ab5-34ac-36c3-939f-c1676558e6c7@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy: In the closing page of your book, you argue that solidarity is the Urphanomenon of the socialist movement, and even that when solidarity becomes a universal concept, socialism will be already achieved. As you have said elsewhere, a lot has to happen before that comes about! On the penultimate pages, though, you argue that solidarity involves struggling with others under their direction: "You do it their way, and not your own".. Now I think I see why you found the transitional programme "fake". In it, Trotsky firmly argues that the Soviet Union and the Comintern had absolutely no business struggling for the liberation of China from foreign domination under the direction of the Guomindang (the KMT). Similarly, a gay or a black worker who joins a trade union in the US has to struggle under the direction of the union leadership, and has no right to raise demands that that leadership would disapprove of? Who exactly decides who these directors are? Is the present day Democratic Party the directorship of the struggle against Donald Trump and Republicanism? Are the Remainers in the Tory Party the defenders of democracy in Britain? Is Jeremy Corbyn? David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:56 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > Right. I never saw chs 5&6 of Thinking and Speech as being about > Linguistics. I took them as being about *concept development*. There is > indeed a vast synergy between Hegel and Vygotsky, when you line LSV's > developmental psychology with Hegel's Logic. Striking. And the *differences > *in detail are interesting too. > > But this close comparison of Vygotsky and Hegel is the topic of another > book. This is for social movements. I "use" Vygotsky and CHAT people will > see it, but until the last few pages it is a kinda hidden agenda. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 2/09/2019 7:20 am, David Kellogg wrote: > > Andy-- > > So it's not "Hegel for Linguists"? I'm not so sure. It depends what kind > of linguist you are, I think. Systemic-functional linguistics is an > explicitly Marxist approach (see Halliday's "The Influence of Marxism", in > "Halliday in the Twenty-first Century"), and Halliday himself got his start > in linguistics in one of the great social movements of the twentieth > century--the Chinese revolution. Ruqaiya Hasan certainly knew Hegel better > than I did. > > The reason I mention it is that, we are re-translating Chapter Five of T&S > to be Chapter Ten of Pedology of the Adolescent (we thought this would > involve minor changes, but our language skills have changed alot since we > did T&S twelve years ago). Being rather "visual-illustrative" (there's a > good Russian word for this, but no very good word in English), I got caught > up in your God's Eye View of the Hegel universe on p. 157. And the left leg > of it, the Logic, still looks to me like a map of Chapter Five/Ten. > > Syncretic heaps are pure being--they are based on quantity, quality, and > measure. Complexes are syncretic heaps which are reorganized by reflection, > by appearance, and ultimately (pseudoconceptually) by actuality. The real > concept is the unity of subject, object, and idea--but also a > recapitulation of the syncretic heap (Subject only), the complex (Object), > and the Act-ual. > > Vygotsky struggles a little with the Logic because it's kind of "outside > in": the genetic law insists that every function appears twice, first > inter- and then intra-personally. That means that the child's own > development happens for others before it happens for the child himself or > herself. And that means that the starting point is not one but two. > > So for example Paula Towsey, in her paper in MCA ("Wolves in Sheep's > Clothing", Towsey and Macdonald 2009), says that Vygotsky uses > "pseudoconcept" in two contradictory ways--first, as an umbrella term that > covers ALL the complexes (and that's how she's labelled her pictures). > Secondly, as a unique stage WITHIN complexes--the highest, transitional > form, the bridge to the concept. > > I think one way to resolve this contradiction is to say that Chapter > Five/Ten is abstraction in action--it's a kind of desert island on which > children play without adults, and the child's forms of thinking display > what they would be without any adult influence. But what we see in "real" > life is mostly pseudoconcepts, because in real life the starting point is > not one but two. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:58 AM Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> OK, OK, I get it. I am a bit behind in doing my reviewing assignments >> because of shifting house from Vermont back to CA. My first reaction after >> whipping through Andy's first chapter was an uncanny sense that this book >> was indeed written directly with me in mind. I guess ?Me? would mean any >> person who started out not being ?political? (in my case, an English comp >> and literature person) and came into the world of social movements by >> bumping up against reality often enough and now wants to make sense of it. >> >> >> OK, I?ll get on it! >> >> H >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2019, at 6:30 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Glad you're enjoying it, David. I hope that I will have my copies soon >> too! Both you and Helena have managed to get copies before me! >> >> Your questions: (1) Hegel does tend to deal with topics in terms of the >> very end points and extremes, and this has brought a lot of criticism and >> misunderstandings down on his head, especially from our generation. Mainly >> I deal with it by simply ignoring the passages of Hegel which go to God and >> the Absolute Idea, World History and so on. I recently put an article on my >> website and Hegel and Teleology, in which I specifically advised people to >> read Hegel without obsessing on these excesses. I should have put something >> to this effect in the book. You are right there. >> >> (2) Hegel's writing on language are in the Philosophy of Subjective >> Spirit, and they are not very interesting, I thought, in the context of >> linguistics today. But I can imagine that if Linguistics was your thing, >> then reading the Logic you would see Language everywhere. It is like that. >> But my book is "Hegel for Social Movements" not "Hegel for Linguists." >> >> (3) I must have not made myself clear, David, somehow. Hegel completely >> supported the Haitian Revolution and he was a complete Realist in >> International Relations, which he called "the animal kingdom of the >> spirit." He said states should honour treaties that they have entered into, >> but that's all. Quite confronting for the modern reader. It was Kant who >> promoted a "United Nations" and Fichte who used recognition of national >> sovereignty as a model for intersubjective relations. For Hegel, there was >> nothing higher than the nation state. >> >> The term "immanent critique" actually dates from the Frankfurt School. >> Hegel never used the term. But the Logic is clearly the model of immanent >> critique. Hegel was actually pretty dogmatic in how he critiqued his >> contemporary protagonists. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 1/09/2019 8:15 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> I'm reading "Hegel for Social Movements", and I highly recommend it, >> particularly to Helena. Although Andy doesn't say very much about his own >> rich experience in trade unionism, it clearly illuminates a lot of his >> examples. >> >> I have three questions though. They are questions that I kept stumbling >> over when I read the Logic and I have yet to really find anything that >> answers them in Andy's book. >> >> First of all, why is Hegel so big on purity? He is always talking about >> pure being, and absolute idea. I guess I don't believe in purity--I not >> only don't believe it exists, I am not even sure it should exist. >> >> Secondly, one of the delights of Andy's book is that he likes to switch >> back and forth between (e.g.) the Logic and the Grundrisse. Bloomfield >> remarks that when he read Capital he thought it was a book about >> linguistics (because of the part on exchange value and use value, which >> does look kind of Saussurean if you squint a little!) A lot of what Andy is >> saying about how movements become first conscious of their own existence >> (there is a line like that in Malraux's "Les Conquerants"--les coolies ont >> decouvert ils existent, seulement qu'ils existent....), and then become >> conscious of their internal differences--these seem to be statements about >> the development of LANGUAGE and not simply language-pure consciousness. So >> why so little explicit treatment of language? >> >> Thirdly, Andy sometimes slips into Hegelian (rather than Marxist) >> politics, e.g. on Haiti (p. 55) and and when he considers "international >> law" an absolute (35). Haiti did not slip into neocolonialism because of >> some lack of international civil society but BECAUSE of that "international >> community" and still is! >> >> (Andy--I thought "immanent critique" (the practice, not the term) was >> Kant, not Hegel! How is Hegel's use of the practice different from Kant's?) >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >> understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190903/5e738f50/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Sep 2 17:20:35 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:20:35 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegel for Social Movements In-Reply-To: References: <40656010-5246-b878-4ad5-9991664ada33@marxists.org> <9F4CE5A5-047B-4C6E-84C0-EC4EEF740326@gmail.com> <969b3ab5-34ac-36c3-939f-c1676558e6c7@marxists.org> Message-ID: <596e1706-d19d-51d7-9c43-687dfcc709d8@marxists.org> So you'd prefer a Popular Front in which the Communist leadership appeals to the workers over the heads of their leaders , and who are being "misled," to defy their leaders and join the Communists? All this belongs to history, David. We do not have giant movements like the Comintern and the KMT leading mass movements of workers. I am looking at the reality in modern neoliberal countries. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 3/09/2019 9:41 am, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy: > > In the closing page of your book, you argue that > solidarity is the Urphanomenon of the socialist movement, > and even that when solidarity becomes a universal concept, > socialism will be already achieved. As you have said > elsewhere, a lot has to happen before that comes about! > > On the penultimate pages, though, you argue that > solidarity involves struggling with others under their > direction: "You do it their way, and not your own".. Now I > think I see why you found the transitional programme > "fake". In it, Trotsky firmly argues that the Soviet Union > and the Comintern had absolutely no business struggling > for the liberation of China from foreign domination under > the direction of the Guomindang (the KMT). Similarly,?a > gay or a black worker who joins a trade union in the US > has to struggle under the direction of the union > leadership, and has no right to raise demands that that > leadership would disapprove of? > > Who exactly decides who these directors are? Is the > present day Democratic Party the directorship of the > struggle against Donald Trump and Republicanism? Are the > Remainers in the Tory Party the defenders of democracy in > Britain? Is Jeremy Corbyn? > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:56 AM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Right. I never saw chs 5&6 of Thinking and Speech as > being about Linguistics. I took them as being about > /concept development/. There is indeed a vast synergy > between Hegel and Vygotsky, when you line LSV's > developmental psychology with Hegel's Logic. Striking. > And the /differences /in detail are interesting too. > > But this close comparison of Vygotsky and Hegel is the > topic of another book. This is for social movements. I > "use" Vygotsky and CHAT people will see it, but until > the last few pages it is a kinda hidden agenda. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 2/09/2019 7:20 am, David Kellogg wrote: >> Andy-- >> >> So it's not "Hegel for Linguists"? I'm not so sure. >> It depends what kind of linguist you are, I think. >> Systemic-functional linguistics is an explicitly >> Marxist approach (see Halliday's "The Influence of >> Marxism", in "Halliday in the Twenty-first Century"), >> and Halliday himself got his start in linguistics in >> one of the great social movements of the twentieth >> century--the Chinese revolution. Ruqaiya Hasan >> certainly knew?Hegel better than I did. >> >> The reason I mention it is that, we are >> re-translating Chapter Five of T&S to be Chapter Ten >> of Pedology of the Adolescent (we thought this would >> involve minor changes, but our language skills have >> changed alot since we did T&S twelve years ago). >> Being rather "visual-illustrative" (there's a good >> Russian word for this, but no very good word in >> English),?I got caught up in your God's Eye View of >> the Hegel universe on p. 157. And the left leg of it, >> the Logic, still looks to me like a map of Chapter >> Five/Ten. >> >> Syncretic heaps are pure being--they are based on >> quantity, quality, and measure. Complexes are >> syncretic heaps which are reorganized by reflection, >> by appearance, and ultimately (pseudoconceptually) by >> actuality. The real concept is the unity of subject, >> object, and idea--but also a recapitulation of the >> syncretic heap (Subject only), the complex (Object), >> and the Act-ual. >> >> Vygotsky struggles a little with the Logic because >> it's kind of "outside in": the genetic law?insists >> that every function appears twice, first inter- and >> then intra-personally. That means that the child's >> own development happens for others before it happens >> for the child himself or herself. And that means that >> the starting point is not one but two. >> >> So for example Paula Towsey, in her paper in MCA >> ("Wolves in Sheep's Clothing", Towsey and Macdonald >> 2009), says that Vygotsky uses "pseudoconcept" in two >> contradictory ways--first, as an umbrella term that >> covers ALL the complexes (and that's how she's >> labelled her pictures). Secondly, as?a unique >> stage?WITHIN complexes--the highest, transitional >> form, the bridge to the concept. >> >> I think one way to resolve this contradiction is to >> say that Chapter Five/Ten is?abstraction in >> action--it's a kind of desert island on which >> children play without adults, and the child's forms >> of thinking display what they would be without any >> adult influence. But what we see in "real" life is >> mostly pseudoconcepts, because in real life the >> starting point is not one but two. >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without >> SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s >> construalism in understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: >> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:58 AM Helena Worthen >> > > wrote: >> >> OK, OK, I get it. I am a bit behind in doing my >> reviewing assignments because of shifting house >> from Vermont back to CA. My first reaction after >> whipping through Andy's first chapter was an >> uncanny sense that this book was indeed written >> directly with me in mind. I guess ?Me? would mean >> any person who started out not being ?political? >> (in my case, an English comp and literature >> person) and came into the world of social >> movements by bumping up against reality often >> enough and now wants to make sense of it. >> >> OK, I?ll get on it! >> >> H >> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> >> helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 1, 2019, at 6:30 AM, Andy Blunden >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Glad you're enjoying it, David. I hope that I >>> will have my copies soon too! Both you and >>> Helena have managed to get copies before me! >>> >>> Your questions: (1) Hegel does tend to deal with >>> topics in terms of the very end points and >>> extremes, and this has brought a lot of >>> criticism and misunderstandings down on his >>> head, especially from our generation. Mainly I >>> deal with it by simply ignoring the passages of >>> Hegel which go to God and the Absolute Idea, >>> World History and so on. I recently put an >>> article on my website and Hegel and Teleology, >>> in which I specifically advised people to read >>> Hegel without obsessing on these excesses. I >>> should have put something to this effect in the >>> book. You are right there. >>> >>> (2) Hegel's writing on language are in the >>> Philosophy of Subjective Spirit, and they are >>> not very interesting, I thought, in the context >>> of linguistics today. But I can imagine that if >>> Linguistics was your thing, then reading the >>> Logic you would see Language everywhere. It is >>> like that. But my book is "Hegel for Social >>> Movements" not "Hegel for Linguists." >>> >>> (3) I must have not made myself clear, David, >>> somehow. Hegel completely supported the Haitian >>> Revolution and he was a complete Realist in >>> International Relations, which he called "the >>> animal kingdom of the spirit." He said states >>> should honour treaties that they have entered >>> into, but that's all. Quite confronting for the >>> modern reader. It was Kant who promoted a >>> "United Nations" and Fichte who used recognition >>> of national sovereignty as a model for >>> intersubjective relations. For Hegel, there was >>> nothing higher than the nation state. >>> >>> The term "immanent critique" actually dates from >>> the Frankfurt School. Hegel never used the term. >>> But the Logic is clearly the model of immanent >>> critique. Hegel was actually pretty dogmatic in >>> how he critiqued his contemporary protagonists. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 1/09/2019 8:15 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> I'm reading "Hegel for Social Movements", and I >>>> highly recommend it, particularly to Helena. >>>> Although Andy doesn't say very much about his >>>> own rich experience in trade unionism, it >>>> clearly illuminates a lot of his examples. >>>> >>>> I have three questions though. They are >>>> questions that I kept stumbling over when I >>>> read the Logic and I have yet to really find >>>> anything that answers them in Andy's book. >>>> >>>> First of all, why is Hegel so big on purity? He >>>> is always talking about pure being, and >>>> absolute idea. I guess I don't believe in >>>> purity--I not only don't believe it exists, I >>>> am not even sure it should exist. >>>> >>>> Secondly, one of the delights of Andy's book is >>>> that he likes to switch back and forth between >>>> (e.g.) the Logic and the >>>> Grundrisse.??Bloomfield remarks that when he >>>> read Capital he thought it was a book about >>>> linguistics (because of the part on exchange >>>> value and use value, which does look kind of >>>> Saussurean if you squint a little!) A lot of >>>> what Andy is saying about how movements become >>>> first conscious of their own existence (there >>>> is a line like that in Malraux's "Les >>>> Conquerants"--les coolies ont decouvert ils >>>> existent, seulement qu'ils existent....), and >>>> then become conscious of their internal >>>> differences--these seem to be statements about >>>> the development of LANGUAGE and not simply >>>> language-pure consciousness. So why so little >>>> explicit treatment of language? >>>> >>>> Thirdly, Andy sometimes?slips into Hegelian >>>> (rather than Marxist) politics, e.g. on Haiti >>>> (p.?55) and and when he considers >>>> "international law" an absolute (35).?Haiti did >>>> not?slip into?neocolonialism because of some >>>> lack of international?civil society but BECAUSE >>>> of that "international community" and still is! >>>> >>>> (Andy--I thought "immanent critique" (the >>>> practice, not the term) was Kant, not Hegel! >>>> How is Hegel's use of the practice different >>>> from Kant's?) >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Sangmyung University >>>> >>>> New Article: >>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story >>>> without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and >>>> Halliday?s construalism in understanding >>>> narratives by >>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> To link to this article: >>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> >>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190903/df4b9df9/attachment.html From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Sep 6 06:49:16 2019 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 13:49:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vygotsky and texting Message-ID: So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and speech, thought and word because - well I wanted to and I am the instructor (can't beat the perqs). I run across something really interesting that would not have had much meaning pre-Internet - well meaning (or sense, I don't know), but not as much as today. He is talking about the different forms of communication and he talks about how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we move inner speech out to social communication) but not really in written speech. This was mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it made me think of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to abbreviate all the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it is written communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations but it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of sub-Reddits some of which have a great deal of abbreviated communication. We also got in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean people use them, but really why do we have them and why do people use them so easily (they were originally organic and then tech companies began standardizing them. It made me wonder, is micro-blogging and blogging actually a new and different form of mediated communication, different from both verbal and formal written communication. Does anybody know of any work on this. I am having my students do their blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis and memes. I am really interested to see what happens. Anybody know of any research on this? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but I am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in class when discussing this). Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/db642ec0/attachment.html From john.haught@wright.edu Fri Sep 6 07:40:25 2019 From: john.haught@wright.edu (Haught, John R.) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:40:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John McWhorter has a TED talk in which he describes texting as "fingered speech" claiming it is a new form of communication in which we, for the first time, write like we speak. I haven't searched to see what he has written on that but it might be a starting point. ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Glassman, Michael Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 9:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Vygotsky and texting So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and speech, thought and word because ? well I wanted to and I am the instructor (can?t beat the perqs). I run across something really interesting that would not have had much meaning pre-Internet ? well meaning (or sense, I don?t know), but not as much as today. He is talking about the different forms of communication and he talks about how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we move inner speech out to social communication) but not really in written speech. This was mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it made me think of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to abbreviate all the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it is written communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations but it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of sub-Reddits some of which have a great deal of abbreviated communication. We also got in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean people use them, but really why do we have them and why do people use them so easily (they were originally organic and then tech companies began standardizing them. It made me wonder, is micro-blogging and blogging actually a new and different form of mediated communication, different from both verbal and formal written communication. Does anybody know of any work on this. I am having my students do their blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis and memes. I am really interested to see what happens. Anybody know of any research on this? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but I am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in class when discussing this). Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/aa9a1ca9/attachment.html From robsub@ariadne.org.uk Fri Sep 6 08:22:41 2019 From: robsub@ariadne.org.uk (robsub@ariadne.org.uk) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 16:22:41 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <087dcb1d-1ff7-30c8-46fd-3cdbe3a1fc3c@ariadne.org.uk> "we, for the first time, write like we speak" - but just look at a transcript of an actual covnersation, and it is nothing like the way we speak. So - I assume - it must be mediated very differently from spoken speech. Rob On 06/09/2019 15:40, Haught, John R. wrote: > John McWhorter has a TED talk in which he describes texting as > "fingered speech" claiming it is a new form of communication in which > we, for the first time, write like we speak. I haven't searched to see > what he has written on that but it might be a starting point. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Glassman, Michael > > *Sent:* Friday, September 6, 2019 9:49 AM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Vygotsky and texting > > So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his > work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and > speech, thought and word because ? well I wanted to and I am the > instructor (can?t beat the perqs). I run across something really > interesting that would not have had much meaning pre-Internet ? well > meaning (or sense, I don?t know), but not as much as today. He is > talking about the different forms of communication and he talks about > how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we move inner speech out to > social communication) but not really in written speech. This was > mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it made me think > of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to abbreviate all > the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it is written > communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations but > it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of > sub-Reddits some of which have a great deal of abbreviated > communication. We also got in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean > people use them, but really why do we have them and why do people use > them so easily (they were originally organic and then tech companies > began standardizing them. It made me wonder, is micro-blogging and > blogging actually a new and different form of mediated communication, > different from both verbal and formal written communication.? Does > anybody know of any work on this. I am having my students do their > blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis and memes.? > I am really interested to see what happens.? Anybody know of any > research on this?? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but > I am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in > class when discussing this). > > Michael > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/cb0201f9/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Fri Sep 6 08:26:16 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:26:16 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: McCulloch, Gretchen (2019). ?Emoji and Other Internet Gestures.? In *Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language*. New York: Riverhead Books. NB: I'm not so sure that abbreviation hasn't always been around in writing too. -greg p.s., do you think the fact of abbreviation in writing makes much difference to Vygotsky's argument? On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Glassman, Michael wrote: > So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his > work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and speech, > thought and word because ? well I wanted to and I am the instructor (can?t > beat the perqs). I run across something really interesting that would not > have had much meaning pre-Internet ? well meaning (or sense, I don?t know), > but not as much as today. He is talking about the different forms of > communication and he talks about how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we > move inner speech out to social communication) but not really in written > speech. This was mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it > made me think of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to > abbreviate all the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it > is written communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations > but it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of sub-Reddits > some of which have a great deal of abbreviated communication. We also got > in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean people use them, but really why do > we have them and why do people use them so easily (they were originally > organic and then tech companies began standardizing them. It made me > wonder, is micro-blogging and blogging actually a new and different form of > mediated communication, different from both verbal and formal written > communication. Does anybody know of any work on this. I am having my > students do their blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis > and memes. I am really interested to see what happens. Anybody know of > any research on this? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but I > am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in class > when discussing this). > > > > Michael > > > > > -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/d3a1284b/attachment.html From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Sep 6 08:36:41 2019 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:36:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Greg, In my current reading abbreviation is central to Vygotsky?s argument. Inner speech is pure predicate (at least mature and much of the time). Written speech is heavily contextualized and would not trust abbreviation. Verbal speech is abbreviated because we are with the interlocutors, sharing the experience. We talked about written abbreviations in our class. Generally, pre-social media it was only done if it was preceded by a close social relationship with a verbal history. Thanks why this is so interesting. Michael From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Greg Thompson Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 11:26 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting McCulloch, Gretchen (2019). ?Emoji and Other Internet Gestures.? In Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language. New York: Riverhead Books. NB: I'm not so sure that abbreviation hasn't always been around in writing too. -greg p.s., do you think the fact of abbreviation in writing makes much difference to Vygotsky's argument? On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Glassman, Michael > wrote: So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and speech, thought and word because ? well I wanted to and I am the instructor (can?t beat the perqs). I run across something really interesting that would not have had much meaning pre-Internet ? well meaning (or sense, I don?t know), but not as much as today. He is talking about the different forms of communication and he talks about how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we move inner speech out to social communication) but not really in written speech. This was mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it made me think of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to abbreviate all the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it is written communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations but it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of sub-Reddits some of which have a great deal of abbreviated communication. We also got in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean people use them, but really why do we have them and why do people use them so easily (they were originally organic and then tech companies began standardizing them. It made me wonder, is micro-blogging and blogging actually a new and different form of mediated communication, different from both verbal and formal written communication. Does anybody know of any work on this. I am having my students do their blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis and memes. I am really interested to see what happens. Anybody know of any research on this? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but I am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in class when discussing this). Michael -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/b735dc4a/attachment.html From glassman.13@osu.edu Fri Sep 6 08:39:42 2019 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:39:42 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: But I think I agree with Rob. We don?t seem to abbreviate in the same way. We are not writing like we speak seems too simplistic. Michael From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Greg Thompson Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 11:26 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting McCulloch, Gretchen (2019). ?Emoji and Other Internet Gestures.? In Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language. New York: Riverhead Books. NB: I'm not so sure that abbreviation hasn't always been around in writing too. -greg p.s., do you think the fact of abbreviation in writing makes much difference to Vygotsky's argument? On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Glassman, Michael > wrote: So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and speech, thought and word because ? well I wanted to and I am the instructor (can?t beat the perqs). I run across something really interesting that would not have had much meaning pre-Internet ? well meaning (or sense, I don?t know), but not as much as today. He is talking about the different forms of communication and he talks about how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we move inner speech out to social communication) but not really in written speech. This was mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it made me think of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to abbreviate all the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it is written communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations but it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of sub-Reddits some of which have a great deal of abbreviated communication. We also got in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean people use them, but really why do we have them and why do people use them so easily (they were originally organic and then tech companies began standardizing them. It made me wonder, is micro-blogging and blogging actually a new and different form of mediated communication, different from both verbal and formal written communication. Does anybody know of any work on this. I am having my students do their blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis and memes. I am really interested to see what happens. Anybody know of any research on this? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but I am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in class when discussing this). Michael -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/e0e93d1e/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Sep 6 09:35:18 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 17:35:18 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This cropped up a while ago in the context of twitter usage. The basic point was that frequent exchanges made up for the dearth of explicit context. This is different, however, to personal predication and sign use. E.g. to contrast notes with essays. Huw On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > In my current reading abbreviation is central to Vygotsky?s argument. > Inner speech is pure predicate (at least mature and much of the time). > Written speech is heavily contextualized and would not trust abbreviation. > Verbal speech is abbreviated because we are with the interlocutors, sharing > the experience. We talked about written abbreviations in our class. > Generally, pre-social media it was only done if it was preceded by a close > social relationship with a verbal history. > > > > Thanks why this is so interesting. > > > > Michael > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu *On > Behalf Of *Greg Thompson > *Sent:* Friday, September 06, 2019 11:26 AM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting > > > > McCulloch, Gretchen (2019). ?Emoji and Other Internet Gestures.? In *Because > Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language*. New York: Riverhead > Books. > > NB: I'm not so sure that abbreviation hasn't always been around in writing > too. > > -greg > > p.s., do you think the fact of abbreviation in writing makes much > difference to Vygotsky's argument? > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his > work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and speech, > thought and word because ? well I wanted to and I am the instructor (can?t > beat the perqs). I run across something really interesting that would not > have had much meaning pre-Internet ? well meaning (or sense, I don?t know), > but not as much as today. He is talking about the different forms of > communication and he talks about how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we > move inner speech out to social communication) but not really in written > speech. This was mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it > made me think of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to > abbreviate all the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it > is written communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations > but it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of sub-Reddits > some of which have a great deal of abbreviated communication. We also got > in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean people use them, but really why do > we have them and why do people use them so easily (they were originally > organic and then tech companies began standardizing them. It made me > wonder, is micro-blogging and blogging actually a new and different form of > mediated communication, different from both verbal and formal written > communication. Does anybody know of any work on this. I am having my > students do their blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis > and memes. I am really interested to see what happens. Anybody know of > any research on this? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but I > am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in class > when discussing this). > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/9850bd1b/attachment.html From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Fri Sep 6 10:11:19 2019 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 13:11:19 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a wonderful thread. I am in the process of working on a proposal to get a "not-it? emoji approved (Nose goes game meaning touch your nose to call ?not it.? The application and process is quite in depth. So is there another connection when the creation of these abbreviated speech forms are so tied to systems? On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 1:05 PM Huw Lloyd wrote: > This cropped up a while ago in the context of twitter usage. The basic > point was that frequent exchanges made up for the dearth of explicit > context. > > This is different, however, to personal predication and sign use. E.g. to > contrast notes with essays. > > Huw > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> >> In my current reading abbreviation is central to Vygotsky?s argument. >> Inner speech is pure predicate (at least mature and much of the time). >> Written speech is heavily contextualized and would not trust abbreviation. >> Verbal speech is abbreviated because we are with the interlocutors, sharing >> the experience. We talked about written abbreviations in our class. >> Generally, pre-social media it was only done if it was preceded by a close >> social relationship with a verbal history. >> >> >> >> Thanks why this is so interesting. >> >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> *On Behalf Of *Greg Thompson >> *Sent:* Friday, September 06, 2019 11:26 AM >> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting >> >> >> >> McCulloch, Gretchen (2019). ?Emoji and Other Internet Gestures.? In *Because >> Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language*. New York: Riverhead >> Books. >> >> NB: I'm not so sure that abbreviation hasn't always been around in >> writing too. >> >> -greg >> >> p.s., do you think the fact of abbreviation in writing makes much >> difference to Vygotsky's argument? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Glassman, Michael >> wrote: >> >> So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his >> work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and speech, >> thought and word because ? well I wanted to and I am the instructor (can?t >> beat the perqs). I run across something really interesting that would not >> have had much meaning pre-Internet ? well meaning (or sense, I don?t know), >> but not as much as today. He is talking about the different forms of >> communication and he talks about how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we >> move inner speech out to social communication) but not really in written >> speech. This was mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it >> made me think of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to >> abbreviate all the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it >> is written communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations >> but it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of sub-Reddits >> some of which have a great deal of abbreviated communication. We also got >> in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean people use them, but really why do >> we have them and why do people use them so easily (they were originally >> organic and then tech companies began standardizing them. It made me >> wonder, is micro-blogging and blogging actually a new and different form of >> mediated communication, different from both verbal and formal written >> communication. Does anybody know of any work on this. I am having my >> students do their blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis >> and memes. I am really interested to see what happens. Anybody know of >> any research on this? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but I >> am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in class >> when discussing this). >> >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/cce1cde6/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Fri Sep 6 12:13:13 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 13:13:13 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Love the "not it" emoji but you may have to explain that to those who haven't played the game... Yes, highly contextualized (although I think Michael used that word in the opposite sense.... I think) -greg On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:33 AM Greg Mcverry wrote: > This is a wonderful thread. > > I am in the process of working on a proposal to get a "not-it? emoji > approved (Nose goes game meaning touch your nose to call ?not it.? > > The application and process is quite in depth. > > So is there another connection when the creation of these abbreviated > speech forms are so tied to systems? > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 1:05 PM Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> This cropped up a while ago in the context of twitter usage. The basic >> point was that frequent exchanges made up for the dearth of explicit >> context. >> >> This is different, however, to personal predication and sign use. E.g. to >> contrast notes with essays. >> >> Huw >> >> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Glassman, Michael >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> >>> >>> In my current reading abbreviation is central to Vygotsky?s argument. >>> Inner speech is pure predicate (at least mature and much of the time). >>> Written speech is heavily contextualized and would not trust abbreviation. >>> Verbal speech is abbreviated because we are with the interlocutors, sharing >>> the experience. We talked about written abbreviations in our class. >>> Generally, pre-social media it was only done if it was preceded by a close >>> social relationship with a verbal history. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks why this is so interesting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> *On Behalf Of *Greg Thompson >>> *Sent:* Friday, September 06, 2019 11:26 AM >>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky and texting >>> >>> >>> >>> McCulloch, Gretchen (2019). ?Emoji and Other Internet Gestures.? In *Because >>> Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language*. New York: Riverhead >>> Books. >>> >>> NB: I'm not so sure that abbreviation hasn't always been around in >>> writing too. >>> >>> -greg >>> >>> p.s., do you think the fact of abbreviation in writing makes much >>> difference to Vygotsky's argument? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Glassman, Michael >>> wrote: >>> >>> So I am reading Vygotsky with a class. The first time I am reading his >>> work in a few years. We are starting with chapter 7 of thinking and speech, >>> thought and word because ? well I wanted to and I am the instructor (can?t >>> beat the perqs). I run across something really interesting that would not >>> have had much meaning pre-Internet ? well meaning (or sense, I don?t know), >>> but not as much as today. He is talking about the different forms of >>> communication and he talks about how we abbreviate in verbal speech (our we >>> move inner speech out to social communication) but not really in written >>> speech. This was mostly true the first time I read it. But this time it >>> made me think of blogging and especially micro-blogging. We tend to >>> abbreviate all the time, more than in normal verbal communication, but it >>> is written communication. In class we of course discussed space limitations >>> but it seems more than that. Somebody brought up the example of sub-Reddits >>> some of which have a great deal of abbreviated communication. We also got >>> in to a big discussion of emojis. I mean people use them, but really why do >>> we have them and why do people use them so easily (they were originally >>> organic and then tech companies began standardizing them. It made me >>> wonder, is micro-blogging and blogging actually a new and different form of >>> mediated communication, different from both verbal and formal written >>> communication. Does anybody know of any work on this. I am having my >>> students do their blog assignments this week using abbreviations and emojis >>> and memes. I am really interested to see what happens. Anybody know of >>> any research on this? Have any thoughts? (I would do an emoji to end but I >>> am really bad at them. But I will say I was pwnd by my students in class >>> when discussing this). >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190906/9d0210e0/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Sat Sep 7 09:38:46 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 11:38:46 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Job announcement: Learning Sciences position at Harvard Graduate School of Education References: <57185294-E8CE-4E45-A2AB-64AD693D2B70@contoso.com> Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Star, Jon R" > Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Job announcement: Learning Sciences position at Harvard Graduate School of Education > Date: September 6, 2019 at 11:26:29 AM GMT-5 > To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" > > Dear colleagues, > > The Harvard Graduate School of Education is conducting a tenure-track (Assistant/Associate) faculty search in the area of Learning Sciences. The job description can be found here . Please forward to your networks! (And apologies for duplicate postings.) > > Thanks ? > > -- j* > Jon > > -- > > Jon R. Star > Professor of Education > Harvard Graduate School of Education > Jon_Star@harvard.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/20190907/add34a13/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Sep 9 20:16:36 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:16:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Position Availability at San Jose State University In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Emily Slusser Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:58 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Position Availability at San Jose State University To: *San Jos? State University *- San Jos?, California *POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT* *Subject to Budgetary Approval* *Department: *Child and Adolescent Development *Job ID (JOID):* 25142 *Specialization: *Language Development *Rank: *Assistant Professor/ Tenure-Track The Department of Child and Adolescent Development (ChAD) within the Connie L. Lurie College of Education at San Jos? State University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position at the rank of Assistant Professor. We seek candidates with research and teaching interests in language development, including (but not limited to) bi/multilingualism; contexts for language learning; interactions of language and culture; language learning across development; atypical language development; and/or the role of language in social, emotional, and/or cognitive development. We are a team of dedicated teacher-scholars recognized for our commitment to excellent teaching, engaging students in research projects, and promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion in child and adolescent development. The position involves teaching at the undergraduate and graduate level, developing and maintaining an active research program, and engaging in academic, and professional service. Applicants should demonstrate awareness of and sensitivity to educational goals of a multicultural population, a commitment to excellence in teaching and scholarly activity, and an ability to work effectively with students, faculty, and staff from a wide range of ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. *Required Qualifications:* ? Doctorate in Child and Adolescent Development or a related field by time of appointment; ? Demonstrated potential for developing and maintaining a scholarly research program; ? Commitment to excellence in teaching across a range of courses within the department; ? Excellent written and interpersonal communication skills; and ? Applicants should demonstrate an awareness of and sensitivity to the educational goals of a multicultural population as might have been gained in cross-cultural study, training, teaching and other comparable experience. *Preferred Qualifications:* ? Research and teaching experience in language development. ? An interest in practical applications of research across various educational contexts. ? Ability to work collaboratively across departments and disciplines. *Responsibilities:* ? Teach a variety of undergraduate courses, and some Master?s level graduate courses; ? Contribute to curriculum development and innovation; ? Mentor and support undergraduate and Master?s level graduate students; ? Actively engage in a program of research that contributes to the discipline; ? Participate in shared governance at all levels of the university; and ? Candidate must demonstrate awareness and experience understanding the needs of a student population of great diversity ? in age, cultural background, ethnicity, primary language and academic preparation ? through inclusive course materials, teaching strategies and advisement. *Salary Range:* Commensurate with qualifications and experience. *Starting Date: *August 13, 2020 *Eligibility: *Employment is contingent upon proof of eligibility to work in the United States. *Application Procedure:* For full consideration, please submit the following materials by October 1, 2019 to https://apply.interfolio.com/67889 ? Letter of Application (Cover Letter) ? Curriculum Vitae ? Statement of Teaching (a two page description of personal teaching philosophy/approach as well as interests in teaching existing ChAD courses) ? Statement of Research (a two page description of past and planned research agenda) ? Diversity Statement (a one or two page description of experience working with diverse populations and/or potential plans to promote equity, inclusion, and diversity) ? Three (3) Letters of Reference (with contact information) *Inquiries may be directed to:* Cara Maffini, Committee Chair, Department of Child and Adolescent Development at cara.maffini@sjsu.edu . *Please include Job Opening ID (JOID) on all correspondence.* The faculty, students, staff, alumni, and partners of the Connie L. Lurie College of Education are dedicated to creating meaningful, equitable, and inclusive learning experiences for our diverse community. We take an emancipatory stance in our teaching, research, and service activities. In collaboration with our partners across campus and in the community, we strive to make an impact by transforming our schools and shaping our society to become just and democratic. Our Lurie College family includes approximately 55 tenured / tenure-track faculty, 100 lecturers, 20 staff, and 1,800 students across seven different departments. We are looking for colleagues who are dedicated to critically engaging in their teaching and research, who see strength in the diversity of our student community, and who are committed to challenging themselves and the college as we seek to grow and strengthen our work. San Jos? State University enrolls over 33,000 students, a significant percentage of whom are members of minority groups. As such, this position is for scholars interested in a career at a national leader in graduating URM students. SJSU is a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander (AANAPISI) Serving Institution; 40% of our students are first-generation, and 38% are Pell-qualified. The university is currently ranked fifth nationally in increasing student upward mobility. The University is committed to increasing the diversity of its faculty so our disciplines, students, and the community can benefit from multiple ethnic and gender perspectives. San Jos? State University is California?s oldest institution of public higher learning. Located in downtown San Jos? (Pop. 1,000,000) in the heart of Silicon Valley, SJSU is part of one of the most innovative regions in the world. As Silicon Valley?s public university, SJSU combines dynamic teaching, research, and university-industry experiences to prepare students to address the biggest problems facing society. SJSU is a member of the 23-campus California State University (CSU) system. San Jos? State University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. We consider qualified applicants for employment without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, genetic information, medical condition, marital status, veteran status, or disability. This policy applies to all San Jos? State University students, faculty, and staff as well as University programs and activities. Reasonable accommodations are made for applicants with disabilities who self-disclose. Note that all San Jos? State University employees are considered mandated reporters under the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act and are required to comply with the requirements set forth in CSU Executive Order 1083 as a condition of employment. A background check (including a criminal records check) must be completed satisfactorily before any candidate can be offered a position with the CSU. Failure to satisfactorily complete the background check may affect the application status of applicants or continued employment of current CSU employees who apply for the position. The latest San Jos? State University Safety 101 Uniform Campus Crime and Security Report is available. You may request a copy of San Jos? State University?s annual safety report by contacting the University Police Department at (408) 924-2222 or by visiting the University Police Department website at (http://www.sjsu.edu/police.) _______________________________________________ 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 -- fiction is but a form of symbolic action, a mere game of ?as if?, therein lies its true function and its potential for effecting change - R. Ellison --------------------------------------------------- For archival resources relevant to the research of myself and other members of LCHC, visit lchc.ucsd.edu. For a narrative history of the research of LCHC, visit lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190909/04dae623/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ChAD Position Annoucement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 555947 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190909/04dae623/attachment-0001.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Sep 10 09:32:32 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:32:32 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Challenge Deep Poverty: Week 1 In-Reply-To: <556D97DD-C244-4287-8AD7-DDDE129940AB@cantab.net> References: <556D97DD-C244-4287-8AD7-DDDE129940AB@cantab.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Martin Packer Date: Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:22 AM Subject: Fwd: Challenge Deep Poverty: Week 1 To: Gilda Morelli , Barbara Rogoff , Heidi Keller , Nandita Chaudhary* < nandita.chaudhary@gmail.com>, Cole Michael I signed up the "APA challenge? ... Begin forwarded message: *From: *"American Psychological Association" *Subject: **Challenge Deep Poverty: Week 1* *Date: *September 10, 2019 at 10:11:40 AM GMT-5 *To: * *Reply-To: *"American Psychological Association" [image: American Psychological Association] [image: Challenge Deep Poverty: Week 1] APA 5-Week Deep Poverty Initiative Challenge *WEEK 1: WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION* Thank you for joining us to challenge deep poverty. Today kicks off the first of five weeks of learning, growth, and inspiration as we work together to raise awareness of and take action against the deep poverty epidemic in the United States. By the end of Week 1, you will: - know the definition of deep poverty and how it can be measured; - appreciate how the political landscape informs the concept of deep poverty; - be more adept at recognizing the array of opportunities and roles psychologists can have in acting as catalysts to confronting deep poverty; and - develop an understanding of deep poverty in your community. *To start, we encourage you to watch this short video to learn more about the challenge and the Week 1 learning objectives.* [image: Video Screenshot] Next, view our curated a list of resources and daily tasks ranging from reading articles to watching videos to engaging with interactive learning tools that will help you meet this week?s learning goals. You can *access the full list of this week?s challenge tasks here. * Whether you choose to do all the daily tasks or only some of them, our hope is that you become more aware of how deep poverty is impacting your community and communities across the United States *START WEEK 1* *Learn more about APA's Deep Poverty Initiative Challenge. * [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: LinkedIn] ? *American Psychological Association* 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 *apa.org * You are receiving this message to help you make full use of APA resources. Your email address was obtained from the APA Membership Database. Electronic communication, which costs a fraction of printing and mailing, is cost effective and timely. You can now select APA newsletters and research alerts you would like to receive; go to your MyAPA account to opt in to the titles you want. -- fiction is but a form of symbolic action, a mere game of ?as if?, therein lies its true function and its potential for effecting change - R. Ellison --------------------------------------------------- For archival resources relevant to the research of myself and other members of LCHC, visit lchc.ucsd.edu. For a narrative history of the research of LCHC, visit lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190910/65e13921/attachment.html From yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi Wed Sep 11 08:00:28 2019 From: yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi (=?utf-8?B?RW5nZXN0csO2bSwgWXJqw7YgSCBN?=) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:00:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Strong work on Change Laboratories from Latin America Message-ID: Dear colleagues, here are a couple of publications stemming from Change Laboratory interventions conducted in Brazil and Chile. - A new book by Brazilian colleagues, analysing multiple Change Laboratories related to workers? health: Collaborative Development for the Prevention of Occupational Accidents and Diseases: Change Laboratory in Workers? Health, edited by R.A. de G. Vilela, .M. A. Pereira Querol, S. L. Beltran Hurtado, G. C. de Cerveny, and M. G. R. Lopes, M.G.R. New York: Springer ( https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030244194 ) [cid:182f8d12-ecca-454d-a49e-2d1fd7d43608@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com] - A thesis by Carolina Fern?ndez Alvear, Rodrigo Guzm?n Guzm?n, Mar?a Jos? Jorquera Almonte and M?lisen Rivera Olivares from Chile, analyzing a Change Laboratory carried out in "Corporaci?n de Asistencia Judicial de Tarapac??, a free legal/judiciary assistance public service, meant for vulnerable people, one the largest in Chile in its kind. The thesis was supervised by Professor Iv?n Valenzuela Espinoza at Universidad Arturo Prat in Iquique. The thesis (in Spanish) is attached. With best regards, Yrj? Engestr?m -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190911/a40bbd23/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 9783030244194.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 49133 bytes Desc: 9783030244194.jpg Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190911/a40bbd23/attachment-0001.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MASTER TESIS CAJTA FINAL.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3693088 bytes Desc: MASTER TESIS CAJTA FINAL.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190911/a40bbd23/attachment-0001.pdf From mpacker@cantab.net Thu Sep 12 15:59:19 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 17:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> Message-ID: > > > > > > Welcome to our e-newsletter! We'll deliver the latest news and carbon-reducing tips direct to your inbox. We can't wait to share them with you. > > > The Amazon Has True Champions > > > A season filled with intense, human-caused wildfires in the Amazon rainforest has burned thousands of square miles, turned the skies black and raised red flags on an international level. The number of fires is 85% higher than the previous year. > > The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of our planet. It takes in enormous quantities of CO2 and is thought to produce 12-20% of the world?s oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump bringing rain into South America and all over the world. Without rainfall, there will be cultural and agricultural ruin. > > Let?s credit those who have been and continue to act as its guardians. Over the course of thousands of years, the indigenous people of the Amazon have worked to preserve this diverse biome that has contributed immensely to the habitability of the planet. > > They are the ones who can show us the way, we must support and follow them in order to save this vital ecosystem. > Help the indigenous people fight back > > > > News > > > We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The Amazon In August - In 2019 there have been more than 90,000 fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. In August, smoke from the burns blackened the sky in cities as distant as S?o Paulo and caught the world?s attention. > - BuzzFeed.News > > The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And we're doing nothing to stop it - The Amazon shouldn't sting your eyes with smoke, soak your shirt with sweat, and turn the sky dark but that is exactly what is happening when humans set fires there. - CNN > > 9 numbers you need to know to understand the Amazon fires - Thousands of fires burning across Brazil?s Amazon rainforest have captured international attention over the past week. The fires are mainly set by ranchers and farmers seeking to clear land for cultivation. - PBS > > > Learn more about climate > > > Lauren A, TN - Talking to family, friends and coworkers about the climate crisis and making sure they are registered to vote. Tell us what you are doing! > > > > > We always want to hear from you. Reply to this email, write to us at info@cooleffect.org or follow up on social media where we're always open. > > > > > Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Suite 201 | Kentfield, CA 94904 > > > > > > ?2019, All Rights Reserved > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190912/38ca4a7c/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Sep 12 16:35:35 2019 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:35:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty Position (Professorship) at the Harvard Graduate School of Education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:00 PM Rowe, Meredith L. < meredith_rowe@gse.harvard.edu> wrote: > *Silvana and Christopher Pascucci Professorship in Learning Differences* > > The Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) invites applications for a > full-time faculty position at the rank of Professor (with tenure) or > Professor of Practice (non-tenure track) focused on learning differences. > Candidates could focus on any level of the PK-16 educational system and > should work to advance HGSE?s institutional commitment to educational > equity. > > The areas of professional expertise of particular interest as they relate > to learning and individual differences across educational contexts in the > U.S. and/or globally include but are not limited to: supporting students > with identified disabilities and/or learning differences; universal design > for learning; effective models of early intervention and/or tiered > supports; innovations in curriculum and instruction to support individual > learning differences; redesigning and/or personalizing learning > environments; neuroimaging and psychoeducational methods for examining > differences in learning and advancing outcomes; the interplay between > individual differences and environmental factors in learning outcomes; > reducing disproportionality in special education; and sustaining equitable > and inclusive learning environments. > > We seek candidates who have the potential to make a powerful contribution > to the core curriculum for our master?s and doctoral programs, by teaching > required courses and recommended elective courses as part of specific > program pathways. The ability to convey conceptual as well as practical > knowledge beyond one?s own specific expertise is crucial. High-quality > teaching is highly valued at HGSE, and the school has made a strong > commitment to cultivating and supporting strong teaching practices among > faculty, primarily through the work of the school?s Teaching and Learning > Lab. The successful candidate will have the potential to be a strong > contributor to the development and delivery of residential and online > professional development programs for practitioners, administrators, and > leaders through HGSE?s Programs in Professional Education. The successful > candidate will also be expected to contribute to HGSE initiatives focused > on diversity, equity, and inclusion. > > HGSE faculty at all ranks advise students and participate in institutional > governance and service. Candidates will normally possess a doctorate or > another terminal degree. Successful candidates will have substantial > teaching and leadership experience; for the rank of Professor (with > tenure), candidates must have an excellent record of rigorous scholarship > and a robust program of research. The search committee will begin reviewing > applications on November 1, 2019 and will continue until the position is > filled. Please submit a CV, cover letter, representative publications, and > three letters of reference online at https://apply.interfolio.com/68373. > Candidates invited for an interview will be asked to submit additional > documents. > > If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Faculty Affairs at > academic@gse.harvard.edu or 617-495-3958. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- fiction is but a form of symbolic action, a mere game of ?as if?, therein lies its true function and its potential for effecting change - R. Ellison --------------------------------------------------- For archival resources relevant to the research of myself and other members of LCHC, visit lchc.ucsd.edu. For a narrative history of the research of LCHC, visit lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190912/83519836/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Sep 17 21:50:59 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:50:59 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> Message-ID: While I was (gratefully) checking out this material (and also the previously sent material from Mike on the APA deep poverty challenge) I was turning over in my head the last discussion we had on Hegel and social movements. Andy's book prompted me to dig out my dog-eared copy of Hegel's Logic and give it another go, and this time I did find it went a lot more easily (for which to Andy many thanks). But I had to cough a bit over Hegel's rejection of atoms. On the one hand, he says, there isn't and can never be any empirical evidence for them. On the other, he says, physics is just miring us in matter, distracting us from our real task, which is a new kind of metaphysics that can overleap mathematics, matter, and elemental sciences stuck in Being merely and establish a true science of the whole (his encyclopedia of philosophy, of which the logic is a part). As usual, when I come up against stuff like this in Hegel, I try hard to imagine what the world really looks like to nineteenth century German philosopher, where atoms are an unproveable hypothesis and God is simply "pure" reality. It still seems to me that what Hegel has to say about atoms is embarrassing, dogmatic, and downright foolish--but as soon as we transfer what he says to sociology and psychology, he starts making sense. At the same time I've been rereading Darwin. One of the things that struck me was how much Darwin was influenced by political economy, and especially by Malthus. What Darwin is really up to is taking Malthus OUT of sociology, where it really is not very good at explaining things like learning and development, collaboration, and culture generally, and put him where he really belongs, biology, where he really does help us to understand precisely why learning doesn't seem to play much of a role in evolution and speciation. It was Darwin's misfortune that many of his most ardent epigones (e.g. Spencer) were essentially Lamarckians who were trying to reverse what he did, putting his biology back into political economy. It was all of our misfortunes that this resulted in a highly atomistic way of looking at culture, history, sociology and psychology, in which the sole supra-individual unit was a pseudo-biological category of race. Darwin only makes sense when you ratchet him down from social theory to biology. Human culture really doesn't obey strict Darwinism anymore: agriculture and husbandry mean we burn forests instead of hunting and gathering like other species, and knowledge of how to do this is essentially Lamarckian in the way it is handed down through language. Similarly, Hegel only makes sense when you ratchet him up from physics into social theory. Atoms exist, and carbon dioxide is made of 'em, but that doesn't tell us much about how to stop global warming. Our, physics doesn't really have to listen to Hegel--there is just too much empirical evidence for atoms--and the proper name of the new kind of metaphysics that Hegel had in mind is not metaphysics at all, but historico-cultural psychology. (I have always wondered why my Geneva friends insist on "historico-cultural" instead of cultural-historical, but I think I know now...culture, e.g. guarding the amazon, is the emerging concept of history and not the other way around....). David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:02 AM Martin Packer wrote: > > [image: Cool Effect] > > > > > Welcome to our e-newsletter! We'll deliver the latest news and > carbon-reducing tips direct to your inbox. We can't wait to share them with > you. > > The Amazon Has True Champions > [image: Header Image] > > A season filled with intense, human-caused wildfires in the Amazon > rainforest has burned thousands of square miles, turned the skies black and > raised red flags on an international level. The number of fires is 85% > higher than the previous year. > > The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of our planet. It takes in > enormous quantities of CO2 and is thought to produce 12-20% of the > world?s oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump bringing rain into South > America and all over the world. Without rainfall, there will be cultural > and agricultural ruin. > > Let?s credit those who have been and continue to act as its guardians. > Over the course of thousands of years, the indigenous people of the Amazon > have worked to preserve this diverse biome that has contributed immensely > to the habitability of the planet. > > They are the ones who can show us the way, we must support and follow them > in order to save this vital ecosystem. > Help the indigenous people fight back > > > > News > [image: Article Image] > > *We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The Amazon In August - *In 2019 > there have been more than 90,000 fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. In > August, smoke from the burns blackened the sky in cities as distant as S?o > Paulo and caught the world?s attention. > - *BuzzFeed.News > * > [image: Article Image] > > *The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And we're doing nothing > to stop it -* The Amazon shouldn't sting your eyes with smoke, soak your > shirt with sweat, and turn the sky dark but that is exactly what is > happening when humans set fires there. - *CNN > * > [image: Article Image] > > *9 numbers you need to know to understand the Amazon fires - * Thousands > of fires burning across Brazil?s Amazon rainforest have captured > international attention over the past week. The fires are mainly set by > ranchers and farmers seeking to clear land for cultivation. - *PBS > * > > > Learn more about climate > > [image: Lightbulb] > > *Lauren A, TN - *Talking to family, friends and coworkers about the > climate crisis and making sure they are registered to vote. Tell us what > you are doing! > > > > > > > We always want to hear from you. Reply to this email, write to us at > info@cooleffect.org or follow up on social media where we're always open. > [image: Facebook] > > [image: Twitter] > > [image: Instagram] > > > > Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Suite 201 | > Kentfield, CA 94904 > > > > > > ?2019, All Rights Reserved > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190918/4c0ae45e/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Sep 17 22:56:26 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:56:26 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> Message-ID: David, I seem to recall that Engels also took atoms to be an unprovable hypothesis. The point for Hegel though is that the question of atoms or not is not a philosophical question, but one which can only be resolved by experiment, and like Engels, he simply failed to imagine that such a thing was possible. Einstein observed atoms c. 1905 via a mathematical analysis of Brownian motion. Another great philosopher, maybe you remember who, claimed that although we could see the Sun, we could not, in principle, ever know what it is made of. Optical spectrometry of course put an end to that, In general, Hegel underestimated the potential for expansion of the domain of natural scientific and technical discovery. But he updated his philosophy as new insights became available, as we all do. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 18/09/2019 2:50 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > While I was (gratefully)?checking out this material (and > also the previously sent material from Mike on the APA > deep poverty challenge) I was turning over in my head the > last discussion we had on Hegel and social movements. > Andy's book prompted me to dig out my dog-eared copy of > Hegel's Logic and give it another go, and this time I did > find it went a lot more easily (for which to Andy many > thanks). > > But I had to cough a bit over Hegel's rejection of atoms. > On the one hand, he says, there isn't and can never be any > empirical evidence for them. On the other, he says, > physics is just miring us in matter, distracting us from > our real task, which is a new kind of metaphysics that can > overleap mathematics, matter, and elemental sciences stuck > in Being merely?and establish a true science of the whole > (his encyclopedia of philosophy, of which the logic is a > part). As usual, when I come up against stuff like this in > Hegel, I try hard to imagine what the world really looks > like to nineteenth century German philosopher, where atoms > are an unproveable hypothesis and God is simply "pure" > reality. It still?seems to me that what Hegel has to say > about atoms is embarrassing, dogmatic, and?downright > foolish--but as soon as we transfer what he says to > sociology and psychology, he starts making sense. > > At the same time?I've been rereading Darwin. One of the > things that struck me was how much Darwin?was influenced > by political economy, and especially by Malthus. What > Darwin is really up to is taking?Malthus OUT of sociology, > where it really is not very good at explaining things like > learning and development, collaboration, and culture > generally, and put him where he really belongs, biology, > where he really does help us to understand precisely why > learning doesn't seem to play much of a role in evolution > and speciation. It was Darwin's misfortune that many of > his most ardent epigones (e.g. Spencer) were essentially > Lamarckians who were trying to reverse what he did, > putting his biology back into political economy. It was > all of our misfortunes that this resulted in a highly > atomistic way of looking at culture, history, sociology > and psychology, in which the sole supra-individual unit > was a?pseudo-biological category of?race. > > Darwin only makes sense when you ratchet him down from > social theory to biology. Human ?culture really doesn't > obey strict Darwinism anymore: agriculture and husbandry > mean we burn forests instead of hunting and gathering like > other species, and knowledge of how to do this is > essentially Lamarckian in the way it is handed down > through language. Similarly, Hegel only makes sense when > you ratchet him up from physics into social theory. Atoms > exist, and carbon dioxide is made of?'em, but that > doesn't?tell us much about how to stop global warming. > Our, physics doesn't really have to listen to?Hegel--there > is just too much empirical evidence for atoms--and?the > proper name of the new kind of metaphysics that Hegel had > in mind is not metaphysics at all, but historico-cultural > psychology. > > (I have always wondered why my Geneva friends insist on > "historico-cultural" instead of cultural-historical, but I > think I know now...culture, e.g. guarding the amazon,?is > the emerging concept of history and not the other way > around....). > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:02 AM Martin Packer > > wrote: > >> >> >> Cool Effect >> >> >> >> >> >> Welcome to?our e-newsletter! We'll deliver the >> latest news and carbon-reducing tips?direct to >> your inbox. We can't wait to share them with you. >> >> >> The Amazon Has True Champions >> >> Header Image >> >> >> >> A season filled with intense, human-caused wildfires >> in the Amazon rainforest has burned thousands of >> square miles, turned the skies black and raised red >> flags on an international level. The number of fires >> is 85% higher than the previous year. >> >> The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of our >> planet.? It takes in enormous quantities of >> CO_2and_is thought to produce 12-20% of the world?s >> oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump bringing rain >> into South America and all over the world. Without >> rainfall, there will be cultural and agricultural ruin. >> >> Let?s credit those who have been and continue to act >> as its guardians. Over the course of thousands of >> years, the indigenous?people of the Amazon have >> worked to preserve this diverse biome that has >> contributed immensely to the habitability of the planet. >> >> They are the ones who can show us the way, we must >> support and follow them in order to save this vital >> ecosystem. >> >> Help the indigenous people fight back >> >> >> >> >> News >> >> Article Image >> >> >> >> >> *We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The Amazon In >> August -*In 2019 there have been more than 90,000 >> fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. In August, >> smoke from the burns blackened the sky in cities as >> distant as S?o Paulo and caught the world?s attention. >> -/BuzzFeed.News >> / >> >> >> Article Image >> >> >> >> >> *The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And >> we're doing nothing to stop it -*The Amazon shouldn't >> sting your eyes with smoke, soak your shirt with >> sweat, and turn the sky dark but that is exactly what >> is happening when humans set fires there. -/CNN >> / >> >> >> Article Image >> >> >> >> >> *9 numbers you need to know to understand the Amazon >> fires - *?Thousands of fires burning across Brazil?s >> Amazon rainforest have captured international >> attention over the past week. The fires are mainly >> set by ranchers and farmers seeking to clear land for >> cultivation. - /PBS >> / >> >> >> >> Learn more about climate >> >> >> >> Lightbulb >> >> >> >> >> *Lauren A, TN - *Talking to family, friends and >> coworkers about the climate crisis and making sure >> they are registered to vote. Tell us what you are >> doing! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We always want to hear from you. Reply to this email, >> write to us atinfo@cooleffect.org >> or follow up on social >> media where we're always open. >> >> Facebook >> Twitter >> Instagram >> >> >> Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Suite >> 201 | Kentfield,?CA?94904 >> >> >> ?2019, All Rights Reserved >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190918/4fe47600/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Sep 18 08:29:13 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:29:13 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> Message-ID: <69C3FFF5-BEB4-48EF-B21B-D7FAE2FC7A65@gmail.com> David, Does biology include the cyborg nature of humanity? I mean the way in which technology has changed human consciousness, what it is like to be human. Henry > On Sep 17, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > David, I seem to recall that Engels also took atoms to be an unprovable hypothesis. The point for Hegel though is that the question of atoms or not is not a philosophical question, but one which can only be resolved by experiment, and like Engels, he simply failed to imagine that such a thing was possible. Einstein observed atoms c. 1905 via a mathematical analysis of Brownian motion. Another great philosopher, maybe you remember who, claimed that although we could see the Sun, we could not, in principle, ever know what it is made of. Optical spectrometry of course put an end to that, > > In general, Hegel underestimated the potential for expansion of the domain of natural scientific and technical discovery. But he updated his philosophy as new insights became available, as we all do. > > Andy > > Andy Blunden > Hegel for Social Movements > Home Page > On 18/09/2019 2:50 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >> While I was (gratefully) checking out this material (and also the previously sent material from Mike on the APA deep poverty challenge) I was turning over in my head the last discussion we had on Hegel and social movements. Andy's book prompted me to dig out my dog-eared copy of Hegel's Logic and give it another go, and this time I did find it went a lot more easily (for which to Andy many thanks). >> >> But I had to cough a bit over Hegel's rejection of atoms. On the one hand, he says, there isn't and can never be any empirical evidence for them. On the other, he says, physics is just miring us in matter, distracting us from our real task, which is a new kind of metaphysics that can overleap mathematics, matter, and elemental sciences stuck in Being merely and establish a true science of the whole (his encyclopedia of philosophy, of which the logic is a part). As usual, when I come up against stuff like this in Hegel, I try hard to imagine what the world really looks like to nineteenth century German philosopher, where atoms are an unproveable hypothesis and God is simply "pure" reality. It still seems to me that what Hegel has to say about atoms is embarrassing, dogmatic, and downright foolish--but as soon as we transfer what he says to sociology and psychology, he starts making sense. >> >> At the same time I've been rereading Darwin. One of the things that struck me was how much Darwin was influenced by political economy, and especially by Malthus. What Darwin is really up to is taking Malthus OUT of sociology, where it really is not very good at explaining things like learning and development, collaboration, and culture generally, and put him where he really belongs, biology, where he really does help us to understand precisely why learning doesn't seem to play much of a role in evolution and speciation. It was Darwin's misfortune that many of his most ardent epigones (e.g. Spencer) were essentially Lamarckians who were trying to reverse what he did, putting his biology back into political economy. It was all of our misfortunes that this resulted in a highly atomistic way of looking at culture, history, sociology and psychology, in which the sole supra-individual unit was a pseudo-biological category of race. >> >> Darwin only makes sense when you ratchet him down from social theory to biology. Human culture really doesn't obey strict Darwinism anymore: agriculture and husbandry mean we burn forests instead of hunting and gathering like other species, and knowledge of how to do this is essentially Lamarckian in the way it is handed down through language. Similarly, Hegel only makes sense when you ratchet him up from physics into social theory. Atoms exist, and carbon dioxide is made of 'em, but that doesn't tell us much about how to stop global warming. Our, physics doesn't really have to listen to Hegel--there is just too much empirical evidence for atoms--and the proper name of the new kind of metaphysics that Hegel had in mind is not metaphysics at all, but historico-cultural psychology. >> >> (I have always wondered why my Geneva friends insist on "historico-cultural" instead of cultural-historical, but I think I know now...culture, e.g. guarding the amazon, is the emerging concept of history and not the other way around....). >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:02 AM Martin Packer > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Welcome to our e-newsletter! We'll deliver the latest news and carbon-reducing tips direct to your inbox. We can't wait to share them with you. >>> >>> >>> The Amazon Has True Champions >>> >>> >>> A season filled with intense, human-caused wildfires in the Amazon rainforest has burned thousands of square miles, turned the skies black and raised red flags on an international level. The number of fires is 85% higher than the previous year. >>> >>> The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of our planet. It takes in enormous quantities of CO2 and is thought to produce 12-20% of the world?s oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump bringing rain into South America and all over the world. Without rainfall, there will be cultural and agricultural ruin. >>> >>> Let?s credit those who have been and continue to act as its guardians. Over the course of thousands of years, the indigenous people of the Amazon have worked to preserve this diverse biome that has contributed immensely to the habitability of the planet. >>> >>> They are the ones who can show us the way, we must support and follow them in order to save this vital ecosystem. >>> Help the indigenous people fight back >>> >>> >>> >>> News >>> >>> >>> We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The Amazon In August - In 2019 there have been more than 90,000 fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. In August, smoke from the burns blackened the sky in cities as distant as S?o Paulo and caught the world?s attention. >>> - BuzzFeed.News >>> >>> The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And we're doing nothing to stop it - The Amazon shouldn't sting your eyes with smoke, soak your shirt with sweat, and turn the sky dark but that is exactly what is happening when humans set fires there. - CNN >>> >>> 9 numbers you need to know to understand the Amazon fires - Thousands of fires burning across Brazil?s Amazon rainforest have captured international attention over the past week. The fires are mainly set by ranchers and farmers seeking to clear land for cultivation. - PBS >>> >>> >>> Learn more about climate >>> >>> >>> Lauren A, TN - Talking to family, friends and coworkers about the climate crisis and making sure they are registered to vote. Tell us what you are doing! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> We always want to hear from you. Reply to this email, write to us at info@cooleffect.org or follow up on social media where we're always open. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Suite 201 | Kentfield, CA 94904 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ?2019, All Rights Reserved >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190918/d3d87b81/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Sep 18 14:03:24 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 06:03:24 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: <69C3FFF5-BEB4-48EF-B21B-D7FAE2FC7A65@gmail.com> References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> <69C3FFF5-BEB4-48EF-B21B-D7FAE2FC7A65@gmail.com> Message-ID: Andy-- Engels not only accepted the existence of atoms (Dialectics of Nature) he offers us a proof of their existence that pre-dates Einstein's (which actually only proves the existence of molecules). Engels used the fact that the properties of moles of elements could be deduced from their atomic weight to demonstrate Hegel's "passage of quantity into quality"; there isn't any way to do this without the understanding that atoms exist. Henry-- The term "cyborg" didn't exist until 1960. But I think it's a little like the way that Vygotsky and Buhler use "Lamarckianism" or "a synthesis of Larmarck and Darwin" to refer to what we would now call epigenesis: the term is new, but the concept is definitely there in Vygotsky: in the form of the "Jennings Principle", or rather Vygotsky's criticism of the Jennings principle. Herbert Spencer Jennings (despite the unfortunate name his parents christened him with) was a progressive eugenicist (which at the end of the nineteenth century must have been like being an airplane pilot with a fear of heights). He was mostly interested in paramecia (because he wanted to work out the real mathematics behind Mendel's discoveries--you know that the numbers Mendel came up with for dominance and recessiveness are really WAY too convenient). But he used his knowledge of genetics to argue against the 1924 anti-Chinese immigration act, a piece of racist legislation which is still the basis of American immigration law (immigration quotas are designed to preserve the ethnic composition of the USA). In the course of his work on paramecia, Jennings says that the sphere of activity of any organism is a function (in the mathematical sense) of its organs. Vygotsky is skeptical, and not simply because the activity of an organism is greater than the sum of the actions of its organs. Vygotsky says that humans have the peculiar ability to create their own organs: artificial limbs, eye-glasses, ear-trumpets, and of course the numerous prosthetic devices that our brains use, chief of which is language. This means that humans do not obey the Jennings principle. The ability of humans to flout Malthus--our ability to make the means of subsistence increase "geometrically" and not just "arithmetically"--is not simply a matter of altering the environment to suit ourselves and our own reproductive proclivities. It is also a matter of altering ourselves to suit our better natures. I think that the only real hope for the Amazon lies in that latter possibility, although I think I would resist physicalizing it as "cyborg nature" the way that Donna Haraway does. I also think that "cyborg nature" essentializes matters: the ability to flout the Jennings principle is anything but essential to humans. It's a fluke of exaptation: taking an organ that evolved for one thing and using it for something quite different (e.g. taking organs that evolved for breathing and eating and using them for talking about philosophy). David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:32 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > David, > Does biology include the cyborg nature of humanity? I mean the way in > which technology has changed human consciousness, what it is like to be > human. > Henry > > > > On Sep 17, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > David, I seem to recall that Engels also took atoms to be an unprovable > hypothesis. The point for Hegel though is that the question of atoms or not > is not a philosophical question, but one which can only be resolved by > experiment, and like Engels, he simply failed to imagine that such a thing > was possible. Einstein observed atoms c. 1905 via a mathematical analysis > of Brownian motion. Another great philosopher, maybe you remember who, > claimed that although we could see the Sun, we could not, in principle, > ever know what it is made of. Optical spectrometry of course put an end to > that, > > In general, Hegel underestimated the potential for expansion of the domain > of natural scientific and technical discovery. But he updated his > philosophy as new insights became available, as we all do. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > Hegel for Social Movements > Home Page > On 18/09/2019 2:50 pm, David Kellogg wrote: > > While I was (gratefully) checking out this material (and also the > previously sent material from Mike on the APA deep poverty challenge) I was > turning over in my head the last discussion we had on Hegel and social > movements. Andy's book prompted me to dig out my dog-eared copy of Hegel's > Logic and give it another go, and this time I did find it went a lot more > easily (for which to Andy many thanks). > > But I had to cough a bit over Hegel's rejection of atoms. On the one hand, > he says, there isn't and can never be any empirical evidence for them. On > the other, he says, physics is just miring us in matter, distracting us > from our real task, which is a new kind of metaphysics that can overleap > mathematics, matter, and elemental sciences stuck in Being merely and > establish a true science of the whole (his encyclopedia of philosophy, of > which the logic is a part). As usual, when I come up against stuff like > this in Hegel, I try hard to imagine what the world really looks like to > nineteenth century German philosopher, where atoms are an unproveable > hypothesis and God is simply "pure" reality. It still seems to me that what > Hegel has to say about atoms is embarrassing, dogmatic, and downright > foolish--but as soon as we transfer what he says to sociology and > psychology, he starts making sense. > > At the same time I've been rereading Darwin. One of the things that struck > me was how much Darwin was influenced by political economy, and especially > by Malthus. What Darwin is really up to is taking Malthus OUT of sociology, > where it really is not very good at explaining things like learning and > development, collaboration, and culture generally, and put him where he > really belongs, biology, where he really does help us to understand > precisely why learning doesn't seem to play much of a role in evolution and > speciation. It was Darwin's misfortune that many of his most ardent > epigones (e.g. Spencer) were essentially Lamarckians who were trying to > reverse what he did, putting his biology back into political economy. It > was all of our misfortunes that this resulted in a highly atomistic way of > looking at culture, history, sociology and psychology, in which the sole > supra-individual unit was a pseudo-biological category of race. > > Darwin only makes sense when you ratchet him down from social theory to > biology. Human culture really doesn't obey strict Darwinism anymore: > agriculture and husbandry mean we burn forests instead of hunting and > gathering like other species, and knowledge of how to do this is > essentially Lamarckian in the way it is handed down through language. > Similarly, Hegel only makes sense when you ratchet him up from physics into > social theory. Atoms exist, and carbon dioxide is made of 'em, but that > doesn't tell us much about how to stop global warming. Our, physics > doesn't really have to listen to Hegel--there is just too much empirical > evidence for atoms--and the proper name of the new kind of metaphysics that > Hegel had in mind is not metaphysics at all, but historico-cultural > psychology. > > (I have always wondered why my Geneva friends insist on > "historico-cultural" instead of cultural-historical, but I think I know > now...culture, e.g. guarding the amazon, is the emerging concept of history > and not the other way around....). > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:02 AM Martin Packer wrote: > >> >> >> [image: Cool Effect] >> >> >> >> >> Welcome to our e-newsletter! We'll deliver the latest news and >> carbon-reducing tips direct to your inbox. We can't wait to share them with >> you. >> >> The Amazon Has True Champions >> [image: Header Image] >> >> A season filled with intense, human-caused wildfires in the Amazon >> rainforest has burned thousands of square miles, turned the skies black and >> raised red flags on an international level. The number of fires is 85% >> higher than the previous year. >> >> The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of our planet. It takes in >> enormous quantities of CO2 and is thought to produce 12-20% of the >> world?s oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump bringing rain into South >> America and all over the world. Without rainfall, there will be cultural >> and agricultural ruin. >> >> Let?s credit those who have been and continue to act as its guardians. >> Over the course of thousands of years, the indigenous people of the Amazon >> have worked to preserve this diverse biome that has contributed immensely >> to the habitability of the planet. >> >> They are the ones who can show us the way, we must support and follow >> them in order to save this vital ecosystem. >> Help the indigenous people fight back >> >> >> >> News >> [image: Article Image] >> >> *We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The Amazon In August - *In 2019 >> there have been more than 90,000 fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. In >> August, smoke from the burns blackened the sky in cities as distant as S?o >> Paulo and caught the world?s attention. >> - *BuzzFeed.News >> * >> [image: Article Image] >> >> *The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And we're doing nothing >> to stop it -* The Amazon shouldn't sting your eyes with smoke, soak your >> shirt with sweat, and turn the sky dark but that is exactly what is >> happening when humans set fires there. - *CNN >> * >> [image: Article Image] >> >> *9 numbers you need to know to understand the Amazon fires - * Thousands >> of fires burning across Brazil?s Amazon rainforest have captured >> international attention over the past week. The fires are mainly set by >> ranchers and farmers seeking to clear land for cultivation. - *PBS >> * >> >> >> Learn more about climate >> >> [image: Lightbulb] >> >> *Lauren A, TN - *Talking to family, friends and coworkers about the >> climate crisis and making sure they are registered to vote. Tell us what >> you are doing! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We always want to hear from you. Reply to this email, write to us at >> info@cooleffect.org or follow up on social media where we're always open. >> [image: Facebook] >> >> [image: Twitter] >> >> [image: Instagram] >> >> >> >> Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Suite 201 | >> Kentfield, CA 94904 >> >> >> >> >> >> ?2019, All Rights Reserved >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190919/cc63e334/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Wed Sep 18 17:00:18 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:00:18 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> <69C3FFF5-BEB4-48EF-B21B-D7FAE2FC7A65@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, I see a very sophisticated understanding of atoms and molecules in /Dialectics of Nature/. He says also: If all differences and changes of quality are to be reduced to quantitative differences and changes, to mechanical displacement, then we inevitably arrive at the proposition that all matter consists of/identical/smallest particles, and that all qualitative differences of the chemical elements of matter are caused by quantitative differences in number and by the spatial grouping of those smallest particles to form atoms. But we have not got so far yet. I couldn't find that reference which I recall seeing some years ago. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 19/09/2019 7:03 am, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > Engels not only accepted the existence of atoms > (Dialectics of Nature) he offers us a proof of their > existence that pre-dates Einstein's (which actually only > proves the existence of molecules). Engels used the fact > that the properties of moles of elements could be deduced > from their atomic weight to demonstrate Hegel's "passage > of quantity into quality"; there isn't any way to do this > without the understanding that atoms exist. > > Henry-- > > The term "cyborg" didn't exist until 1960. But I think > it's a little like the way that Vygotsky and Buhler?use > "Lamarckianism" or "a synthesis of Larmarck and Darwin" to > refer to what we would now call epigenesis: the term is > new, but the concept is definitely there in Vygotsky: in > the form of the "Jennings Principle", or rather Vygotsky's > criticism of the Jennings principle. > > Herbert Spencer Jennings (despite the unfortunate name > his?parents christened him with)?was a progressive > eugenicist (which at the end of the nineteenth century > must have been like being an airplane pilot with a fear of > heights). He was mostly interested in paramecia (because > he wanted to work out the real mathematics behind Mendel's > discoveries--you know that the numbers Mendel came up with > for dominance and recessiveness are really WAY too > convenient). But he used his knowledge of genetics to > argue against the 1924 anti-Chinese immigration act,?a > piece of racist legislation which is still the basis of > American immigration law (immigration quotas are designed > to preserve the ethnic composition of the USA). > > In the course of ?his work on paramecia, Jennings says > that the sphere of activity of any organism is a function > (in the mathematical sense) of its organs. Vygotsky is > skeptical, and not simply because the activity of an > organism is greater than the sum of the actions of its > organs. Vygotsky says that humans have the peculiar > ability to create their own organs: artificial limbs, > eye-glasses, ear-trumpets, and of course the numerous > prosthetic devices that our brains use, chief of which is > language. This means that humans do not obey the Jennings > principle. > > The ability of humans to flout Malthus--our ability to > make the means of subsistence increase "geometrically" and > not just "arithmetically"--is not simply a matter of > altering the environment to suit ourselves and our?own > reproductive proclivities. It is also a matter of altering > ourselves to suit our better natures. I think that the > only real hope for the Amazon lies in that latter > possibility, although I think I would resist > physicalizing?it as "cyborg nature" the way that Donna > Haraway does.?I also think that "cyborg nature" > essentializes matters: the ability to flout the Jennings > principle?is anything but essential to humans. It's?a > fluke of exaptation: taking an organ that evolved for one > thing and using it for something quite different (e.g. > taking organs that evolved for breathing and eating and > using them for talking about philosophy). > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:32 AM HENRY SHONERD > > wrote: > > David, > Does biology include the cyborg nature of humanity? I > mean the way in which technology has changed human > consciousness, what it is like to be human. > Henry > > > >> On Sep 17, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> David, I seem to recall that Engels also took atoms >> to be an unprovable hypothesis. The point for Hegel >> though is that the question of atoms or not is not a >> philosophical question, but one which can only be >> resolved by experiment, and like Engels, he simply >> failed to imagine that such a thing was possible. >> Einstein observed atoms c. 1905 via a mathematical >> analysis of Brownian motion. Another great >> philosopher, maybe you remember who, claimed that >> although we could see the Sun, we could not, in >> principle, ever know what it is made of. Optical >> spectrometry of course put an end to that, >> >> In general, Hegel underestimated the potential for >> expansion of the domain of natural scientific and >> technical discovery. But he updated his philosophy as >> new insights became available, as we all do. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> Hegel for Social Movements >> >> Home Page >> >> On 18/09/2019 2:50 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >>> While I was (gratefully)?checking out this material >>> (and also the previously sent material from Mike on >>> the APA deep poverty challenge) I was turning over >>> in my head the last discussion we had on Hegel and >>> social movements. Andy's book prompted me to dig out >>> my dog-eared copy of Hegel's Logic and give it >>> another go, and this time I did find it went a lot >>> more easily (for which to Andy many thanks). >>> >>> But I had to cough a bit over Hegel's rejection of >>> atoms. On the one hand, he says, there isn't and can >>> never be any empirical evidence for them. On the >>> other, he says, physics is just miring us in matter, >>> distracting us from our real task, which is a new >>> kind of metaphysics that can overleap mathematics, >>> matter, and elemental sciences stuck in Being >>> merely?and establish a true science of the whole >>> (his encyclopedia of philosophy, of which the logic >>> is a part). As usual, when I come up against stuff >>> like this in Hegel, I try hard to imagine what the >>> world really looks like to nineteenth century German >>> philosopher, where atoms are an unproveable >>> hypothesis and God is simply "pure" reality. It >>> still?seems to me that what Hegel has to say about >>> atoms is embarrassing, dogmatic, and?downright >>> foolish--but as soon as we transfer what he says to >>> sociology and psychology, he starts making sense. >>> >>> At the same time?I've been rereading Darwin. One of >>> the things that struck me was how much Darwin?was >>> influenced by political economy, and especially by >>> Malthus. What Darwin is really up to is >>> taking?Malthus OUT of sociology, where it really is >>> not very good at explaining things like learning and >>> development, collaboration, and culture generally, >>> and put him where he really belongs, biology, where >>> he really does help us to understand precisely why >>> learning doesn't seem to play much of a role in >>> evolution and speciation. It was Darwin's misfortune >>> that many of his most ardent epigones (e.g. Spencer) >>> were essentially Lamarckians who were trying to >>> reverse what he did, putting his biology back into >>> political economy. It was all of our misfortunes >>> that this resulted in a highly atomistic way of >>> looking at culture, history, sociology and >>> psychology, in which the sole supra-individual unit >>> was a?pseudo-biological category of?race. >>> >>> Darwin only makes sense when you ratchet him down >>> from social theory to biology. Human ?culture really >>> doesn't obey strict Darwinism anymore: agriculture >>> and husbandry mean we burn forests instead of >>> hunting and gathering like other species, and >>> knowledge of how to do this is essentially >>> Lamarckian in the way it is handed down through >>> language. Similarly, Hegel only makes sense when you >>> ratchet him up from physics into social theory. >>> Atoms exist, and carbon dioxide is made of?'em, but >>> that doesn't?tell us much about how to stop global >>> warming. Our, physics doesn't really have to listen >>> to?Hegel--there is just too much empirical evidence >>> for atoms--and?the proper name of the new kind of >>> metaphysics that Hegel had in mind is not >>> metaphysics at all, but historico-cultural psychology. >>> >>> (I have always wondered why my Geneva friends insist >>> on "historico-cultural" instead of >>> cultural-historical, but I think I know >>> now...culture, e.g. guarding the amazon,?is the >>> emerging concept of history and not the other way >>> around....). >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Article: >>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story >>> without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s >>> construalism in understanding narratives by >>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> To link to this article: >>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> Some e-prints available at: >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:02 AM Martin Packer >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cool Effect >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Welcome to?our e-newsletter! We'll deliver >>>> the latest news and carbon-reducing >>>> tips?direct to your inbox. We can't wait to >>>> share them with you. >>>> >>>> >>>> The Amazon Has True Champions >>>> >>>> Header Image >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A season filled with intense, human-caused >>>> wildfires in the Amazon rainforest has burned >>>> thousands of square miles, turned the skies >>>> black and raised red flags on an international >>>> level. The number of fires is 85% higher than >>>> the previous year. >>>> >>>> The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of >>>> our planet.? It takes in enormous quantities of >>>> CO_2and_is thought to produce 12-20% of the >>>> world?s oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump >>>> bringing rain into South America and all over >>>> the world. Without rainfall, there will be >>>> cultural and agricultural ruin. >>>> >>>> Let?s credit those who have been and continue >>>> to act as its guardians. Over the course of >>>> thousands of years, the indigenous?people of >>>> the Amazon have worked to preserve this diverse >>>> biome that has contributed immensely to the >>>> habitability of the planet. >>>> >>>> They are the ones who can show us the way, we >>>> must support and follow them in order to save >>>> this vital ecosystem. >>>> >>>> Help the indigenous people fight back >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> News >>>> >>>> Article Image >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The >>>> Amazon In August -*In 2019 there have been more >>>> than 90,000 fires throughout the Amazon >>>> rainforest. In August, smoke from the burns >>>> blackened the sky in cities as distant as S?o >>>> Paulo and caught the world?s attention. >>>> -/BuzzFeed.News >>>> / >>>> >>>> >>>> Article Image >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *The Amazon is burning. The climate is >>>> changing. And we're doing nothing to stop it >>>> -*The Amazon shouldn't sting your eyes with >>>> smoke, soak your shirt with sweat, and turn the >>>> sky dark but that is exactly what is happening >>>> when humans set fires there. -/CNN >>>> / >>>> >>>> >>>> Article Image >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *9 numbers you need to know to understand the >>>> Amazon fires - *?Thousands of fires burning >>>> across Brazil?s Amazon rainforest have captured >>>> international attention over the past week. The >>>> fires are mainly set by ranchers and farmers >>>> seeking to clear land for cultivation. - /PBS >>>> / >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Learn more about climate >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lightbulb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Lauren A, TN - *Talking to family, friends and >>>> coworkers about the climate crisis and making >>>> sure they are registered to vote. Tell us what >>>> you are doing! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We always want to hear from you. Reply to this >>>> email, write to us atinfo@cooleffect.org >>>> or follow up on >>>> social media where we're always open. >>>> >>>> Facebook >>>> Twitter >>>> Instagram >>>> >>>> >>>> Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. >>>> Suite 201 | Kentfield,?CA?94904 >>>> >>>> >>>> ?2019, All Rights Reserved >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190919/4cc37f10/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Sep 18 20:30:05 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:30:05 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> <69C3FFF5-BEB4-48EF-B21B-D7FAE2FC7A65@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06AA05B3-3626-40C1-8757-E046DEBB7337@gmail.com> David and Andy, Thanks for taking seriously my cyborg question and refining the idea. I think I do remember Vygotsky saying something about humans creating new organs through technology. This thread is interesting to me not least because I will be meeting next week with friends to discuss Epicurus? views on atoms and the good life. This follows on a discussion several weeks ago of an overview by Engles of the enlightentment science and the social upheavals of the 19th century. But I?d like to ask you what David means in the last paragraph of this most recent post: "The ability of humans to flout Malthus--our ability to make the means of subsistence increase "geometrically" and not just "arithmetically"--is not simply a matter of altering the environment to suit ourselves and our own reproductive proclivities. It is also a matter of altering ourselves to suit our better natures.? What is the path to altering ourselves to suit our better natures? How much of it is activist and how much contemplative? Henry > On Sep 18, 2019, at 3:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Andy-- > > Engels not only accepted the existence of atoms (Dialectics of Nature) he offers us a proof of their existence that pre-dates Einstein's (which actually only proves the existence of molecules). Engels used the fact that the properties of moles of elements could be deduced from their atomic weight to demonstrate Hegel's "passage of quantity into quality"; there isn't any way to do this without the understanding that atoms exist. > > Henry-- > > The term "cyborg" didn't exist until 1960. But I think it's a little like the way that Vygotsky and Buhler use "Lamarckianism" or "a synthesis of Larmarck and Darwin" to refer to what we would now call epigenesis: the term is new, but the concept is definitely there in Vygotsky: in the form of the "Jennings Principle", or rather Vygotsky's criticism of the Jennings principle. > > Herbert Spencer Jennings (despite the unfortunate name his parents christened him with) was a progressive eugenicist (which at the end of the nineteenth century must have been like being an airplane pilot with a fear of heights). He was mostly interested in paramecia (because he wanted to work out the real mathematics behind Mendel's discoveries--you know that the numbers Mendel came up with for dominance and recessiveness are really WAY too convenient). But he used his knowledge of genetics to argue against the 1924 anti-Chinese immigration act, a piece of racist legislation which is still the basis of American immigration law (immigration quotas are designed to preserve the ethnic composition of the USA). > > In the course of his work on paramecia, Jennings says that the sphere of activity of any organism is a function (in the mathematical sense) of its organs. Vygotsky is skeptical, and not simply because the activity of an organism is greater than the sum of the actions of its organs. Vygotsky says that humans have the peculiar ability to create their own organs: artificial limbs, eye-glasses, ear-trumpets, and of course the numerous prosthetic devices that our brains use, chief of which is language. This means that humans do not obey the Jennings principle. > > The ability of humans to flout Malthus--our ability to make the means of subsistence increase "geometrically" and not just "arithmetically"--is not simply a matter of altering the environment to suit ourselves and our own reproductive proclivities. It is also a matter of altering ourselves to suit our better natures. I think that the only real hope for the Amazon lies in that latter possibility, although I think I would resist physicalizing it as "cyborg nature" the way that Donna Haraway does. I also think that "cyborg nature" essentializes matters: the ability to flout the Jennings principle is anything but essential to humans. It's a fluke of exaptation: taking an organ that evolved for one thing and using it for something quite different (e.g. taking organs that evolved for breathing and eating and using them for talking about philosophy). > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:32 AM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > David, > Does biology include the cyborg nature of humanity? I mean the way in which technology has changed human consciousness, what it is like to be human. > Henry > > > >> On Sep 17, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> David, I seem to recall that Engels also took atoms to be an unprovable hypothesis. The point for Hegel though is that the question of atoms or not is not a philosophical question, but one which can only be resolved by experiment, and like Engels, he simply failed to imagine that such a thing was possible. Einstein observed atoms c. 1905 via a mathematical analysis of Brownian motion. Another great philosopher, maybe you remember who, claimed that although we could see the Sun, we could not, in principle, ever know what it is made of. Optical spectrometry of course put an end to that, >> >> In general, Hegel underestimated the potential for expansion of the domain of natural scientific and technical discovery. But he updated his philosophy as new insights became available, as we all do. >> >> Andy >> >> Andy Blunden >> Hegel for Social Movements >> Home Page >> On 18/09/2019 2:50 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >>> While I was (gratefully) checking out this material (and also the previously sent material from Mike on the APA deep poverty challenge) I was turning over in my head the last discussion we had on Hegel and social movements. Andy's book prompted me to dig out my dog-eared copy of Hegel's Logic and give it another go, and this time I did find it went a lot more easily (for which to Andy many thanks). >>> >>> But I had to cough a bit over Hegel's rejection of atoms. On the one hand, he says, there isn't and can never be any empirical evidence for them. On the other, he says, physics is just miring us in matter, distracting us from our real task, which is a new kind of metaphysics that can overleap mathematics, matter, and elemental sciences stuck in Being merely and establish a true science of the whole (his encyclopedia of philosophy, of which the logic is a part). As usual, when I come up against stuff like this in Hegel, I try hard to imagine what the world really looks like to nineteenth century German philosopher, where atoms are an unproveable hypothesis and God is simply "pure" reality. It still seems to me that what Hegel has to say about atoms is embarrassing, dogmatic, and downright foolish--but as soon as we transfer what he says to sociology and psychology, he starts making sense. >>> >>> At the same time I've been rereading Darwin. One of the things that struck me was how much Darwin was influenced by political economy, and especially by Malthus. What Darwin is really up to is taking Malthus OUT of sociology, where it really is not very good at explaining things like learning and development, collaboration, and culture generally, and put him where he really belongs, biology, where he really does help us to understand precisely why learning doesn't seem to play much of a role in evolution and speciation. It was Darwin's misfortune that many of his most ardent epigones (e.g. Spencer) were essentially Lamarckians who were trying to reverse what he did, putting his biology back into political economy. It was all of our misfortunes that this resulted in a highly atomistic way of looking at culture, history, sociology and psychology, in which the sole supra-individual unit was a pseudo-biological category of race. >>> >>> Darwin only makes sense when you ratchet him down from social theory to biology. Human culture really doesn't obey strict Darwinism anymore: agriculture and husbandry mean we burn forests instead of hunting and gathering like other species, and knowledge of how to do this is essentially Lamarckian in the way it is handed down through language. Similarly, Hegel only makes sense when you ratchet him up from physics into social theory. Atoms exist, and carbon dioxide is made of 'em, but that doesn't tell us much about how to stop global warming. Our, physics doesn't really have to listen to Hegel--there is just too much empirical evidence for atoms--and the proper name of the new kind of metaphysics that Hegel had in mind is not metaphysics at all, but historico-cultural psychology. >>> >>> (I have always wondered why my Geneva friends insist on "historico-cultural" instead of cultural-historical, but I think I know now...culture, e.g. guarding the amazon, is the emerging concept of history and not the other way around....). >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Sangmyung University >>> >>> New Article: >>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by >>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> Some e-prints available at: >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:02 AM Martin Packer > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Welcome to our e-newsletter! We'll deliver the latest news and carbon-reducing tips direct to your inbox. We can't wait to share them with you. >>>> >>>> >>>> The Amazon Has True Champions >>>> >>>> >>>> A season filled with intense, human-caused wildfires in the Amazon rainforest has burned thousands of square miles, turned the skies black and raised red flags on an international level. The number of fires is 85% higher than the previous year. >>>> >>>> The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of our planet. It takes in enormous quantities of CO2 and is thought to produce 12-20% of the world?s oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump bringing rain into South America and all over the world. Without rainfall, there will be cultural and agricultural ruin. >>>> >>>> Let?s credit those who have been and continue to act as its guardians. Over the course of thousands of years, the indigenous people of the Amazon have worked to preserve this diverse biome that has contributed immensely to the habitability of the planet. >>>> >>>> They are the ones who can show us the way, we must support and follow them in order to save this vital ecosystem. >>>> Help the indigenous people fight back >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> News >>>> >>>> >>>> We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The Amazon In August - In 2019 there have been more than 90,000 fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. In August, smoke from the burns blackened the sky in cities as distant as S?o Paulo and caught the world?s attention. >>>> - BuzzFeed.News >>>> >>>> The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And we're doing nothing to stop it - The Amazon shouldn't sting your eyes with smoke, soak your shirt with sweat, and turn the sky dark but that is exactly what is happening when humans set fires there. - CNN >>>> >>>> 9 numbers you need to know to understand the Amazon fires - Thousands of fires burning across Brazil?s Amazon rainforest have captured international attention over the past week. The fires are mainly set by ranchers and farmers seeking to clear land for cultivation. - PBS >>>> >>>> >>>> Learn more about climate >>>> >>>> >>>> Lauren A, TN - Talking to family, friends and coworkers about the climate crisis and making sure they are registered to vote. Tell us what you are doing! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We always want to hear from you. Reply to this email, write to us at info@cooleffect.org or follow up on social media where we're always open. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Suite 201 | Kentfield, CA 94904 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?2019, All Rights Reserved >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190918/77f01dd5/attachment.html From mpacker@cantab.net Thu Sep 19 05:46:17 2019 From: mpacker@cantab.net (Martin Packer) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:46:17 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: <06AA05B3-3626-40C1-8757-E046DEBB7337@gmail.com> References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> <69C3FFF5-BEB4-48EF-B21B-D7FAE2FC7A65@gmail.com> <06AA05B3-3626-40C1-8757-E046DEBB7337@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13C27AFA-E80E-4B9F-8970-B13B7EF85DE6@cantab.net> https://www.indiewire.com/2019/08/frontera-verde-first-trailer-netflix-ciro-guerra-1202162678/ 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/20190919/9b9db34d/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Sep 19 14:25:12 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:25:12 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: <06AA05B3-3626-40C1-8757-E046DEBB7337@gmail.com> References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> <69C3FFF5-BEB4-48EF-B21B-D7FAE2FC7A65@gmail.com> <06AA05B3-3626-40C1-8757-E046DEBB7337@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sure, Henry--I'll try. And then you must explain to me about Epicurus and atoms (I thought it was Democritus!) I never liked the formulation "survival of the fittest": it always sounds too much like "if you are so smart, how come you are not rich". Darwin actually doesn't include "survival of the fittest" until (I think) the fifth edition of "Origin of Species" in 1870, and it is originally from Spencer (Herbert Spencer and not Herbert Spender Jennings), who is really interested in "proving" that all humans are equal (in the good old American sense of not recognizing noble blood) but some races are more equal to the tasks imposed by the natural environment than others (in the good old American sense of considering some humans racially consigned to hewing wood and drawing water). . Darwin's original formulation was "modification through descent and natural selection". Now, Darwin DID get this idea from Malthus. Malthus noted that plants tended to reproduce at more or less replacement level, but animals, including humans, tend to double or even triple with every generation. He concluded that dearth and death were inevitable, unless the poor could be taught to practice chastity and moral restraint (he was a parson, and the clergy do spend a lot of time thinking about how not to think about sex). Malthus was taken up by his students, the utilitarians (James Mill and his son John Stuart), who used it to argue against famine relief in British India. The argument was that if you provide famine relief, you are staying Adam Smith's invisible hand and preserving races which naturally deserve to die out and offer their land and resources at fire-sale prices to those notable guardians of the environment, the British East India Company. The direct result was millions of deaths from hunger, which only really ended with Indian independence. There were indirect results too, in the intellectual sphere which are still more persistent. Mill was taken up by Spencer, who used it to argue against public education, hygiene, post offices, and marrying George Eliot (who was, Spencer felt, just intelligent enough but not sufficiently sexually attractive, and this,for reasons he was not very good at explaining, was disqualifying in women but not in men). But of course it's not enough to say that Spencer was ugly, vain, and unaware of his own true motives. The Mathusians were wrong--empirically wrong, in precisely the way that Malthusians like to say that Marx was proved wrong. Darwin actually showed that Malthus was right--but only about bacteria, paramecia, plants, and (some but not all) animals. Marx showed that Malthusians were completely wrong about humans, because .humans have learnt the trick of adapting the environment to their own needs: herding and farming instead of hunting and gathering. Once humans have learnt this trick, the Malthusian bet is off. On the contrary, we see that it's precisely the societies that do care for the old, the sick, the weak, the biologically least fit for survival which develop, societies which do develop public education, hygiene, post offices and literature, which are most capable of solving even the problems that troubled Malthus, Mill, and Spencer, namely dearth, famine, and high birth rates. One of the byproducts of turning the tables on the environment in this way--adapting the environment to human needs instead of adapting human needs to the environment--is certainly the kind of environmental destruction we can see in the Amazon. But another one is language, and language does allow us to act on our own "nature", bringing the ideal into the immediate and the real and adapting to that instead of simply struggling directly with the real. The Penan, in Borneo, became guardians of their forest not by hunting and gathering but by trading and coming into confict with logging companies and local farmers. Our own tribe, whatever you want to call it, preserves hunting and gathering modes of production in only two domains, commercial fisheries and strip mining. Neither domain is notable for its stewardship of natural resources. So I don't think we are naturally born guardians of the forest. But I do think that historico-culturally we can learn to be. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 public education, health services, post offices, hygiene et On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:31 PM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > David and Andy, > Thanks for taking seriously my cyborg question and refining the idea. I > think I do remember Vygotsky saying something about humans creating new > organs through technology. This thread is interesting to me not least > because I will be meeting next week with friends to discuss Epicurus? views > on atoms and the good life. This follows on a discussion several weeks ago > of an overview by Engles of the enlightentment science and the social > upheavals of the 19th century. > > But I?d like to ask you what David means in the last paragraph of this > most recent post: "The ability of humans to flout Malthus--our ability to > make the means of subsistence increase "geometrically" and not just > "arithmetically"--is not simply a matter of altering the environment to > suit ourselves and our own reproductive proclivities. It is also a matter > of altering ourselves to suit our better natures.? What is the path to > altering ourselves to suit our better natures? How much of it is activist > and how much contemplative? > > Henry > > > > On Sep 18, 2019, at 3:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Andy-- > > Engels not only accepted the existence of atoms (Dialectics of Nature) he > offers us a proof of their existence that pre-dates Einstein's (which > actually only proves the existence of molecules). Engels used the fact that > the properties of moles of elements could be deduced from their atomic > weight to demonstrate Hegel's "passage of quantity into quality"; there > isn't any way to do this without the understanding that atoms exist. > > Henry-- > > The term "cyborg" didn't exist until 1960. But I think it's a little like > the way that Vygotsky and Buhler use "Lamarckianism" or "a synthesis of > Larmarck and Darwin" to refer to what we would now call epigenesis: the > term is new, but the concept is definitely there in Vygotsky: in the form > of the "Jennings Principle", or rather Vygotsky's criticism of the Jennings > principle. > > Herbert Spencer Jennings (despite the unfortunate name his parents > christened him with) was a progressive eugenicist (which at the end of the > nineteenth century must have been like being an airplane pilot with a fear > of heights). He was mostly interested in paramecia (because he wanted to > work out the real mathematics behind Mendel's discoveries--you know that > the numbers Mendel came up with for dominance and recessiveness are really > WAY too convenient). But he used his knowledge of genetics to argue against > the 1924 anti-Chinese immigration act, a piece of racist legislation which > is still the basis of American immigration law (immigration quotas are > designed to preserve the ethnic composition of the USA). > > In the course of his work on paramecia, Jennings says that the sphere of > activity of any organism is a function (in the mathematical sense) of its > organs. Vygotsky is skeptical, and not simply because the activity of an > organism is greater than the sum of the actions of its organs. Vygotsky > says that humans have the peculiar ability to create their own organs: > artificial limbs, eye-glasses, ear-trumpets, and of course the numerous > prosthetic devices that our brains use, chief of which is language. This > means that humans do not obey the Jennings principle. > > The ability of humans to flout Malthus--our ability to make the means of > subsistence increase "geometrically" and not just "arithmetically"--is not > simply a matter of altering the environment to suit ourselves and our own > reproductive proclivities. It is also a matter of altering ourselves to > suit our better natures. I think that the only real hope for the Amazon > lies in that latter possibility, although I think I would resist > physicalizing it as "cyborg nature" the way that Donna Haraway does. I also > think that "cyborg nature" essentializes matters: the ability to flout the > Jennings principle is anything but essential to humans. It's a fluke of > exaptation: taking an organ that evolved for one thing and using it for > something quite different (e.g. taking organs that evolved for breathing > and eating and using them for talking about philosophy). > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in > understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:32 AM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> David, >> Does biology include the cyborg nature of humanity? I mean the way in >> which technology has changed human consciousness, what it is like to be >> human. >> Henry >> >> >> >> On Sep 17, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> David, I seem to recall that Engels also took atoms to be an unprovable >> hypothesis. The point for Hegel though is that the question of atoms or not >> is not a philosophical question, but one which can only be resolved by >> experiment, and like Engels, he simply failed to imagine that such a thing >> was possible. Einstein observed atoms c. 1905 via a mathematical analysis >> of Brownian motion. Another great philosopher, maybe you remember who, >> claimed that although we could see the Sun, we could not, in principle, >> ever know what it is made of. Optical spectrometry of course put an end to >> that, >> >> In general, Hegel underestimated the potential for expansion of the >> domain of natural scientific and technical discovery. But he updated his >> philosophy as new insights became available, as we all do. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> Hegel for Social Movements >> Home Page >> On 18/09/2019 2:50 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> While I was (gratefully) checking out this material (and also the >> previously sent material from Mike on the APA deep poverty challenge) I was >> turning over in my head the last discussion we had on Hegel and social >> movements. Andy's book prompted me to dig out my dog-eared copy of Hegel's >> Logic and give it another go, and this time I did find it went a lot more >> easily (for which to Andy many thanks). >> >> But I had to cough a bit over Hegel's rejection of atoms. On the one >> hand, he says, there isn't and can never be any empirical evidence for >> them. On the other, he says, physics is just miring us in matter, >> distracting us from our real task, which is a new kind of metaphysics that >> can overleap mathematics, matter, and elemental sciences stuck in Being >> merely and establish a true science of the whole (his encyclopedia of >> philosophy, of which the logic is a part). As usual, when I come up against >> stuff like this in Hegel, I try hard to imagine what the world really looks >> like to nineteenth century German philosopher, where atoms are an >> unproveable hypothesis and God is simply "pure" reality. It still seems to >> me that what Hegel has to say about atoms is embarrassing, dogmatic, >> and downright foolish--but as soon as we transfer what he says to sociology >> and psychology, he starts making sense. >> >> At the same time I've been rereading Darwin. One of the things that >> struck me was how much Darwin was influenced by political economy, and >> especially by Malthus. What Darwin is really up to is taking Malthus OUT of >> sociology, where it really is not very good at explaining things like >> learning and development, collaboration, and culture generally, and put him >> where he really belongs, biology, where he really does help us to >> understand precisely why learning doesn't seem to play much of a role in >> evolution and speciation. It was Darwin's misfortune that many of his most >> ardent epigones (e.g. Spencer) were essentially Lamarckians who were trying >> to reverse what he did, putting his biology back into political economy. It >> was all of our misfortunes that this resulted in a highly atomistic way of >> looking at culture, history, sociology and psychology, in which the sole >> supra-individual unit was a pseudo-biological category of race. >> >> Darwin only makes sense when you ratchet him down from social theory to >> biology. Human culture really doesn't obey strict Darwinism anymore: >> agriculture and husbandry mean we burn forests instead of hunting and >> gathering like other species, and knowledge of how to do this is >> essentially Lamarckian in the way it is handed down through language. >> Similarly, Hegel only makes sense when you ratchet him up from physics into >> social theory. Atoms exist, and carbon dioxide is made of 'em, but that >> doesn't tell us much about how to stop global warming. Our, physics >> doesn't really have to listen to Hegel--there is just too much empirical >> evidence for atoms--and the proper name of the new kind of metaphysics that >> Hegel had in mind is not metaphysics at all, but historico-cultural >> psychology. >> >> (I have always wondered why my Geneva friends insist on >> "historico-cultural" instead of cultural-historical, but I think I know >> now...culture, e.g. guarding the amazon, is the emerging concept of history >> and not the other way around....). >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in >> understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: >> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:02 AM Martin Packer wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> [image: Cool Effect] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Welcome to our e-newsletter! We'll deliver the latest news and >>> carbon-reducing tips direct to your inbox. We can't wait to share them with >>> you. >>> >>> The Amazon Has True Champions >>> [image: Header Image] >>> >>> A season filled with intense, human-caused wildfires in the Amazon >>> rainforest has burned thousands of square miles, turned the skies black and >>> raised red flags on an international level. The number of fires is 85% >>> higher than the previous year. >>> >>> The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of our planet. It takes in >>> enormous quantities of CO2 and is thought to produce 12-20% of the >>> world?s oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump bringing rain into South >>> America and all over the world. Without rainfall, there will be cultural >>> and agricultural ruin. >>> >>> Let?s credit those who have been and continue to act as its guardians. >>> Over the course of thousands of years, the indigenous people of the Amazon >>> have worked to preserve this diverse biome that has contributed immensely >>> to the habitability of the planet. >>> >>> They are the ones who can show us the way, we must support and follow >>> them in order to save this vital ecosystem. >>> Help the indigenous people fight back >>> >>> >>> >>> News >>> [image: Article Image] >>> >>> *We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The Amazon In August - *In 2019 >>> there have been more than 90,000 fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. In >>> August, smoke from the burns blackened the sky in cities as distant as S?o >>> Paulo and caught the world?s attention. >>> - *BuzzFeed.News >>> * >>> [image: Article Image] >>> >>> *The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And we're doing nothing >>> to stop it -* The Amazon shouldn't sting your eyes with smoke, soak >>> your shirt with sweat, and turn the sky dark but that is exactly what is >>> happening when humans set fires there. - *CNN >>> * >>> [image: Article Image] >>> >>> *9 numbers you need to know to understand the Amazon fires - * Thousands >>> of fires burning across Brazil?s Amazon rainforest have captured >>> international attention over the past week. The fires are mainly set by >>> ranchers and farmers seeking to clear land for cultivation. - *PBS >>> * >>> >>> >>> Learn more about climate >>> >>> [image: Lightbulb] >>> >>> *Lauren A, TN - *Talking to family, friends and coworkers about the >>> climate crisis and making sure they are registered to vote. Tell us >>> what you are doing! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> We always want to hear from you. Reply to this email, write to us at >>> info@cooleffect.org or follow up on social media where we're always >>> open. >>> [image: Facebook] >>> >>> [image: Twitter] >>> >>> [image: Instagram] >>> >>> >>> >>> Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Suite 201 | >>> Kentfield, CA 94904 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ?2019, All Rights Reserved >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190920/42a6b0f4/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Sep 20 22:33:36 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 15:33:36 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Hegelian sources of CHAT Message-ID: 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 Home Page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190921/f94d11a3/attachment.html From carolmacdon@gmail.com Sat Sep 21 04:27:22 2019 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 13:27:22 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well you can definitely count me in but probably something of an observer. On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, 07:37 Andy Blunden, 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 > Home Page > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190921/af8176dd/attachment.html From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Sat Sep 21 14:22:42 2019 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 17:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andy, You have raised four truly excellent questions for discussion by CHAT members. Each will be a significant challenge, but well worth the effort. Peter F On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:29 AM Carol Macdonald wrote: > Well you can definitely count me in but probably something of an observer. > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, 07:37 Andy Blunden, 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 >> >> Home Page >> >> > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190921/63937a0f/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Sep 21 16:12:42 2019 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 08:12:42 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andy-- Two of the four foundational concepts (viz., number 2 and number 3) are Leontiev's and not Vygotsky's, and you are the author of a very perceptive and penetrating critique of Leontiev's critique of Vygotsky on precisely these two questions (The Problem of the Environment). Also, the paper you link asserts in more than one place that Vygotsky never read Hegel at all. The evidence you offer to prove the negative is a paper you wrote ten years ago (which argues an absence of positive evidence). But this goes against the testimony of his gynmasium friend Dobkin, suggests that he was a very laid back student at Shanyavsky University where he took courses in German philosophy, and also runs afoul of remarks by both Lucien Seve and yourself about the obvious synergy. So I gather this too is an older paper that doesn't reflect your current thinking. Perhaps you could begin by telling us how your thinking has changed and why. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New Article: Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 Some e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 The evidence to prove the negative is a paper you wrote in 2009. On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 6:26 AM Peter Feigenbaum wrote: > Andy, > > You have raised four truly excellent questions for discussion by CHAT > members. Each will be a significant challenge, but well worth the effort. > > Peter F > > > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:29 AM Carol Macdonald > wrote: > >> Well you can definitely count me in but probably something of an observer. >> >> On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, 07:37 Andy Blunden, 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 >>> >>> Home Page >>> >>> >> > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190922/7f1e9f6b/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Sep 21 18:03:44 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 11:03:44 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d1ca8f5-a237-6ec6-2358-d51f5d430be2@marxists.org> Yes, for all his faults I regard Leontyev's Activity Theory as an integral part of "Cultural Historical Activity Theory." But Hegel, Marx, Vygotsky, Leontyev, none of them are infallible or beyond criticism. I stand by my surprising finding that Vygotsky never read Hegel, and Semyon Dobkin's testimony is the sole documentary evidence to the contrary, but as I say in that 2009 article, Dobkin's recollections are not be taken at face value. If anything, what he actually says is further evidence that Vygotsky only knew Hegel secondhand. But what second hands! We are still waiting for your prophecy of? Vygotsky's annotations on the Phenomenology turning up in his archives. The 2009 paper traces every comment by Vygotsky about Hegel (bar maybe one or two) back to a secondary source. As I say there it is possible that Vygotsky read a passage by Hegel in the small section of the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit entitled "Psychology." And I suggest that his Hegelianism dates mainly from 1930 with earlier writings exhibiting distinct unfamiliarity with Hegel. Which leaves us with the question of whether Leontyev ever read Hegel. The implications of this for documentary research reach light years beyond my capacities. There is no evidence in his most famous writings, the ones I have read, and as you, plenty of evidence that he did not understand Hegel. The only one of the 4 concepts which is uniquely Leontyev's is the actions/activities distinction and it is likely (in my opinion) that he discovered this independently, with the guidance of Marx and Vygotsky at hand. If it were my purpose, I could just as easily write an essay on the differences between Leontyev's Activity Theory and Hegel's Theory of Action. But that was not my purpose. Looking forward to your comments on academia.edu, too, David. Thank you. Andy https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Vygotskys-Hegelianism.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 22/09/2019 9:12 am, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy-- > > Two of the?four foundational concepts (viz., number 2 and > number 3) are Leontiev's and not Vygotsky's, and you are > the author of a very perceptive and penetrating critique > of Leontiev's critique of Vygotsky on precisely these two > questions (The Problem of the Environment). > > Also, the paper you link asserts in more than one > place?that Vygotsky never read Hegel at all. The evidence > you offer to prove the negative is a paper you wrote ten > years ago (which argues an absence of positive evidence). > > But this goes against?the testimony of his gynmasium > friend?Dobkin,?suggests that he was a very laid back > student?at Shanyavsky University where he took courses in > German philosophy, and also runs afoul of remarks by both > Lucien Seve and yourself about the obvious synergy. > > So I gather this too?is an older paper that doesn't > reflect your current thinking. Perhaps you could begin by > telling us how your thinking has changed and why. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without > SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s > construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: > 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: > https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > The evidence to prove the negative is a paper you wrote in > 2009. > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 6:26 AM Peter Feigenbaum > > > wrote: > > Andy, > > You have raised four truly excellent questions for > discussion by CHAT members.? Each will be a > significant challenge, but well worth the effort. > > Peter F > > > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:29 AM Carol Macdonald > > > wrote: > > Well you can definitely count me in but probably > something of an observer. > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, 07:37 Andy Blunden, > > > 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 > > Home Page > > > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190922/fe013d14/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Sep 21 18:42:28 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 11:42:28 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <827b35e5-1145-289a-2554-dc7781ee6840@marxists.org> Certainly is worth the effort, Peter. There are a couple of things I can say on this list which I would not want to say "in public," so to speak. Hegel's explanation of "unit of analysis" I discovered only a few weeks ago, I knew about his use of it, because it is all over his writings, but I only found Hegel's own explanation of it last month. With my book out of the way I decided to roll up my sleeves and find it. I emailed Paul Redding, the foremost Hegelian in Australia and asked his advice. He didn't know, but from my explanation of what I was looking for (NB!) he suggested the German word /Einzelheit/. A search through the German version of the Science of Logic led me to the passage. Paul was as surprised as anyone could be by what this passage said. The thing is /where/ it was, one wouldn't expect such an important observation on page 800 of the Science of Logic! So you see, everyone read Hegel and failed to see this. Vygotsky understood it by understanding what Marx did with political economy, and Vygotsky is quite explicit about that. Marx on the other hand never tells us whether he got this from Hegel or not. Who knows? Hegel's explanation of "artefact mediated action" I only discovered a couple of years ago when I also "rolled up my sleeves" to find what I knew had to be there somewhere in Hegel's writing after, on this occasion, giving a talk to the Australian Hegel Society on artefact mediation in Hegel which was overwhelmingly disbelieved by my audience, including Paul Redding despite an extended email conversation on the matter. This time I found the passage when Martin Packer shared his interpretation of the passage where Vygotsky quotes Marx quoting Hegel on "the cunning of reason" and in the course of justifying my reading of this passage of Hegel, I realised it was part on explanation of artefact mediation. Again, I had known and written about this as early as 2003, but only a few years ago did I find the passage where Hegel actually explains it. All Hegelians ignore the passage. Hegel's explanation of the action/activity distinction is in the Philosophy of Right. I knew it only from Leontyev and it was part of my connecting Leontyev with Hegel only because it was needed to justify my claim that "spirit is human activity." I discovered the passage (which is actually very famous)? while preparing for my Sunday Hegel Reading Group. I have studied all the very many expositions of Hegel's theory of action, and no-one sees it. My paper on the topic has been waiting in peer review with the Hegel Society of Great Britain for more than 4 months now. Hegel's distinction between concept and pseudoconcept everyone knows, if you've read Hegel. It's Hegel 101. But Vygotsky didn't know about it when you wrote his chapters for "Ape, Primitive Man and Child" in 1929, but he cites Hegel in his connection on several occasions from 1930 on. So you see, even though I /have /read Hegel, I know three of these Hegelian ideas only thanks to CHAT. I am sure there are people on XMCA who can tell us something about writing and reading which we see in this story. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 22/09/2019 7:22 am, Peter Feigenbaum wrote: > Andy, > > You have raised four truly excellent questions for > discussion by CHAT members.? Each will be a significant > challenge, but well worth the effort. > > Peter F > > > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:29 AM Carol Macdonald > > wrote: > > Well you can definitely count me in but probably > something of an observer. > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, 07:37 Andy Blunden, > > 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 > > Home Page > > > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190922/66b61103/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Sep 23 09:33:49 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:33:49 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: The protectors of the Amazon In-Reply-To: References: <8a0bcf8e-fce1-4f5c-8822-7b25c6f73f40@dfw1s10mta42.xt.local> <69C3FFF5-BEB4-48EF-B21B-D7FAE2FC7A65@gmail.com> <06AA05B3-3626-40C1-8757-E046DEBB7337@gmail.com> Message-ID: <81A51A16-327D-4A4B-991B-34EA0A603FEA@gmail.com> David, Thanks again for taking seriously my question. I am sure it is simplistic in the way you?d expect from someone younger with time left to work it ?all? out. I hew to always being a beginner.:) You?re right about Democritus being the source on atoms for Epicurus, at least as I understand it. I intended to responding more at length to your panoramic history of Darwinian and social darwinist thinking of the 19th century, but being the slow beginner that I am, the discussion of Andy?s article on Hegel really is and should be the focus of more discussion on Hegel. So, I?ll go there and sign in to that conversation, though I may just lurk. Henry > On Sep 19, 2019, at 3:25 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Sure, Henry--I'll try. And then you must explain to me about Epicurus and atoms (I thought it was Democritus!) > > I never liked the formulation "survival of the fittest": it always sounds too much like "if you are so smart, how come you are not rich". > > Darwin actually doesn't include "survival of the fittest" until (I think) the fifth edition of "Origin of Species" in 1870, and it is originally from Spencer (Herbert Spencer and not Herbert Spender Jennings), who is really interested in "proving" that all humans are equal (in the good old American sense of not recognizing noble blood) but some races are more equal to the tasks imposed by the natural environment than others (in the good old American sense of considering some humans racially consigned to hewing wood and drawing water). . > > Darwin's original formulation was "modification through descent and natural selection". Now, Darwin DID get this idea from Malthus. Malthus noted that plants tended to reproduce at more or less replacement level, but animals, including humans, tend to double or even triple with every generation. He concluded that dearth and death were inevitable, unless the poor could be taught to practice chastity and moral restraint (he was a parson, and the clergy do spend a lot of time thinking about how not to think about sex). > > Malthus was taken up by his students, the utilitarians (James Mill and his son John Stuart), who used it to argue against famine relief in British India. The argument was that if you provide famine relief, you are staying Adam Smith's invisible hand and preserving races which naturally deserve to die out and offer their land and resources at fire-sale prices to those notable guardians of the environment, the British East India Company. The direct result was millions of deaths from hunger, which only really ended with Indian independence. > > There were indirect results too, in the intellectual sphere which are still more persistent. Mill was taken up by Spencer, who used it to argue against public education, hygiene, post offices, and marrying George Eliot (who was, Spencer felt, just intelligent enough but not sufficiently sexually attractive, and this,for reasons he was not very good at explaining, was disqualifying in women but not in men). > > But of course it's not enough to say that Spencer was ugly, vain, and unaware of his own true motives. The Mathusians were wrong--empirically wrong, in precisely the way that Malthusians like to say that Marx was proved wrong. > > Darwin actually showed that Malthus was right--but only about bacteria, paramecia, plants, and (some but not all) animals. Marx showed that Malthusians were completely wrong about humans, because .humans have learnt the trick of adapting the environment to their own needs: herding and farming instead of hunting and gathering. Once humans have learnt this trick, the Malthusian bet is off. On the contrary, we see that it's precisely the societies that do care for the old, the sick, the weak, the biologically least fit for survival which develop, societies which do develop public education, hygiene, post offices and literature, which are most capable of solving even the problems that troubled Malthus, Mill, and Spencer, namely dearth, famine, and high birth rates. > > One of the byproducts of turning the tables on the environment in this way--adapting the environment to human needs instead of adapting human needs to the environment--is certainly the kind of environmental destruction we can see in the Amazon. But another one is language, and language does allow us to act on our own "nature", bringing the ideal into the immediate and the real and adapting to that instead of simply struggling directly with the real. > > The Penan, in Borneo, became guardians of their forest not by hunting and gathering but by trading and coming into confict with logging companies and local farmers. Our own tribe, whatever you want to call it, preserves hunting and gathering modes of production in only two domains, commercial fisheries and strip mining. Neither domain is notable for its stewardship of natural resources. So I don't think we are naturally born guardians of the forest. But I do think that historico-culturally we can learn to be. > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New Article: > Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s > pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by > Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > > Some e-prints available at: > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 > public education, health services, post offices, hygiene et > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:31 PM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > David and Andy, > Thanks for taking seriously my cyborg question and refining the idea. I think I do remember Vygotsky saying something about humans creating new organs through technology. This thread is interesting to me not least because I will be meeting next week with friends to discuss Epicurus? views on atoms and the good life. This follows on a discussion several weeks ago of an overview by Engles of the enlightentment science and the social upheavals of the 19th century. > > But I?d like to ask you what David means in the last paragraph of this most recent post: "The ability of humans to flout Malthus--our ability to make the means of subsistence increase "geometrically" and not just "arithmetically"--is not simply a matter of altering the environment to suit ourselves and our own reproductive proclivities. It is also a matter of altering ourselves to suit our better natures.? What is the path to altering ourselves to suit our better natures? How much of it is activist and how much contemplative? > > Henry > > > >> On Sep 18, 2019, at 3:03 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: >> >> Andy-- >> >> Engels not only accepted the existence of atoms (Dialectics of Nature) he offers us a proof of their existence that pre-dates Einstein's (which actually only proves the existence of molecules). Engels used the fact that the properties of moles of elements could be deduced from their atomic weight to demonstrate Hegel's "passage of quantity into quality"; there isn't any way to do this without the understanding that atoms exist. >> >> Henry-- >> >> The term "cyborg" didn't exist until 1960. But I think it's a little like the way that Vygotsky and Buhler use "Lamarckianism" or "a synthesis of Larmarck and Darwin" to refer to what we would now call epigenesis: the term is new, but the concept is definitely there in Vygotsky: in the form of the "Jennings Principle", or rather Vygotsky's criticism of the Jennings principle. >> >> Herbert Spencer Jennings (despite the unfortunate name his parents christened him with) was a progressive eugenicist (which at the end of the nineteenth century must have been like being an airplane pilot with a fear of heights). He was mostly interested in paramecia (because he wanted to work out the real mathematics behind Mendel's discoveries--you know that the numbers Mendel came up with for dominance and recessiveness are really WAY too convenient). But he used his knowledge of genetics to argue against the 1924 anti-Chinese immigration act, a piece of racist legislation which is still the basis of American immigration law (immigration quotas are designed to preserve the ethnic composition of the USA). >> >> In the course of his work on paramecia, Jennings says that the sphere of activity of any organism is a function (in the mathematical sense) of its organs. Vygotsky is skeptical, and not simply because the activity of an organism is greater than the sum of the actions of its organs. Vygotsky says that humans have the peculiar ability to create their own organs: artificial limbs, eye-glasses, ear-trumpets, and of course the numerous prosthetic devices that our brains use, chief of which is language. This means that humans do not obey the Jennings principle. >> >> The ability of humans to flout Malthus--our ability to make the means of subsistence increase "geometrically" and not just "arithmetically"--is not simply a matter of altering the environment to suit ourselves and our own reproductive proclivities. It is also a matter of altering ourselves to suit our better natures. I think that the only real hope for the Amazon lies in that latter possibility, although I think I would resist physicalizing it as "cyborg nature" the way that Donna Haraway does. I also think that "cyborg nature" essentializes matters: the ability to flout the Jennings principle is anything but essential to humans. It's a fluke of exaptation: taking an organ that evolved for one thing and using it for something quite different (e.g. taking organs that evolved for breathing and eating and using them for talking about philosophy). >> >> David Kellogg >> Sangmyung University >> >> New Article: >> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by >> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> Some e-prints available at: >> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:32 AM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: >> David, >> Does biology include the cyborg nature of humanity? I mean the way in which technology has changed human consciousness, what it is like to be human. >> Henry >> >> >> >>> On Sep 17, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>> >>> David, I seem to recall that Engels also took atoms to be an unprovable hypothesis. The point for Hegel though is that the question of atoms or not is not a philosophical question, but one which can only be resolved by experiment, and like Engels, he simply failed to imagine that such a thing was possible. Einstein observed atoms c. 1905 via a mathematical analysis of Brownian motion. Another great philosopher, maybe you remember who, claimed that although we could see the Sun, we could not, in principle, ever know what it is made of. Optical spectrometry of course put an end to that, >>> >>> In general, Hegel underestimated the potential for expansion of the domain of natural scientific and technical discovery. But he updated his philosophy as new insights became available, as we all do. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> Andy Blunden >>> Hegel for Social Movements >>> Home Page >>> On 18/09/2019 2:50 pm, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> While I was (gratefully) checking out this material (and also the previously sent material from Mike on the APA deep poverty challenge) I was turning over in my head the last discussion we had on Hegel and social movements. Andy's book prompted me to dig out my dog-eared copy of Hegel's Logic and give it another go, and this time I did find it went a lot more easily (for which to Andy many thanks). >>>> >>>> But I had to cough a bit over Hegel's rejection of atoms. On the one hand, he says, there isn't and can never be any empirical evidence for them. On the other, he says, physics is just miring us in matter, distracting us from our real task, which is a new kind of metaphysics that can overleap mathematics, matter, and elemental sciences stuck in Being merely and establish a true science of the whole (his encyclopedia of philosophy, of which the logic is a part). As usual, when I come up against stuff like this in Hegel, I try hard to imagine what the world really looks like to nineteenth century German philosopher, where atoms are an unproveable hypothesis and God is simply "pure" reality. It still seems to me that what Hegel has to say about atoms is embarrassing, dogmatic, and downright foolish--but as soon as we transfer what he says to sociology and psychology, he starts making sense. >>>> >>>> At the same time I've been rereading Darwin. One of the things that struck me was how much Darwin was influenced by political economy, and especially by Malthus. What Darwin is really up to is taking Malthus OUT of sociology, where it really is not very good at explaining things like learning and development, collaboration, and culture generally, and put him where he really belongs, biology, where he really does help us to understand precisely why learning doesn't seem to play much of a role in evolution and speciation. It was Darwin's misfortune that many of his most ardent epigones (e.g. Spencer) were essentially Lamarckians who were trying to reverse what he did, putting his biology back into political economy. It was all of our misfortunes that this resulted in a highly atomistic way of looking at culture, history, sociology and psychology, in which the sole supra-individual unit was a pseudo-biological category of race. >>>> >>>> Darwin only makes sense when you ratchet him down from social theory to biology. Human culture really doesn't obey strict Darwinism anymore: agriculture and husbandry mean we burn forests instead of hunting and gathering like other species, and knowledge of how to do this is essentially Lamarckian in the way it is handed down through language. Similarly, Hegel only makes sense when you ratchet him up from physics into social theory. Atoms exist, and carbon dioxide is made of 'em, but that doesn't tell us much about how to stop global warming. Our, physics doesn't really have to listen to Hegel--there is just too much empirical evidence for atoms--and the proper name of the new kind of metaphysics that Hegel had in mind is not metaphysics at all, but historico-cultural psychology. >>>> >>>> (I have always wondered why my Geneva friends insist on "historico-cultural" instead of cultural-historical, but I think I know now...culture, e.g. guarding the amazon, is the emerging concept of history and not the other way around....). >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Sangmyung University >>>> >>>> New Article: >>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky?s >>>> pedology, Bruner?s constructivism and Halliday?s construalism in understanding narratives by >>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> >>>> Some e-prints available at: >>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:02 AM Martin Packer > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Welcome to our e-newsletter! We'll deliver the latest news and carbon-reducing tips direct to your inbox. We can't wait to share them with you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Amazon Has True Champions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A season filled with intense, human-caused wildfires in the Amazon rainforest has burned thousands of square miles, turned the skies black and raised red flags on an international level. The number of fires is 85% higher than the previous year. >>>>> >>>>> The Amazon is both the lungs and the heart of our planet. It takes in enormous quantities of CO2 and is thought to produce 12-20% of the world?s oxygen. It also acts as a biotic pump bringing rain into South America and all over the world. Without rainfall, there will be cultural and agricultural ruin. >>>>> >>>>> Let?s credit those who have been and continue to act as its guardians. Over the course of thousands of years, the indigenous people of the Amazon have worked to preserve this diverse biome that has contributed immensely to the habitability of the planet. >>>>> >>>>> They are the ones who can show us the way, we must support and follow them in order to save this vital ecosystem. >>>>> Help the indigenous people fight back >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> News >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We Mapped All The Fires That Burned In The Amazon In August - In 2019 there have been more than 90,000 fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. In August, smoke from the burns blackened the sky in cities as distant as S?o Paulo and caught the world?s attention. >>>>> - BuzzFeed.News >>>>> >>>>> The Amazon is burning. The climate is changing. And we're doing nothing to stop it - The Amazon shouldn't sting your eyes with smoke, soak your shirt with sweat, and turn the sky dark but that is exactly what is happening when humans set fires there. - CNN >>>>> >>>>> 9 numbers you need to know to understand the Amazon fires - Thousands of fires burning across Brazil?s Amazon rainforest have captured international attention over the past week. The fires are mainly set by ranchers and farmers seeking to clear land for cultivation. - PBS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Learn more about climate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lauren A, TN - Talking to family, friends and coworkers about the climate crisis and making sure they are registered to vote. Tell us what you are doing! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We always want to hear from you. Reply to this email, write to us at info@cooleffect.org or follow up on social media where we're always open. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cool Effect Inc. | 919 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Suite 201 | Kentfield, CA 94904 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?2019, All Rights Reserved >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190923/aa5f434d/attachment-0001.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Wed Sep 25 08:26:33 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:26:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Associate professor in educational leadership Message-ID: Perhaps of interest to someone in the list, a position as associate professor in educational leadership in Oslo: https://www.jobbnorge.no/en/available-jobs/job/175752/associate-professor-in-educational-leadership Alfredo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190925/2ad35259/attachment.html From shannonbrincat@yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 25 14:16:07 2019 From: shannonbrincat@yahoo.com.au (Shannon Brincat) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:16:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> Dear all, I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky.? I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? Many thanks for your time. Sincerely, Shannon Dr. Shannon K. BrincatSenior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine CoastRoom T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr?| Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia+61 7 5430 1193 https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ Global Discourse, Co-Editor http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 New Book available:?From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190925/08b02f30/attachment.html From leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com Wed Sep 25 23:37:22 2019 From: leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com (Leif Strandberg) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 08:37:22 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v detskom vozraste - with the Swedish title Fantasi och kreativitet I bandomen. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) It is a great book. Greetings from Leif Strandberg Fr?n: on behalf of Shannon Brincat Svara till: Shannon Brincat , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Datum: onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 Till: Culture Activity EXtended Mind ?mne: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination Dear all, I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky. I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? Many thanks for your time. Sincerely, Shannon Dr. Shannon K. Brincat Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia +61 7 5430 1193 https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ Global Discourse, Co-Editor http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 New Book available: >From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/c26eac9d/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Thu Sep 26 00:15:54 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:15:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in Mind, Culture, and Activity: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 Alfredo From: on behalf of Leif Strandberg Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 To: Shannon Brincat , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination Hi In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v detskom vozraste - with the Swedish title Fantasi och kreativitet I bandomen. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) It is a great book. Greetings from Leif Strandberg Fr?n: > on behalf of Shannon Brincat > Svara till: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Datum: onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 Till: Culture Activity EXtended Mind > ?mne: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination Dear all, I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky. I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? Many thanks for your time. Sincerely, Shannon Dr. Shannon K. Brincat Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia +61 7 5430 1193 https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ Global Discourse, Co-Editor http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 New Book available: From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/466342e0/attachment.html From jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi Thu Sep 26 04:02:47 2019 From: jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi (=?utf-8?Q?Jaakko_Hilpp=C3=B6?=) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:02:47 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> Hi Shannon, You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 Hope this helps Jake :) **************************** Jaakko Hilpp? jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi Post-doctoral Researcher ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 Faculty of Education P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki +358 40 533 4643 CURRENT PROJECTS: Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects Constituting Cultures of Compassion bit.ly/CoCuCo FUSE https://www.fusestudio.net **************************** > Alfredo Jornet Gil kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: > > Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in Mind, Culture, and Activity:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 > > Alfredo > > From: > on behalf of Leif Strandberg > > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 > To: Shannon Brincat , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > Hi > > In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v detskom vozraste - with the Swedish title Fantasi och kreativitet I bandomen. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) > It is a great book. > > Greetings from > Leif Strandberg > > > Fr?n: > on behalf of Shannon Brincat > > Svara till: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Datum: onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 > Till: Culture Activity EXtended Mind > > ?mne: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination > > Dear all, > > I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky. > > I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? > > Many thanks for your time. > > Sincerely, > > Shannon > > Dr. Shannon K. Brincat > Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast > Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia > +61 7 5430 1193 > > https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ > > Global Discourse, Co-Editor > http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 > > New Book available: > From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/8a3e4878/attachment.html From laure.kloetzer@gmail.com Thu Sep 26 04:54:26 2019 From: laure.kloetzer@gmail.com (Laure Kloetzer) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:54:26 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> Message-ID: Hi Shannon and all, I am also very interested if you can share all feedbacks you get on this topic, Shannon. Recently, we began organizing science fiction workshops with students to "extricate the future" - betting that imagination, exploring alternative possible worlds, is a necessary path to free the future from its ready-made, unavoidable clothes massively sold by multinationals and goverments. On going work, with quite interesting insights, esp. on how difficult it is to link imagination and political change. Also here in Neuch?tel, one of Tania Zittoun's doctoral student is working on close topics (imagination and political utopia). Finally, I think that Manolis Dafermos, or some of his colleagues and friends, made a movie with young people in Greece on overcoming the crisis, but I can not find it now, sorry... Best regards, LK Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 ? 13:05, Jaakko Hilpp? a ?crit : > Hi Shannon, > > You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. > > https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 > > The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. > > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 > > Hope this helps > Jake :) > **************************** > Jaakko Hilpp? > jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi > Post-doctoral Researcher > ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 > Faculty of Education > P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki > +358 40 533 4643 > > CURRENT PROJECTS: > > *Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement* > http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects > > *Constituting Cultures of Compassion* > bit.ly/CoCuCo > > *FUSE* > https://www.fusestudio.net > **************************** > > > > Alfredo Jornet Gil kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: > > Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were > talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current > context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when > it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may > be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, > so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are > learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be > interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is > obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in > Mind, Culture, and Activity: > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 > > Alfredo > > *From: * on behalf of Leif Strandberg < > leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 > *To: *Shannon Brincat , "eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > Hi > > In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s *Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v > detskom vozraste* - with the Swedish title *Fantasi och kreativitet I > bandomen*. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) > It is a great book. > > Greetings from > Leif Strandberg > > > *Fr?n: * on behalf of Shannon Brincat < > shannonbrincat@yahoo.com.au> > *Svara till: *Shannon Brincat , "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Datum: *onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 > *Till: *Culture Activity EXtended Mind > *?mne: *[Xmca-l] Question on Imagination > > Dear all, > > I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that > brings in Vygotsky. > > I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where > Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND > as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you > know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? > > Many thanks for your time. > > Sincerely, > > Shannon > > Dr. Shannon K. Brincat > Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast > Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast > | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia > +61 7 5430 1193 > > https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ > > Global Discourse, Co-Editor > http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 > > New Book available: > *From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of > Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017.* > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/21893610/attachment.html From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Thu Sep 26 08:09:33 2019 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:09:33 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> Message-ID: Hi Shannon and all that are interested in LSV and imagination. Have you seen Maxine Greene's work on *Releasing the Imagination* or Vera John-Steiner's book on *Notebooks of the Mind*? Robert Lake On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 7:05 AM Jaakko Hilpp? wrote: > Hi Shannon, > > You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. > > https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 > > The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. > > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 > > Hope this helps > Jake :) > **************************** > Jaakko Hilpp? > jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi > Post-doctoral Researcher > ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 > Faculty of Education > P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki > +358 40 533 4643 > > CURRENT PROJECTS: > > *Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement* > http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects > > *Constituting Cultures of Compassion* > bit.ly/CoCuCo > > *FUSE* > https://www.fusestudio.net > **************************** > > > > Alfredo Jornet Gil kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: > > Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were > talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current > context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when > it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may > be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, > so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are > learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be > interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is > obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in > Mind, Culture, and Activity: > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 > > Alfredo > > *From: * on behalf of Leif Strandberg < > leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 > *To: *Shannon Brincat , "eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > Hi > > In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s *Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v > detskom vozraste* - with the Swedish title *Fantasi och kreativitet I > bandomen*. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) > It is a great book. > > Greetings from > Leif Strandberg > > > *Fr?n: * on behalf of Shannon Brincat < > shannonbrincat@yahoo.com.au> > *Svara till: *Shannon Brincat , "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Datum: *onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 > *Till: *Culture Activity EXtended Mind > *?mne: *[Xmca-l] Question on Imagination > > Dear all, > > I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that > brings in Vygotsky. > > I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where > Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND > as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you > know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? > > Many thanks for your time. > > Sincerely, > > Shannon > > Dr. Shannon K. Brincat > Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast > Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast > | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia > +61 7 5430 1193 > > https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ > > Global Discourse, Co-Editor > http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 > > New Book available: > *From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of > Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017.* > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Professor of Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University 275 COE Drive P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/1e0535de/attachment.html From glassman.13@osu.edu Thu Sep 26 08:27:25 2019 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:27:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> Message-ID: This is interesting to me as I am wondering if there is a differentiation between imagination and being open to new possibilities and what relationship this has to how we education. Last week we were reading Vygotsky?s writings on early human thinking is a seminar. He said something that really struck me. It was about the difference in how we might treat teaching to track a bear. For early man it might be teaching all the details so you could recreate the hunt of the bear using the tracks. For more modern thinking it might be more about using the track to tell the story of a hunt for a bear opening up a new possibility for things that might happen. Both have their advantages. For the former you have a more detailed and direct instruction of what you are supposed to do. For the latter you are open to new possibilities as new circumstances might make the hunt more complex in ways you are not anticipating so you are open to learning new tools in sign operation or more likely in sign co-operation. A student actually asked, is this the same thing as imagination, actually bringing up the idea of having an imaginary friend. I did not know how to answer. Is being able to think about things in an open manner and able to co-operate in creating new tools and symbols the same thing as imagination. When a write sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol? I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing? And we often treat imagination as a force to be unleashed, but does it have to do more with the way we education? Questions running around my head. Michael From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Laure Kloetzer Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 7:54 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination Hi Shannon and all, I am also very interested if you can share all feedbacks you get on this topic, Shannon. Recently, we began organizing science fiction workshops with students to "extricate the future" - betting that imagination, exploring alternative possible worlds, is a necessary path to free the future from its ready-made, unavoidable clothes massively sold by multinationals and goverments. On going work, with quite interesting insights, esp. on how difficult it is to link imagination and political change. Also here in Neuch?tel, one of Tania Zittoun's doctoral student is working on close topics (imagination and political utopia). Finally, I think that Manolis Dafermos, or some of his colleagues and friends, made a movie with young people in Greece on overcoming the crisis, but I can not find it now, sorry... Best regards, LK Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 ? 13:05, Jaakko Hilpp? > a ?crit : Hi Shannon, You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 Hope this helps Jake :) **************************** Jaakko Hilpp? jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi Post-doctoral Researcher ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 Faculty of Education P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki +358 40 533 4643 CURRENT PROJECTS: Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects Constituting Cultures of Compassion bit.ly/CoCuCo FUSE https://www.fusestudio.net **************************** Alfredo Jornet Gil > kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in Mind, Culture, and Activity:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 Alfredo From: > on behalf of Leif Strandberg > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 To: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination Hi In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v detskom vozraste - with the Swedish title Fantasi och kreativitet I bandomen. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) It is a great book. Greetings from Leif Strandberg Fr?n: > on behalf of Shannon Brincat > Svara till: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Datum: onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 Till: Culture Activity EXtended Mind > ?mne: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination Dear all, I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky. I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? Many thanks for your time. Sincerely, Shannon Dr. Shannon K. Brincat Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia +61 7 5430 1193 https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ Global Discourse, Co-Editor http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 New Book available: From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/13931f8a/attachment.html From Dana.Walker@unco.edu Thu Sep 26 13:05:18 2019 From: Dana.Walker@unco.edu (Walker, Dana) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 20:05:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> Message-ID: <686E417A-56B3-4773-B110-DBC4F8FA6A9E@unco.edu> Michael, Vygotsky (1994) wrote, [A]ccording to the valid observation of Pushkin, imagination is as necessary in geometry as it is in poetry. Everything that requires artistic transformation of reality, everything that is connected with interpretation and construction of something new, requires the indispensable participation of fantasy. (p. 269-270) Zittoun & Gl Gl?veanu (2018) translate and interpret ?fantasy? as ?imagination,? as Leif Strandberg in this thread notes they have done in Sweden in a recent publication. Jovchelovitch (2018) and co-authors define imagination in the following terms: Imagination is the human capacity to go beyond the immediate situation and play with possible realities? Liberating oneself from the immediacy of the perceptual field and being able to creatively recombine elements of context and previous experience is enabled by the interdependence between self and other. Imagination is social, adaptive, and intrinsic to rational thinking. (p. 114) So in answer to your question, ?When a writer sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol?? According to my reading I would say yes. In answer to this question, ?I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing?? I think you point to a challenge for theorists of imagination and those who seek to design for imagination in educational settings: How do we define and use the construct of imagination as something distinct from all other higher psychological processes? Dana REFERENCES Jovchelovitch, S. (2015). The creativity of the social Imagination, development and social change in Rio de Janeiro?s favelas. In V. P. Gl?veanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Rethinking creativity: Contributions from cultural psychology (pp. 76-92). New York: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 266-288). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Zittoun, T., & Gl?veanu, V. P. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of imagination and culture. New York: Oxford University Press. From: on behalf of "Glassman, Michael" Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:37 AM To: "laure.kloetzer@gmail.com" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination This is interesting to me as I am wondering if there is a differentiation between imagination and being open to new possibilities and what relationship this has to how we education. Last week we were reading Vygotsky?s writings on early human thinking is a seminar. He said something that really struck me. It was about the difference in how we might treat teaching to track a bear. For early man it might be teaching all the details so you could recreate the hunt of the bear using the tracks. For more modern thinking it might be more about using the track to tell the story of a hunt for a bear opening up a new possibility for things that might happen. Both have their advantages. For the former you have a more detailed and direct instruction of what you are supposed to do. For the latter you are open to new possibilities as new circumstances might make the hunt more complex in ways you are not anticipating so you are open to learning new tools in sign operation or more likely in sign co-operation. A student actually asked, is this the same thing as imagination, actually bringing up the idea of having an imaginary friend. I did not know how to answer. Is being able to think about things in an open manner and able to co-operate in creating new tools and symbols the same thing as imagination. When a write sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol? I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing? And we often treat imagination as a force to be unleashed, but does it have to do more with the way we education? Questions running around my head. Michael From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Laure Kloetzer Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 7:54 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination Hi Shannon and all, I am also very interested if you can share all feedbacks you get on this topic, Shannon. Recently, we began organizing science fiction workshops with students to "extricate the future" - betting that imagination, exploring alternative possible worlds, is a necessary path to free the future from its ready-made, unavoidable clothes massively sold by multinationals and goverments. On going work, with quite interesting insights, esp. on how difficult it is to link imagination and political change. Also here in Neuch?tel, one of Tania Zittoun's doctoral student is working on close topics (imagination and political utopia). Finally, I think that Manolis Dafermos, or some of his colleagues and friends, made a movie with young people in Greece on overcoming the crisis, but I can not find it now, sorry... Best regards, LK Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 ? 13:05, Jaakko Hilpp? > a ?crit : Hi Shannon, You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 Hope this helps Jake :) **************************** Jaakko Hilpp? jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi Post-doctoral Researcher ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 Faculty of Education P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki +358 40 533 4643 CURRENT PROJECTS: Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects Constituting Cultures of Compassion bit.ly/CoCuCo FUSE https://www.fusestudio.net **************************** Alfredo Jornet Gil > kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in Mind, Culture, and Activity:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 Alfredo From: > on behalf of Leif Strandberg > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 To: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination Hi In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v detskom vozraste - with the Swedish title Fantasi och kreativitet I bandomen. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) It is a great book. Greetings from Leif Strandberg Fr?n: > on behalf of Shannon Brincat > Svara till: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Datum: onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 Till: Culture Activity EXtended Mind > ?mne: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination Dear all, I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky. I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? Many thanks for your time. Sincerely, Shannon Dr. Shannon K. Brincat Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia +61 7 5430 1193 https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ Global Discourse, Co-Editor http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 New Book available: From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/04db0764/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Sep 26 13:33:10 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:33:10 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: <686E417A-56B3-4773-B110-DBC4F8FA6A9E@unco.edu> References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> <686E417A-56B3-4773-B110-DBC4F8FA6A9E@unco.edu> Message-ID: Michael, Robert Lake has suggested you look at Vera Johm-Steiner?s Notebooks of the Mind, good for the use of imagination by the individual. In it, she cites Einstein?s famous thought experiment in which he imagines travelling through space astride a light wave and turns around to look at the light wave behind. Vera wrote a book, Creative Collaboration, which may provide you ideas on how group projects make use of the imagination. Vera?s work is about creativity across a wide variety of domains: in science and art, across generations, women in collaboration. She was a Holocaust survivor who believed that the imagination, the life of the mind, can be a way to transformation, and literally, survival, For the individual and for groups. Good luck with your work! Henry > On Sep 26, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Walker, Dana wrote: > > Michael, > > Vygotsky (1994) wrote, > > [A]ccording to the valid observation of Pushkin, imagination is as necessary in geometry as it is in poetry. Everything that requires artistic transformation of reality, everything that is connected with interpretation and construction of something new, requires the indispensable participation of fantasy. (p. 269-270) > > Zittoun & Gl Gl?veanu (2018) translate and interpret ?fantasy? as ?imagination,? as Leif Strandberg in this thread notes they have done in Sweden in a recent publication. > > Jovchelovitch (2018) and co-authors define imagination in the following terms: > > Imagination is the human capacity to go beyond the immediate situation and play with possible realities? Liberating oneself from the immediacy of the perceptual field and being able to creatively recombine elements of context and previous experience is enabled by the interdependence between self and other. Imagination is social, adaptive, and intrinsic to rational thinking. (p. 114) > > So in answer to your question, ?When a writer sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol?? According to my reading I would say yes. In answer to this question, ?I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing?? I think you point to a challenge for theorists of imagination and those who seek to design for imagination in educational settings: How do we define and use the construct of imagination as something distinct from all other higher psychological processes? > > Dana > > REFERENCES > > Jovchelovitch, S. (2015). The creativity of the social Imagination, development and social change in Rio de Janeiro?s favelas. In V. P. Gl?veanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Rethinking creativity: Contributions from cultural psychology (pp. 76-92). New York: Routledge. > Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 266-288). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. > Zittoun, T., & Gl?veanu, V. P. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of imagination and culture. New York: Oxford University Press. > > > From: > on behalf of "Glassman, Michael" > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:37 AM > To: "laure.kloetzer@gmail.com " >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > This is interesting to me as I am wondering if there is a differentiation between imagination and being open to new possibilities and what relationship this has to how we education. Last week we were reading Vygotsky?s writings on early human thinking is a seminar. He said something that really struck me. It was about the difference in how we might treat teaching to track a bear. For early man it might be teaching all the details so you could recreate the hunt of the bear using the tracks. For more modern thinking it might be more about using the track to tell the story of a hunt for a bear opening up a new possibility for things that might happen. Both have their advantages. For the former you have a more detailed and direct instruction of what you are supposed to do. For the latter you are open to new possibilities as new circumstances might make the hunt more complex in ways you are not anticipating so you are open to learning new tools in sign operation or more likely in sign co-operation. A student actually asked, is this the same thing as imagination, actually bringing up the idea of having an imaginary friend. I did not know how to answer. Is being able to think about things in an open manner and able to co-operate in creating new tools and symbols the same thing as imagination. When a write sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol? I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing? And we often treat imagination as a force to be unleashed, but does it have to do more with the way we education? > > Questions running around my head. > > Michael > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of Laure Kloetzer > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 7:54 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > Hi Shannon and all, > > I am also very interested if you can share all feedbacks you get on this topic, Shannon. > Recently, we began organizing science fiction workshops with students to "extricate the future" - betting that imagination, exploring alternative possible worlds, is a necessary path to free the future from its ready-made, unavoidable clothes massively sold by multinationals and goverments. On going work, with quite interesting insights, esp. on how difficult it is to link imagination and political change. > Also here in Neuch?tel, one of Tania Zittoun's doctoral student is working on close topics (imagination and political utopia). > Finally, I think that Manolis Dafermos, or some of his colleagues and friends, made a movie with young people in Greece on overcoming the crisis, but I can not find it now, sorry... > Best regards, > LK > > Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 ? 13:05, Jaakko Hilpp? > a ?crit : >> Hi Shannon, >> >> You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. >> >> https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 >> >> The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 >> >> Hope this helps >> Jake :) >> **************************** >> Jaakko Hilpp? >> jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi >> Post-doctoral Researcher >> ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 >> Faculty of Education >> P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki >> +358 40 533 4643 >> >> CURRENT PROJECTS: >> >> Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement >> http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects >> >> Constituting Cultures of Compassion >> bit.ly/CoCuCo >> FUSE >> https://www.fusestudio.net >> **************************** >> >> >> >> >> >>> Alfredo Jornet Gil > kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: >>> >>> Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in Mind, Culture, and Activity:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> From: > on behalf of Leif Strandberg > >>> Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 >>> To: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v detskom vozraste - with the Swedish title Fantasi och kreativitet I bandomen. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) >>> It is a great book. >>> >>> Greetings from >>> Leif Strandberg >>> >>> >>> Fr?n: > on behalf of Shannon Brincat > >>> Svara till: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> Datum: onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 >>> Till: Culture Activity EXtended Mind > >>> ?mne: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky. >>> >>> I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? >>> >>> Many thanks for your time. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Shannon >>> >>> Dr. Shannon K. Brincat >>> Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast >>> Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia >>> +61 7 5430 1193 >>> >>> https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ >>> >>> Global Discourse, Co-Editor >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 >>> >>> New Book available: >>> From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. >> >> > > **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/238e59bf/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Sep 26 14:07:00 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:07:00 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: <686E417A-56B3-4773-B110-DBC4F8FA6A9E@unco.edu> References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> <686E417A-56B3-4773-B110-DBC4F8FA6A9E@unco.edu> Message-ID: <10E15C0E-BA6A-48AC-B0A3-5309A0DA7A9F@gmail.com> Shannon, I apologize for addressing my response to Michael, since it was you that got this thread started. Though, Michael, I certainly like what you had to say. While I?m at it, I would like to add that a lot of language goes ?beyond the immediate situation?. That is certainly true of this discussion. To make sense of it, I have to do a lot of imagining. It is what distinguishes language, a unique human capacity, from the communication of other species. Language allows for displaced reference, the ability to refer to things and events removed in time and space from the immediate context of the spoken and written word. On the other hand, displaced reference need not be very creative. I lot of it is pretty mundane stuff. In the same way, imagination can be pretty mundane. Fantasy, may or may not be very creative. But perhaps what is creative for a chlld may not be for an adult. Or what is creative use of the imagination for me at one age, not so much when I get older? From a Vygotskian perspective, I wonder if perizhvanie involves an important use of the imagination: a lived experience, potentially traumatic, that provides a crucible for the development of personality, of character. I am thinking of the use of art to provide an ?outlet? for those who suffer trauma. Sometimes language just is not able to channel the emotions in that way that art can. Early Vygotsky was totally into art. Vera John-Steiner, as a teen ager, taught children dance in the concentration camp where she was interned. Henry > On Sep 26, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Walker, Dana wrote: > > Michael, > > Vygotsky (1994) wrote, > > [A]ccording to the valid observation of Pushkin, imagination is as necessary in geometry as it is in poetry. Everything that requires artistic transformation of reality, everything that is connected with interpretation and construction of something new, requires the indispensable participation of fantasy. (p. 269-270) > > Zittoun & Gl Gl?veanu (2018) translate and interpret ?fantasy? as ?imagination,? as Leif Strandberg in this thread notes they have done in Sweden in a recent publication. > > Jovchelovitch (2018) and co-authors define imagination in the following terms: > > Imagination is the human capacity to go beyond the immediate situation and play with possible realities? Liberating oneself from the immediacy of the perceptual field and being able to creatively recombine elements of context and previous experience is enabled by the interdependence between self and other. Imagination is social, adaptive, and intrinsic to rational thinking. (p. 114) > > So in answer to your question, ?When a writer sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol?? According to my reading I would say yes. In answer to this question, ?I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing?? I think you point to a challenge for theorists of imagination and those who seek to design for imagination in educational settings: How do we define and use the construct of imagination as something distinct from all other higher psychological processes? > > Dana > > REFERENCES > > Jovchelovitch, S. (2015). The creativity of the social Imagination, development and social change in Rio de Janeiro?s favelas. In V. P. Gl?veanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Rethinking creativity: Contributions from cultural psychology (pp. 76-92). New York: Routledge. > Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 266-288). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. > Zittoun, T., & Gl?veanu, V. P. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of imagination and culture. New York: Oxford University Press. > > > From: > on behalf of "Glassman, Michael" > > Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:37 AM > To: "laure.kloetzer@gmail.com " >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > This is interesting to me as I am wondering if there is a differentiation between imagination and being open to new possibilities and what relationship this has to how we education. Last week we were reading Vygotsky?s writings on early human thinking is a seminar. He said something that really struck me. It was about the difference in how we might treat teaching to track a bear. For early man it might be teaching all the details so you could recreate the hunt of the bear using the tracks. For more modern thinking it might be more about using the track to tell the story of a hunt for a bear opening up a new possibility for things that might happen. Both have their advantages. For the former you have a more detailed and direct instruction of what you are supposed to do. For the latter you are open to new possibilities as new circumstances might make the hunt more complex in ways you are not anticipating so you are open to learning new tools in sign operation or more likely in sign co-operation. A student actually asked, is this the same thing as imagination, actually bringing up the idea of having an imaginary friend. I did not know how to answer. Is being able to think about things in an open manner and able to co-operate in creating new tools and symbols the same thing as imagination. When a write sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol? I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing? And we often treat imagination as a force to be unleashed, but does it have to do more with the way we education? > > Questions running around my head. > > Michael > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of Laure Kloetzer > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 7:54 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > Hi Shannon and all, > > I am also very interested if you can share all feedbacks you get on this topic, Shannon. > Recently, we began organizing science fiction workshops with students to "extricate the future" - betting that imagination, exploring alternative possible worlds, is a necessary path to free the future from its ready-made, unavoidable clothes massively sold by multinationals and goverments. On going work, with quite interesting insights, esp. on how difficult it is to link imagination and political change. > Also here in Neuch?tel, one of Tania Zittoun's doctoral student is working on close topics (imagination and political utopia). > Finally, I think that Manolis Dafermos, or some of his colleagues and friends, made a movie with young people in Greece on overcoming the crisis, but I can not find it now, sorry... > Best regards, > LK > > Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 ? 13:05, Jaakko Hilpp? > a ?crit : >> Hi Shannon, >> >> You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. >> >> https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 >> >> The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. >> >> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 >> >> Hope this helps >> Jake :) >> **************************** >> Jaakko Hilpp? >> jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi >> Post-doctoral Researcher >> ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 >> Faculty of Education >> P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki >> +358 40 533 4643 >> >> CURRENT PROJECTS: >> >> Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement >> http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects >> >> Constituting Cultures of Compassion >> bit.ly/CoCuCo >> FUSE >> https://www.fusestudio.net >> **************************** >> >> >> >> >> >>> Alfredo Jornet Gil > kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: >>> >>> Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in Mind, Culture, and Activity:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> From: > on behalf of Leif Strandberg > >>> Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 >>> To: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v detskom vozraste - with the Swedish title Fantasi och kreativitet I bandomen. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) >>> It is a great book. >>> >>> Greetings from >>> Leif Strandberg >>> >>> >>> Fr?n: > on behalf of Shannon Brincat > >>> Svara till: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> Datum: onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 >>> Till: Culture Activity EXtended Mind > >>> ?mne: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky. >>> >>> I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? >>> >>> Many thanks for your time. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Shannon >>> >>> Dr. Shannon K. Brincat >>> Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast >>> Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia >>> +61 7 5430 1193 >>> >>> https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ >>> >>> Global Discourse, Co-Editor >>> http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 >>> >>> New Book available: >>> From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. >> >> > > **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190926/1f75799c/attachment.html From bferholt@gmail.com Thu Sep 26 23:21:17 2019 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:21:17 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: <10E15C0E-BA6A-48AC-B0A3-5309A0DA7A9F@gmail.com> References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> <686E417A-56B3-4773-B110-DBC4F8FA6A9E@unco.edu> <10E15C0E-BA6A-48AC-B0A3-5309A0DA7A9F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On all of our minds ... a few of us who study imagination in and through playworlds (see lchc polyphonic autobiography) just wrote this to the New Yorker: We are two social scientists and an elementary school teacher who practice and study intergenerational pretending and play and we would like to say, in response to Franzen's piece -- "What if we stop pretending?" -- that it is never a good time to stop pretending ... but now is probably a really bad time to stop pretending. While it is not often useful to be in denial, shielding ourselves from things we fear, this activity is unrelated to forms of collective pretending that could create ways of ending, or even ways of continuing development, that could never have been anticipated. As human beings we create imagined futures to understand our pasts and so make our presents bearable and beautiful. When things are most difficult -- really all the time -- this creative cycle between fantasy and reality is the best way for us to save our humanity, and maybe humanity itself, for as long as possible. What we all need to do now is to find ways to listen to what the climate scientists tell us without ever stopping pretending or, in other words, to listen to what the adult climate scientists tell us AND to what our youngest fellow citizens, the children, told us on September 20th: That we all must imagine world change as possible. Beth On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:09 PM HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Shannon, > I apologize for addressing my response to Michael, since it was you that > got this thread started. Though, Michael, I certainly like what you had to > say. > > While I?m at it, I would like to add that a lot of language goes ?beyond > the immediate situation?. That is certainly true of this discussion. To > make sense of it, I have to do a lot of imagining. It is what distinguishes > language, a unique human capacity, from the communication of other species. > Language allows for displaced reference, the ability to refer to things and > events removed in time and space from the immediate context of the spoken > and written word. > > On the other hand, displaced reference need not be very creative. I lot of > it is pretty mundane stuff. In the same way, imagination can be pretty > mundane. Fantasy, may or may not be very creative. But perhaps what is > creative for a chlld may not be for an adult. Or what is creative use of > the imagination for me at one age, not so much when I get older? > > From a Vygotskian perspective, I wonder if perizhvanie involves an > important use of the imagination: a lived experience, potentially > traumatic, that provides a crucible for the development of personality, of > character. I am thinking of the use of art to provide an ?outlet? for those > who suffer trauma. Sometimes language just is not able to channel the > emotions in that way that art can. Early Vygotsky was totally into art. > Vera John-Steiner, as a teen ager, taught children dance in the > concentration camp where she was interned. > > Henry > > > On Sep 26, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Walker, Dana wrote: > > Michael, > > Vygotsky (1994) wrote, > > [A]ccording to the valid observation of Pushkin, imagination is as > necessary in geometry as it is in poetry. Everything that requires artistic > transformation of reality, everything that is connected with interpretation > and construction of something new, requires the indispensable participation > of fantasy. (p. 269-270) > > Zittoun & Gl Gl?veanu (2018) translate and interpret ?fantasy? as > ?imagination,? as Leif Strandberg in this thread notes they have done in > Sweden in a recent publication. > > Jovchelovitch (2018) and co-authors define imagination in the following > terms: > > Imagination is the human capacity to go beyond the immediate situation and > play with possible realities? Liberating oneself from the immediacy of the > perceptual field and being able to creatively recombine elements of context > and previous experience is enabled by the interdependence between self and > other. Imagination is social, adaptive, and intrinsic to rational > thinking. (p. 114) > > So in answer to your question, ?When a writer sits down to write or a > director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing > as working towards a new tool and symbol?? According to my reading I would > say yes. In answer to this question, ?I mean that may also be a goal of > the artist but is it the same thing?? I think you point to a challenge for > theorists of imagination and those who seek to design for imagination in > educational settings: How do we define and use the construct of imagination > as something distinct from all other higher psychological processes? > > Dana > > REFERENCES > > Jovchelovitch, S. (2015). The creativity of the social Imagination, > development and social change in Rio de Janeiro?s favelas. In V. P. > Gl?veanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), *Rethinking creativity: > Contributions from cultural psychology* (pp. 76-92). New York: Routledge. > Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. In > R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), *The Vygotsky Reader* (pp. > 266-288). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. > Zittoun, T., & Gl?veanu, V. P. (Eds.). (2018). *Handbook of imagination > and culture*. New York: Oxford University Press. > > > *From: * on behalf of "Glassman, > Michael" > *Reply-To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:37 AM > *To: *"laure.kloetzer@gmail.com" , "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > This is interesting to me as I am wondering if there is a differentiation > between imagination and being open to new possibilities and what > relationship this has to how we education. Last week we were reading > Vygotsky?s writings on early human thinking is a seminar. He said something > that really struck me. It was about the difference in how we might treat > teaching to track a bear. For early man it might be teaching all the > details so you could recreate the hunt of the bear using the tracks. For > more modern thinking it might be more about using the track to tell the > story of a hunt for a bear opening up a new possibility for things that > might happen. Both have their advantages. For the former you have a more > detailed and direct instruction of what you are supposed to do. For the > latter you are open to new possibilities as new circumstances might make > the hunt more complex in ways you are not anticipating so you are open to > learning new tools in sign operation or more likely in sign co-operation. A > student actually asked, is this the same thing as imagination, actually > bringing up the idea of having an imaginary friend. I did not know how to > answer. Is being able to think about things in an open manner and able to > co-operate in creating new tools and symbols the same thing as > imagination. When a write sits down to write or a director stages a play or > an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new > tool and symbol? I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the > same thing? And we often treat imagination as a force to be unleashed, but > does it have to do more with the way we education? > > Questions running around my head. > > Michael > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu *On > Behalf Of *Laure Kloetzer > *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 7:54 AM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > Hi Shannon and all, > > I am also very interested if you can share all feedbacks you get on this > topic, Shannon. > Recently, we began organizing science fiction workshops with students to > "extricate the future" - betting that imagination, exploring alternative > possible worlds, is a necessary path to free the future from its > ready-made, unavoidable clothes massively sold by multinationals and > goverments. On going work, with quite interesting insights, esp. on how > difficult it is to link imagination and political change. > Also here in Neuch?tel, one of Tania Zittoun's doctoral student is working > on close topics (imagination and political utopia). > Finally, I think that Manolis Dafermos, or some of his colleagues and > friends, made a movie with young people in Greece on overcoming the crisis, > but I can not find it now, sorry... > Best regards, > LK > > Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 ? 13:05, Jaakko Hilpp? > a ?crit : > > Hi Shannon, > > You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. > > https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 > > > The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. > > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 > > > Hope this helps > Jake :) > **************************** > Jaakko Hilpp? > jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi > Post-doctoral Researcher > ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 > Faculty of Education > P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki > +358 40 533 4643 > > CURRENT PROJECTS: > > *Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement* > > http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects > > > *Constituting Cultures of Compassion* > bit.ly/CoCuCo > > *FUSE* > https://www.fusestudio.net > > **************************** > > > > > > Alfredo Jornet Gil kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: > > Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were > talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current > context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when > it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may > be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, > so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are > learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be > interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is > obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in > Mind, Culture, and Activity: > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 > > > Alfredo > > *From: * on behalf of Leif Strandberg < > leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 > *To: *Shannon Brincat , "eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination > > Hi > > In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s *Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v > detskom vozraste* - with the Swedish title *Fantasi och kreativitet I > bandomen*. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) > It is a great book. > > Greetings from > Leif Strandberg > > > *Fr?n: * on behalf of Shannon Brincat < > shannonbrincat@yahoo.com.au> > *Svara till: *Shannon Brincat , "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Datum: *onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 > *Till: *Culture Activity EXtended Mind > *?mne: *[Xmca-l] Question on Imagination > > Dear all, > > I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that > brings in Vygotsky. > > I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where > Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND > as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you > know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? > > Many thanks for your time. > > Sincerely, > > Shannon > > Dr. Shannon K. Brincat > Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast > Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast > | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia > +61 7 5430 1193 > > https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ > > > Global Discourse, Co-Editor > http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 > > > New Book available: > *From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of > Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017.* > > > > **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when > opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials > when prompted by external links.** > > > -- Beth Ferholt (pronouns: she/her/hers) Associate Professor Department of Early Childhood and Art Education Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Affiliated Faculty, Program in Urban Education, CUNY Graduate Center Affiliated Faculty, School of Education and Communication, J?nk?ping University Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu CC bferholt@gmail.com if writing to CUNY address. Phone: (718) 951-5205 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190927/54c721b5/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Sep 26 23:32:22 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:32:22 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 crowing 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 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 > Home Page > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190927/c0b36f0a/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Sep 27 05:40:16 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 22:40:16 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> 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 Home Page 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 > > 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 > > Home Page > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190927/d2c95065/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Sep 27 09:17:21 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:17:21 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination In-Reply-To: References: <18469978.8713246.1569446167752.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <18469978.8713246.1569446167752@mail.yahoo.com> <07BC1E51-C379-4103-BB33-76531F0DF8EF@helsinki.fi> <686E417A-56B3-4773-B110-DBC4F8FA6A9E@unco.edu> <10E15C0E-BA6A-48AC-B0A3-5309A0DA7A9F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <60E13773-5039-4A03-BAC6-F2DF9DFDEAE0@gmail.com> Y?all nailed it, Beth:) > On Sep 27, 2019, at 12:21 AM, Beth Ferholt wrote: > > On all of our minds ... a few of us who study imagination in and through playworlds (see lchc polyphonic autobiography) just wrote this to the New Yorker: > > We are two social scientists and an elementary school teacher who practice and study intergenerational pretending and play and we would like to say, in response to Franzen's piece -- "What if we stop pretending?" -- that it is never a good time to stop pretending ... but now is probably a really bad time to stop pretending. While it is not often useful to be in denial, shielding ourselves from things we fear, this activity is unrelated to forms of collective pretending that could create ways of ending, or even ways of continuing development, that could never have been anticipated. As human beings we create imagined futures to understand our pasts and so make our presents bearable and beautiful. When things are most difficult -- really all the time -- this creative cycle between fantasy and reality is the best way for us to save our humanity, and maybe humanity itself, for as long as possible. What we all need to do now is to find ways to listen to what the climate scientists tell us without ever stopping pretending or, in other words, to listen to what the adult climate scientists tell us AND to what our youngest fellow citizens, the children, told us on September 20th: That we all must imagine world change as possible. > > Beth > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:09 PM HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > Shannon, > I apologize for addressing my response to Michael, since it was you that got this thread started. Though, Michael, I certainly like what you had to say. > > While I?m at it, I would like to add that a lot of language goes ?beyond the immediate situation?. That is certainly true of this discussion. To make sense of it, I have to do a lot of imagining. It is what distinguishes language, a unique human capacity, from the communication of other species. Language allows for displaced reference, the ability to refer to things and events removed in time and space from the immediate context of the spoken and written word. > > On the other hand, displaced reference need not be very creative. I lot of it is pretty mundane stuff. In the same way, imagination can be pretty mundane. Fantasy, may or may not be very creative. But perhaps what is creative for a chlld may not be for an adult. Or what is creative use of the imagination for me at one age, not so much when I get older? > > From a Vygotskian perspective, I wonder if perizhvanie involves an important use of the imagination: a lived experience, potentially traumatic, that provides a crucible for the development of personality, of character. I am thinking of the use of art to provide an ?outlet? for those who suffer trauma. Sometimes language just is not able to channel the emotions in that way that art can. Early Vygotsky was totally into art. Vera John-Steiner, as a teen ager, taught children dance in the concentration camp where she was interned. > > Henry > > >> On Sep 26, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Walker, Dana > wrote: >> >> Michael, >> >> Vygotsky (1994) wrote, >> >> [A]ccording to the valid observation of Pushkin, imagination is as necessary in geometry as it is in poetry. Everything that requires artistic transformation of reality, everything that is connected with interpretation and construction of something new, requires the indispensable participation of fantasy. (p. 269-270) >> >> Zittoun & Gl Gl?veanu (2018) translate and interpret ?fantasy? as ?imagination,? as Leif Strandberg in this thread notes they have done in Sweden in a recent publication. >> >> Jovchelovitch (2018) and co-authors define imagination in the following terms: >> >> Imagination is the human capacity to go beyond the immediate situation and play with possible realities? Liberating oneself from the immediacy of the perceptual field and being able to creatively recombine elements of context and previous experience is enabled by the interdependence between self and other. Imagination is social, adaptive, and intrinsic to rational thinking. (p. 114) >> >> So in answer to your question, ?When a writer sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol?? According to my reading I would say yes. In answer to this question, ?I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing?? I think you point to a challenge for theorists of imagination and those who seek to design for imagination in educational settings: How do we define and use the construct of imagination as something distinct from all other higher psychological processes? >> >> Dana >> >> REFERENCES >> >> Jovchelovitch, S. (2015). The creativity of the social Imagination, development and social change in Rio de Janeiro?s favelas. In V. P. Gl?veanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Rethinking creativity: Contributions from cultural psychology (pp. 76-92). New York: Routledge. >> Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky Reader (pp. 266-288). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. >> Zittoun, T., & Gl?veanu, V. P. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of imagination and culture. New York: Oxford University Press. >> >> >> From: > on behalf of "Glassman, Michael" > >> Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Date: Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:37 AM >> To: "laure.kloetzer@gmail.com " >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination >> >> This is interesting to me as I am wondering if there is a differentiation between imagination and being open to new possibilities and what relationship this has to how we education. Last week we were reading Vygotsky?s writings on early human thinking is a seminar. He said something that really struck me. It was about the difference in how we might treat teaching to track a bear. For early man it might be teaching all the details so you could recreate the hunt of the bear using the tracks. For more modern thinking it might be more about using the track to tell the story of a hunt for a bear opening up a new possibility for things that might happen. Both have their advantages. For the former you have a more detailed and direct instruction of what you are supposed to do. For the latter you are open to new possibilities as new circumstances might make the hunt more complex in ways you are not anticipating so you are open to learning new tools in sign operation or more likely in sign co-operation. A student actually asked, is this the same thing as imagination, actually bringing up the idea of having an imaginary friend. I did not know how to answer. Is being able to think about things in an open manner and able to co-operate in creating new tools and symbols the same thing as imagination. When a write sits down to write or a director stages a play or an artist creates a painting is it the same thing as working towards a new tool and symbol? I mean that may also be a goal of the artist but is it the same thing? And we often treat imagination as a force to be unleashed, but does it have to do more with the way we education? >> >> Questions running around my head. >> >> Michael >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of Laure Kloetzer >> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 7:54 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination >> >> Hi Shannon and all, >> >> I am also very interested if you can share all feedbacks you get on this topic, Shannon. >> Recently, we began organizing science fiction workshops with students to "extricate the future" - betting that imagination, exploring alternative possible worlds, is a necessary path to free the future from its ready-made, unavoidable clothes massively sold by multinationals and goverments. On going work, with quite interesting insights, esp. on how difficult it is to link imagination and political change. >> Also here in Neuch?tel, one of Tania Zittoun's doctoral student is working on close topics (imagination and political utopia). >> Finally, I think that Manolis Dafermos, or some of his colleagues and friends, made a movie with young people in Greece on overcoming the crisis, but I can not find it now, sorry... >> Best regards, >> LK >> >> Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 ? 13:05, Jaakko Hilpp? > a ?crit : >>> Hi Shannon, >>> >>> You might find Tania Zittoun's and Alex Gillespie?s work relevant. >>> >>> https://libra.unine.ch/Publications/Tania_Zittoun_Mazourek/30289 >>> >>> The book was recently reviewed in MCA by Paul Harris. >>> >>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1433213 >>> >>> Hope this helps >>> Jake :) >>> **************************** >>> Jaakko Hilpp? >>> jaakko.hilppo@helsinki.fi >>> Post-doctoral Researcher >>> ORCID: 0000-0003-0236-9517 >>> Faculty of Education >>> P.O. Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki >>> +358 40 533 4643 >>> >>> CURRENT PROJECTS: >>> >>> Compassionate Projects: New Forms of Children?s Civic Engagement >>> http://bit.ly/CompassionateProjects >>> >>> Constituting Cultures of Compassion >>> bit.ly/CoCuCo >>> FUSE >>> https://www.fusestudio.net >>> **************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Alfredo Jornet Gil > kirjoitti 26.9.2019 kello 10.15: >>>> >>>> Really interesting topic, Shannon; just recently Beth Ferholt and I were talking about the relevance of fantasy and imagination in the current context. My sense is that there is more to explore than actually done when it comes to bridging the issue with politics, though I also suspect I may be deeply ignorant in terms of what the actual intellectual landscape is, so I?ll be very interested to follow if you share more of what you are learning about the topic and doing. Ferholt?s work herself may be interesting for you? Also from Sweeden, the work of Gunilla Lindqvist is obviously relevant. Marilyn Fleer just published on Lindqvist?s work in Mind, Culture, and Activity:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215 >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> From: > on behalf of Leif Strandberg > >>>> Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>>> Date: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 08:45 >>>> To: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on Imagination >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> In Sweden we have translated Vygotsky?s Voobrazenie i tvorcestvo v detskom vozraste - with the Swedish title Fantasi och kreativitet I bandomen. (? Fantasy and Creativity in Childhood) >>>> It is a great book. >>>> >>>> Greetings from >>>> Leif Strandberg >>>> >>>> >>>> Fr?n: > on behalf of Shannon Brincat > >>>> Svara till: Shannon Brincat >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>>> Datum: onsdag 25 september 2019 23:16 >>>> Till: Culture Activity EXtended Mind > >>>> ?mne: [Xmca-l] Question on Imagination >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I am trying to complete an article on imagination and world politics that brings in Vygotsky. >>>> >>>> I was hoping that some of you could point me in the direction of where Vygotsky addresses imagination (both as developmental process in humans AND as life-activity with its political implications). Further, do any of you know of any studies or publications on this theme that may be useful? >>>> >>>> Many thanks for your time. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Shannon >>>> >>>> Dr. Shannon K. Brincat >>>> Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast >>>> Room T2..09 | School of Social Sciences | University of the Sunshine Coast | 91 Sippy Downs Dr | Sippy Downs | Queensland | 4556 | Australia >>>> +61 7 5430 1193 >>>> >>>> https://www.shannonbrincat.com/ >>>> >>>> Global Discourse, Co-Editor >>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgld20 >>>> >>>> New Book available: >>>> From International Relations to World Civilizations: The contributions of Robert W. Cox, London: Routledge, 2017. >>> >>> >> >> **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.** > > > > -- > Beth Ferholt (pronouns: she/her/hers) > Associate Professor > Department of Early Childhood and Art Education > Brooklyn College, City University of New York > 2900 Bedford Avenue > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 > > Affiliated Faculty, Program in Urban Education, CUNY Graduate Center > Affiliated Faculty, School of Education and Communication, J?nk?ping University > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu > CC bferholt@gmail.com if writing to CUNY address. > Phone: (718) 951-5205 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190927/b205f22a/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Sep 27 09:42:42 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:42:42 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> Message-ID: 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 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 > Home Page > 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 > 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 >> Home Page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190927/0ac3b741/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Sep 27 11:45:58 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:45:58 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> Message-ID: Hi Henry, If you're familiar with the text the issue is straightforward. LSV reveals pre-formal concepts, formal concepts, and post-formal concepts (through his methods / critiques). I am simply drawing Andy's attention to an apparent mis-mapping between LSV's pre-formal and Hegel's formal and LSV's formal and Hegel's post formal. The labelling of dialectical added confusion. As a process it can be applied across different 'levels', although LSV seems to reserve it (in vol. 1) for his unit-based analysis. Best, Huw On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 17:52, 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 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 > Home Page > 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 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 >> Home Page >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190927/c33f5c6c/attachment.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Sep 27 13:33:22 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:33:22 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hegelian sources of CHAT In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> Message-ID: <5768297C-6BEA-4AA6-A688-1BA2AE61EADB@gmail.com> Thank you, Huw. > On Sep 27, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Hi Henry, > > If you're familiar with the text the issue is straightforward. > > LSV reveals pre-formal concepts, formal concepts, and post-formal concepts (through his methods / critiques). > > I am simply drawing Andy's attention to an apparent mis-mapping between LSV's pre-formal and Hegel's formal and LSV's formal and Hegel's post formal. > > The labelling of dialectical added confusion. As a process it can be applied across different 'levels', although LSV seems to reserve it (in vol. 1) for his unit-based analysis. > > Best, > Huw > > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 17:52, 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 > 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 >> Home Page >> 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 > 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 >>> Home Page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190927/8fc5d585/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Sep 27 19:32:34 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:32:34 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> Message-ID: 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 Home Page 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 >> > 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 >> >> Home Page >> >> 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 >>> > 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 >>> >>> Home Page >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190928/ffe77698/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sat Sep 28 04:15:21 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 11:15:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> Message-ID: <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> 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: on behalf of Andy Blunden Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190928/eb81491d/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sat Sep 28 06:59:32 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:59:32 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> Message-ID: 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 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > > > -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190928/cee3ec27/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sat Sep 28 07:22:37 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 00:22:37 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> Message-ID: <13967e79-4304-261c-33c5-f23c502bdff9@marxists.org> Well put, Alfredo. Sometimes, if I am talking to someone about their opposition to say, genetically modified foods, or the introduction of exotic organisms into Australia to solve some problem, they will point to the disasters wrought by such actions in the past. Likewise, suspicion of medicines can be supported by pointing to the thalidomide scandal. On closer examination (if there is patience for it) it turns out that these disasters were created in the 1940s/50s and 60s. By the 1960s, 70s and 80s scientists had learnt their lesson and such terrible mistakes are not made nowadays. But the trust was lost by the 1960s. Science was guilty of a fatal hubris, and restoring the trust requires more than correcting the errors. Active measures are required to restore trust in science, in the face of powerful and loud voices attacking climate and related sciences, plus misuse of science for oppressive purposes, all of which make scientific humility problematic. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 28/09/2019 9:15 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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: * on behalf of > Andy Blunden > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > 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 > > Home Page > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/baab2252/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sat Sep 28 07:34:49 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 14:34:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> Message-ID: 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: on behalf of Greg Thompson Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190928/c23c28c3/attachment.html From goncu@uic.edu Sat Sep 28 08:16:46 2019 From: goncu@uic.edu (Goncu, Artin) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:16:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> Message-ID: 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/ From: 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 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190928/0827c786/attachment-0001.html From hshonerd@gmail.com Sat Sep 28 11:00:17 2019 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:00:17 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> Message-ID: <2A5D96CA-1A96-44FE-A6BA-78967D66104C@gmail.com> Wow! et. al. I was just thinking about how this thread on imagination started with Shannon, quite young, certainly compared to me. Then I thought about the impact of Greta Thunberg, young, but wise beyond her years. I?m really proud of us older adults whoi have responded so helpfully to Shannon. In fact, all adults older than Shannon! If Shannon is still out there, do you trust us older ones a little more now than you did when you reached out with your request for some help with your project? Couldja wouldja?:) Henry > On Sep 28, 2019, at 9:16 AM, Goncu, Artin 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/ > > > > From: 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 > > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > To: "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 > Home Page > 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 > 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 > Home Page > 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 > 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 > Home Page > > -- > 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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190928/3c0d0462/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sat Sep 28 19:08:55 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:08:55 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> Message-ID: 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 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/ > > > > > > > > *From:* 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 > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > > > -- > > 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190928/8b6205e8/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Sep 29 00:45:22 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 07:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> Message-ID: 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: on behalf of Greg Thompson Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur 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 > 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/ From: 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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/f2d9db4a/attachment.html From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Sun Sep 29 01:15:36 2019 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 08:15:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> Message-ID: 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/8b48da92/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Sep 29 03:16:45 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 10:16:45 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> , Message-ID: <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> Thanks Anne-Nelly, I had not read this one. Very telling! Alfredo On 29 Sep 2019, at 10:20, PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/15cfe259/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Sep 29 06:22:04 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 23:22:04 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> 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 Home Page 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 > > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres >> et sciences humaines >> Universit? de Neuch?tel >> Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) >> CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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?: > > on behalf of >> Alfredo Jornet Gil > > >> R?pondre ??: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > >> Date?: dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 >> ??: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > >> Cc?: Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > > >> 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: *> > on behalf of >> Greg Thompson > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > >> *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > > >> *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 >> > 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/ >> >> *From:*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 >> > > >> *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: *> > on behalf >> of Greg Thompson > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *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 >> > 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: *> > on >> behalf of Andy Blunden > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 >> *To: *"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 >> >> Home Page >> >> >> 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 >> > > 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 >> >> Home Page >> >> >> 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 > > 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 >> >> Home Page >> >> >> -- >> >> 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/2b63ea52/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Sep 29 07:37:00 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 14:37:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> Message-ID: 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: on behalf of Andy Blunden Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/ec0062bc/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Sep 29 08:40:17 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 09:40:17 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> Message-ID: 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 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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> 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > humaines > > Universit? de Neuch?tel > > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) > > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : * on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> > *R?pondre ? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > *? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > *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 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/ > > > > > > > > *From:*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 > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > > > -- > > 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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/dcf1f781/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Sep 29 08:39:21 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 01:39:21 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> Message-ID: <740fd4cd-d35c-3f1c-5c0e-aabfbd0752f6@marxists.org> You make a powerful point, Alfredo, in reflecting on your own past actions, and in appealing to us all to reflect on our own past actions. Of course, you are right there, and my idea was poorly worked out. I have to agree with you that people do not adopt positions and beliefs and engage in practices as the result of specific, self-conscious *choices*. And that makes our problem worse, doesn't it? If the point you got out of Anne-Nelly's article was that people don't "think about" these things, then you're probably right, but I don't think that apples to one "side" and not the other. Also, I must rush to say that I had no intention of promoting a relativist point here. The destruction of the conditions for life on Earth (to put it most strongly) does not admit of relativism. I am just trying to point to what people call the "tribal" nature of these problems. I am quite partisan myself. So we have a set of politicians in Australia, who recently won an election, who proudly say that they think that when designing the country's energy system, they should be "neutral" as to how much emissions a technology produces, so long as it produces cheap reliable energy. Do we think that they believe themselves to be deliberately destroying the basis of life on Earth? As Greta Thunberg said, "We refuse to believe that, because that would make you evil" (or words very much like that). So, thank you for the corrections, Aflredo, but I think my essential point is still intact. That is, in the main we are dealing with partisanship which glues together whole suites of beliefs and practices. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 30/09/2019 12:37 am, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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: * on behalf of > Andy Blunden > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 > *To: *"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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > 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 ?ducation Facult? des > lettres et sciences humaines > > Universit? de Neuch?tel > > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace > Louis-Agassiz 1) > > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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?: * > on > behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > *R?pondre ??: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date?: *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > *??: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Cc?: *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > > > *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: * > on > behalf of Greg Thompson > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > > *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 > > 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/ > > *From:*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 > > > *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: * > on > behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *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 > 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: * > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > 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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 > > Home Page > > > -- > > 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/97eb7743/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Sep 29 08:56:32 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:56:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> Message-ID: <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> 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: on behalf of Greg Thompson Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/35d56cd0/attachment-0001.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Sep 29 09:01:18 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:01:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <740fd4cd-d35c-3f1c-5c0e-aabfbd0752f6@marxists.org> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <740fd4cd-d35c-3f1c-5c0e-aabfbd0752f6@marxists.org> Message-ID: <059B97E6-E21D-4116-9D03-3509F1C632E6@uio.no> I see Andy, thanks to you for further clarifying, specially the point on relativism, which concerns me in these debates. I can agree with all you just wrote, except, perhaps, the question whether we should then treat Exxon executives as criminals or not, in your view? Alfredo From: on behalf of Andy Blunden Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:46 To: "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science You make a powerful point, Alfredo, in reflecting on your own past actions, and in appealing to us all to reflect on our own past actions. Of course, you are right there, and my idea was poorly worked out. I have to agree with you that people do not adopt positions and beliefs and engage in practices as the result of specific, self-conscious choices. And that makes our problem worse, doesn't it? If the point you got out of Anne-Nelly's article was that people don't "think about" these things, then you're probably right, but I don't think that apples to one "side" and not the other. Also, I must rush to say that I had no intention of promoting a relativist point here. The destruction of the conditions for life on Earth (to put it most strongly) does not admit of relativism. I am just trying to point to what people call the "tribal" nature of these problems. I am quite partisan myself. So we have a set of politicians in Australia, who recently won an election, who proudly say that they think that when designing the country's energy system, they should be "neutral" as to how much emissions a technology produces, so long as it produces cheap reliable energy. Do we think that they believe themselves to be deliberately destroying the basis of life on Earth? As Greta Thunberg said, "We refuse to believe that, because that would make you evil" (or words very much like that). So, thank you for the corrections, Aflredo, but I think my essential point is still intact. That is, in the main we are dealing with partisanship which glues together whole suites of beliefs and practices. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 30/09/2019 12:37 am, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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: on behalf of Andy Blunden Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/56f2ddc0/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Sep 29 09:05:04 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:05:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> Message-ID: Of course, Andy, I mean, held them accountable of criminal charges, not judge them before the trial, Alfredo From: on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 18:02 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science 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: on behalf of Greg Thompson Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/499e83a2/attachment.html From dkirsh@lsu.edu Sun Sep 29 10:27:36 2019 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:27:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> Message-ID: I think it?s time to let go of the individual as a site of independent reflection in trying to understand collective action. We individuals swim in a shifting sea of intersecting cultural currents. Our agency is limited to maneuvering ourselves from one current to another (very occasionally we may be present when a new current forms as a hybrid of existing streams). Climate change denial arises as a nexus of business culture, religious culture, and political culture (libertarian). The relation of climate denial to moral thought is not mediated at the individual level, but is part of the cultural arrangement that constitutes climate denial. Frustratingly, for me as a math/science educator, my colleagues and I have not succeeded in broadly enculturating students to science as a collective endeavor governed by standards of rational analysis and objective data (illusory as that may be, when viewed through other cultural lenses). Men like Donald Trump truly believe that science (like business, as construed from his cultural vantage point) is nothing more than self-interested actors using whatever tools they find at their disposal to advance their own personal gain. This cultural debasement of science has been pivotal in the rise of climate change denial. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 9:37 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/1210f1a5/attachment.html From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Sun Sep 29 11:27:41 2019 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:27:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would like to understand better why religion, politics and science are not treated as completely different matters by many American citizens. Can anyone help me? Anne-Nelly Le 29 sept. 2019 ? 19:29, David H Kirshner a ?crit : ? I think it?s time to let go of the individual as a site of independent reflection in trying to understand collective action. We individuals swim in a shifting sea of intersecting cultural currents. Our agency is limited to maneuvering ourselves from one current to another (very occasionally we may be present when a new current forms as a hybrid of existing streams). Climate change denial arises as a nexus of business culture, religious culture, and political culture (libertarian). The relation of climate denial to moral thought is not mediated at the individual level, but is part of the cultural arrangement that constitutes climate denial. Frustratingly, for me as a math/science educator, my colleagues and I have not succeeded in broadly enculturating students to science as a collective endeavor governed by standards of rational analysis and objective data (illusory as that may be, when viewed through other cultural lenses). Men like Donald Trump truly believe that science (like business, as construed from his cultural vantage point) is nothing more than self-interested actors using whatever tools they find at their disposal to advance their own personal gain. This cultural debasement of science has been pivotal in the rise of climate change denial. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 9:37 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/02abd908/attachment.html From dkirsh@lsu.edu Sun Sep 29 12:31:56 2019 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 19:31:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anne-Nelly, The question of how citizens ?treat? religion, politics, and science puts individual agency and reflection at the center of understanding our cultural world. What I?m suggesting is that ?American citizens? come in many cultural varieties, each of which has been formed as confluences of religious, political, and scientific cultures (among others). David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 1:28 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science I would like to understand better why religion, politics and science are not treated as completely different matters by many American citizens. Can anyone help me? Anne-Nelly Le 29 sept. 2019 ? 19:29, David H Kirshner > a ?crit : ? I think it?s time to let go of the individual as a site of independent reflection in trying to understand collective action. We individuals swim in a shifting sea of intersecting cultural currents. Our agency is limited to maneuvering ourselves from one current to another (very occasionally we may be present when a new current forms as a hybrid of existing streams). Climate change denial arises as a nexus of business culture, religious culture, and political culture (libertarian). The relation of climate denial to moral thought is not mediated at the individual level, but is part of the cultural arrangement that constitutes climate denial. Frustratingly, for me as a math/science educator, my colleagues and I have not succeeded in broadly enculturating students to science as a collective endeavor governed by standards of rational analysis and objective data (illusory as that may be, when viewed through other cultural lenses). Men like Donald Trump truly believe that science (like business, as construed from his cultural vantage point) is nothing more than self-interested actors using whatever tools they find at their disposal to advance their own personal gain. This cultural debasement of science has been pivotal in the rise of climate change denial. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 9:37 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/f12d2123/attachment.html From glassman.13@osu.edu Sun Sep 29 13:57:13 2019 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 20:57:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Anne-Nelly, The mixture of religion, politics and science can probably be traced back to slavery, our nation?s original sin that a century and a half after it ended, we have still not dealt with. It seems insane now but religions was used as a justification for slavery. There was a belief that it was justified in the bible while the abolitionists claimed the opposite. The Civil War which was a fight to overcome slavery also remains at the heart of our politics. While the anti-slavery forces won the war a bunch of circumstances kept much of political power in the hands of the South. Meanwhile, the use of science was integrated in to this, where it was seen as having sides, the same as religion. Just as people used religion as a justification of slavery, people began to see science as justification for political causes. The railroad and the industrial revolution entered the fray and insanity ensued. Major forces saw trust mistrust as we are talking about it here as a way of controlling agendas. Science is sometimes seen as a means for taking away privilege just as religion is a means for protecting it. This is really short but any longer and it would get really long. So many things in the United States can be traced back to our original sin. Michael From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 2:28 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science I would like to understand better why religion, politics and science are not treated as completely different matters by many American citizens. Can anyone help me? Anne-Nelly Le 29 sept. 2019 ? 19:29, David H Kirshner > a ?crit : ? I think it?s time to let go of the individual as a site of independent reflection in trying to understand collective action. We individuals swim in a shifting sea of intersecting cultural currents. Our agency is limited to maneuvering ourselves from one current to another (very occasionally we may be present when a new current forms as a hybrid of existing streams). Climate change denial arises as a nexus of business culture, religious culture, and political culture (libertarian). The relation of climate denial to moral thought is not mediated at the individual level, but is part of the cultural arrangement that constitutes climate denial. Frustratingly, for me as a math/science educator, my colleagues and I have not succeeded in broadly enculturating students to science as a collective endeavor governed by standards of rational analysis and objective data (illusory as that may be, when viewed through other cultural lenses). Men like Donald Trump truly believe that science (like business, as construed from his cultural vantage point) is nothing more than self-interested actors using whatever tools they find at their disposal to advance their own personal gain. This cultural debasement of science has been pivotal in the rise of climate change denial. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 9:37 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/ed0cf8b4/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Sep 29 14:39:23 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:39:23 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> Message-ID: 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 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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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> 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > humaines > > Universit? de Neuch?tel > > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) > > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : * on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> > *R?pondre ? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > *? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > *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 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/ > > > > > > > > *From:*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 > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > > > -- > > 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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/4fe52fb5/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Sep 29 16:09:37 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 23:09:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> Message-ID: <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> 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: on behalf of Greg Thompson Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/b14610c4/attachment-0001.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Sep 29 20:38:34 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:38:34 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> References: <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> Message-ID: <33a166e8-148e-6500-b2b9-da42439ad860@marxists.org> Wow! This discussion has really progressed while I was asleep. :) David Kirshner's contribution was important, I think, in pointing to the formation and propagation of these beliefs as collective processes which strongly determine individual consciousness and 'choices'. Michael Glassman is right in respect of how the constellations of ideas an practices in the USA has been determined by its history, but other countries without that specific history have versions of the same tribalism, albeit less extreme. My original point was to look at the relevant views not on their own (i.e. climate denial alone, separately from anti-abortion, for example), but as entire "suites" of beliefs which vary from country to country but constitute integral wholes in each community. The first I heard about climate change was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth report in 1972. Commissioned by the Club of Rome and funded by Volkswagon and promoted by Tory PM Ted Heath, of course I rejected it. Just as the world economy was tipping into recession the capitalists were telling us it was a good thing if working people had less. As it turns out this corporate conspiracy was telling the truth, and it took me more than a decade to realise it. After all, it has been a fact that human beings cannot influence the climate and have to learn to live with it ever since human beings evolved as a species until our own lifetimes. No-one ever had to 'invent' climate denialism. It was conventional wisdom since Science began. The use or importation of Asbestos is banned in Australia as of 2003. But the deadly effects of it were known to science as early as 1935 and many thousands have died in the meantime, and continue to die. With my colleague Lynn Beaton, I tell the story of how minds were eventually changed on this topic here https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Miracle-Fiber-Exposed.pdf. Executives of James Hardy Ltd (the main producer) had members of their own family die of asbestosis. In one case a plant supervisor gave evidence in court to defend James Hardy while on a respirator in the last gasps of his death from mesothelioma. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 30/09/2019 9:09 am, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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: * on behalf of > Greg Thompson > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *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 > > 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: * > on behalf of > Greg Thompson > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *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 > > 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: * > on > behalf of Andy Blunden > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 > *To: *"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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 ?ducation > Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines > > Universit? de Neuch?tel > > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace > Louis-Agassiz 1) > > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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?: * > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > *R?pondre ??: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *Date?: *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > *??: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Cc?: *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > > > *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: * > > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > > > *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 > 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/ > > > *From:*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 > > > *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: > * > > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at > 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *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 > 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: > * > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September > 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 > > Home Page > > > -- > > 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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/3384d335/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sun Sep 29 20:56:34 2019 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:56:34 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> Message-ID: I think one also needs to distinguish between the language employed and the personal conceptual richness with which certain views are held. I have had a brief confrontation, for example, with someone well spoken, but seemingly only adopting a second-hand view. For this person, they could recognise that plastic pollution was a catastrophe. They could recognise, more vaguely, that we are unable yet to effectively regulate any form of production and pollution. But they were unable to relate pollution to climate change, sticking instead with arguments about the questionability of climate change. It seemed to me that this person was engaging in the topic as fragments of disparate public conversations, rather than a personal ethical involvement. I see the same issues with brexit. There is very little genuine thinking going on. I have not seen one instance, anywhere, in the public debates of anyone recognising the obvious merit of apportioning a margin to a vote predicated upon the estimated effort to execute the outcome. There is a huge difference between a small marginal vote for in favour of a change that can be effected quickly and that is reversible versus a change that takes a protracted effort and duration and that is not easily reversed. Clearly, even individually, one does not venture into a massive personal change on the basis of a marginal brief preference. Huw On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 14:25, Andy Blunden wrote: > 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 > Home Page > 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> 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > humaines > Universit? de Neuch?tel > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > *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 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/ > > > > > > > > *From:*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 > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > > > -- > > 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/14b0ed9b/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Sep 29 22:37:54 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 23:37:54 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> Message-ID: 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 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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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> 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > humaines > > Universit? de Neuch?tel > > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) > > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : * on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> > *R?pondre ? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > *? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > *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 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/ > > > > > > > > *From:*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 > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > > > -- > > 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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/da56e937/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Sep 29 22:59:51 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:59:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <0f9879e2-def0-a5ae-97db-baed494675c8@marxists.org> <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no>, Message-ID: 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 > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/41229a0f/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Sun Sep 29 23:44:23 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:44:23 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> Message-ID: Ethics is about what we ought to do togetehr. It may be distinguished from morality in that ethics explicitly includes acting together with others, with social practices, and not just individual "decisions." Though I think I'd say that Ethics presupposes morality. But this is a contested field and there will be other views. But every social theory is also implicitly an ethical order, and conversely every ethical order has an implied social theory within it. Ethics is meaningful only within historically articulated, sustainable forms of life, not small groups of sects which may generate aberration, or forms of life which are unsuistainable. Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is seeking the good life for humans" is as good a basic principle as I know of. Bourgeois society is undoubtedly an ethical order, based on exchange of commodities and the equal value of every individual. The contradiction is that this basic principle generates unlimited inequality of wealth and unlimited destruction of Nature. The main defect of bourgeois ethics is that it is based on the fiction of independent, individual agents. This is what Marx was dealing with in /Capital/. In my view, it is worthwhile to demand adherence to the basic moral and ethical tenets of capitalism which militate against racial prejudice, patriarchy, dishonesty, etc., but in the meantime a new ethic has to be developed which goes beyond the limits of bourgeois ethics. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 30/09/2019 3:59 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 > > 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 >> > 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: *> > on behalf >> of Greg Thompson > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *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 >> > 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: *> > on >> behalf of Greg Thompson >> > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *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 > > 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: *> > on >> behalf of Andy Blunden > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, >> Activity" > > >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 >> *To: *"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 >> >> Home Page >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > >> 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 ?ducation >> Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines >> >> Universit? de Neuch?tel >> >> Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: >> Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) >> >> CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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?: >> *> > >> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >> > > >> *R?pondre ??: *"eXtended Mind, >> Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *Date?: *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 >> ? 09:45 >> *??: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, >> Activity" > > >> *Cc?: *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer >> > > >> *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: >> *> > >> on behalf of Greg Thompson >> > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, >> Activity" > > >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at >> 04:15 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, >> Activity" > > >> *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur >> > > >> *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 > > 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/ >> >> >> *From:*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 > > >> *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: >> *> > >> on behalf of Greg Thompson >> > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, >> Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September >> 2019 at 16:05 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, >> Activity" >> > > >> *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 >> > > 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: >> *> > >> on behalf of Andy Blunden >> > > >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, >> Culture, Activity" >> > > >> *Date: *Saturday, 28 >> September 2019 at 04:38 >> *To: >> *"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 >> >> Home Page >> >> >> 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 >> > > >> 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 >> >> Home Page >> >> >> 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 >> > > >> 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 >> >> Home Page >> >> >> -- >> >> 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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/034ceafb/attachment-0001.html From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Mon Sep 30 01:49:11 2019 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:49:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks a lot, Michael for these lines that are really interesting for me. I had understood David?s point. But the question was still open in many ways and this is really a "case study" (USA as a case) that helps understanding the large picture within which more micro- and individual processes take place. It is enlightening. I had not made the connexion to slavery. Although I could have: we have just changed the postal address of our Faculty from "Espace Louis Agassiz" (a Neuch?tel colleague to Darwin who then left Neuch?tel for the States) into "Espace Tilo Frey" because of the growing awareness of Agassiz? racism. (Tilo Frey being the first woman, and the first coloured woman, from Neuch?tel elected to the national Parlement). In Europe there is another aspect to this debate: some European leftists point to evolution theory and Darwinism as been often misused to support racism. Hence in this case: science to defend privilege. Thanks again, Anne-Nelly Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (formerly Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) De : > on behalf of "Glassman, Michael" > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 22:57 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science Hi Anne-Nelly, The mixture of religion, politics and science can probably be traced back to slavery, our nation?s original sin that a century and a half after it ended, we have still not dealt with. It seems insane now but religions was used as a justification for slavery. There was a belief that it was justified in the bible while the abolitionists claimed the opposite. The Civil War which was a fight to overcome slavery also remains at the heart of our politics. While the anti-slavery forces won the war a bunch of circumstances kept much of political power in the hands of the South. Meanwhile, the use of science was integrated in to this, where it was seen as having sides, the same as religion. Just as people used religion as a justification of slavery, people began to see science as justification for political causes. The railroad and the industrial revolution entered the fray and insanity ensued. Major forces saw trust mistrust as we are talking about it here as a way of controlling agendas. Science is sometimes seen as a means for taking away privilege just as religion is a means for protecting it. This is really short but any longer and it would get really long. So many things in the United States can be traced back to our original sin. Michael From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 2:28 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science I would like to understand better why religion, politics and science are not treated as completely different matters by many American citizens. Can anyone help me? Anne-Nelly Le 29 sept. 2019 ? 19:29, David H Kirshner > a ?crit : I think it?s time to let go of the individual as a site of independent reflection in trying to understand collective action. We individuals swim in a shifting sea of intersecting cultural currents. Our agency is limited to maneuvering ourselves from one current to another (very occasionally we may be present when a new current forms as a hybrid of existing streams). Climate change denial arises as a nexus of business culture, religious culture, and political culture (libertarian). The relation of climate denial to moral thought is not mediated at the individual level, but is part of the cultural arrangement that constitutes climate denial. Frustratingly, for me as a math/science educator, my colleagues and I have not succeeded in broadly enculturating students to science as a collective endeavor governed by standards of rational analysis and objective data (illusory as that may be, when viewed through other cultural lenses). Men like Donald Trump truly believe that science (like business, as construed from his cultural vantage point) is nothing more than self-interested actors using whatever tools they find at their disposal to advance their own personal gain. This cultural debasement of science has been pivotal in the rise of climate change denial. David From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2019 9:37 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/32aea899/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Sep 30 07:48:48 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 08:48:48 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> Message-ID: Andy, Thanks for the clarification about ethics. And thanks for the correction about capitalism having some ethical elements that are better than what came before and worth hanging onto. In my reading of Marx, he clearly makes the case for a comparative advantage of capitalism over feudalism when it comes to some ethical principles, as you note. These include "equality" and "rich individuality" (as per the translation that I read). "Freedom" is in there too but it is much more conflicted since the freedom of capitalism also entails the freedom to starve. I'd add that there are times when I have my doubts about whether or not "equality" is a principle that is a necessary ethical value in capitalism - esp. considering how things go in the U.S. regarding race - but notwithstanding Trumpian capitalism, it seems like there is a general push toward equality within capitalist institutions (e.g., numerous capitalist foundations are not shy about funding projects that seek to address inequality). But, of course, this capitalist ethics of the individual entails individuality as the negation of the collective (this is glaringly present in much discourse, esp. libertarian discourse which happens to overlap significantly with bourgeois economics in the U.S. today and which construes the ethical task as the escape from the fetters and shackles of society). What is needed, and what Marx points towards, is the negation/sublation of that negation such that both individual and collective can be brought forward in an understanding of mutual dependence. That's a tough row to hoe. Hopefully that sloppy summary isn't too far off from your understanding of Marx's project, Andy. Please make further corrections/clarifications as appropriate. (I do find it useful to re-summarize from time to time, and even more useful to hear corrections/clarifications/suggestions from others). Okay, I've said too much and meandered far afield from the starting point of this thread. Appreciatively, greg On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:47 AM Andy Blunden wrote: > Ethics is about what we ought to do togetehr. It may be distinguished from > morality in that ethics explicitly includes acting together with others, > with social practices, and not just individual "decisions." Though I think > I'd say that Ethics presupposes morality. But this is a contested field and > there will be other views. But every social theory is also implicitly an > ethical order, and conversely every ethical order has an implied social > theory within it. > > Ethics is meaningful only within historically articulated, sustainable > forms of life, not small groups of sects which may generate aberration, or > forms of life which are unsuistainable. > > Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is seeking the good life for > humans" is as good a basic principle as I know of. > > Bourgeois society is undoubtedly an ethical order, based on exchange of > commodities and the equal value of every individual. The contradiction is > that this basic principle generates unlimited inequality of wealth and > unlimited destruction of Nature. The main defect of bourgeois ethics is > that it is based on the fiction of independent, individual agents. This is > what Marx was dealing with in *Capital*. In my view, it is worthwhile to > demand adherence to the basic moral and ethical tenets of capitalism which > militate against racial prejudice, patriarchy, dishonesty, etc., but in the > meantime a new ethic has to be developed which goes beyond the limits of > bourgeois ethics. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > Hegel for Social Movements > Home Page > On 30/09/2019 3:59 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 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 > 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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < >> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *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 >> 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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < >> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *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 >> 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < >> andyb@marxists.org> >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 >> *To: *"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 >> Home Page >> >> 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> 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences >> humaines >> >> Universit? de Neuch?tel >> >> Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) >> >> CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : * on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >> >> *R?pondre ? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 >> *? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer >> *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < >> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur >> *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 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/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*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 >> *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < >> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 >> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *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 >> 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < >> andyb@marxists.org> >> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 >> *To: *"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 >> Home Page >> >> 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 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 >> Home Page >> >> 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 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 >> Home Page >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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://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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/21c42cf5/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Mon Sep 30 07:56:40 2019 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:56:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> Message-ID: Thanks Andy! Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is seeking the good life for humans" resonates well with the passage from Dewey I pasted the other day. I can understand the characterization of capitalism as an ethical order, in the broadest sense. I still have problems (and this only due to my ignorance) to then think of it also from an instrumentalist perspective, as a resource framework for ethical decision making, in the way, for example, Greg?s allusion that even ecocide perpetrators may take the actions they take based on their own ethical assessment. Or when when the ethical and unethical dimensions of capitalism itself are judged, as in your e-mail. If capitalism is both context and resource for ethics, what is the ethical framework that judges capitalism itself as ethical or unethical? In Andy?s response, I sense this is capitalism itself, which embodies contradictions and therefore self-development. But then capitalism, as ethical order, embodies also a plurality of ethics; which to me means that no one really makes ethical judgements based on ?capitalism?, but rather everyone exercises forms of decision making that stem from capitalist organization (including anti-capitalism). I?d be very interested in conducting an ethnography of corporate climate science denial; and I will, as Greg invites us to do, withhold judgement before we get to understand what exercise of ethical reasoning there is behind. As a fellow citizen, though, my prejudice is that it is highly likely that what we will find is not a special ethics, but a very narrow exercise of ethical reasoning (as in, ?The good life for humans is seeking the good life for humans, as long as by ?humans? we mean shareholders?). Alfredo From: on behalf of Andy Blunden Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date: Monday, 30 September 2019 at 08:53 To: "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science Ethics is about what we ought to do togetehr. It may be distinguished from morality in that ethics explicitly includes acting together with others, with social practices, and not just individual "decisions." Though I think I'd say that Ethics presupposes morality. But this is a contested field and there will be other views. But every social theory is also implicitly an ethical order, and conversely every ethical order has an implied social theory within it. Ethics is meaningful only within historically articulated, sustainable forms of life, not small groups of sects which may generate aberration, or forms of life which are unsuistainable. Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is seeking the good life for humans" is as good a basic principle as I know of. Bourgeois society is undoubtedly an ethical order, based on exchange of commodities and the equal value of every individual. The contradiction is that this basic principle generates unlimited inequality of wealth and unlimited destruction of Nature. The main defect of bourgeois ethics is that it is based on the fiction of independent, individual agents. This is what Marx was dealing with in Capital. In my view, it is worthwhile to demand adherence to the basic moral and ethical tenets of capitalism which militate against racial prejudice, patriarchy, dishonesty, etc., but in the meantime a new ethic has to be developed which goes beyond the limits of bourgeois ethics. Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 30/09/2019 3:59 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > 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 > 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/ From: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 > 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: > on behalf of Greg Thompson > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > 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 > 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: > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 To: "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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page 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 > 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 Home Page -- 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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/dfb5c18a/attachment.html From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Sep 30 08:38:01 2019 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:38:01 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <2906D95D-3BC3-4A33-9EA8-CC75D7135C4A@uio.no> <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo, I think the conversation is slowly changing in corporations to not climate change denial but to the kind of apologetics that I described from the ExxonMobil exec I met with. There is still plenty of denying, but that's become more of a populist movement, in the U.S. at least. And of course that works even better for the corporations to cast themselves as benevolent and just. I would say that one of the dominant the logics/ethics of capitalism is the logic of the invisible hand - what's best for me is what's best for everyone. (even though this was barely mentioned in Adam Smith's tome about the wealth of nations and his take even seems to cut against neoliberalist interpretations of it!). -greg On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:59 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Thanks Andy! Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is seeking the > good life for humans" resonates well with the passage from Dewey I pasted > the other day. > > > > I can understand the characterization of capitalism as an ethical order, > in the broadest sense. I still have problems (and this only due to my > ignorance) to then think of it also from an instrumentalist perspective, as > a resource framework for ethical decision making, in the way, for example, > Greg?s allusion that even ecocide perpetrators may take the actions they > take based on their own ethical assessment. Or when when the ethical and > unethical dimensions of capitalism itself are judged, as in your e-mail. > > > > If capitalism is both context and resource for ethics, what is the ethical > framework that judges capitalism itself as ethical or unethical? In Andy?s > response, I sense this is capitalism itself, which embodies contradictions > and therefore self-development. But then capitalism, as ethical order, > embodies also a plurality of ethics; which to me means that no one really > makes ethical judgements based on ?capitalism?, but rather everyone > exercises forms of decision making that stem from capitalist organization > (including anti-capitalism). > > > > I?d be very interested in conducting an ethnography of corporate climate > science denial; and I will, as Greg invites us to do, withhold judgement > before we get to understand what exercise of ethical reasoning there is > behind. > > > > As a fellow citizen, though, my prejudice is that it is highly likely that > what we will find is not a special ethics, but a very narrow exercise of > ethical reasoning (as in, ?The good life for humans is seeking the good > life for humans, as long as by ?humans? we mean shareholders?). > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > *From: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Monday, 30 September 2019 at 08:53 > *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science > > > > Ethics is about what we ought to do togetehr. It may be distinguished from > morality in that ethics explicitly includes acting together with others, > with social practices, and not just individual "decisions." Though I think > I'd say that Ethics presupposes morality. But this is a contested field and > there will be other views. But every social theory is also implicitly an > ethical order, and conversely every ethical order has an implied social > theory within it. > > Ethics is meaningful only within historically articulated, sustainable > forms of life, not small groups of sects which may generate aberration, or > forms of life which are unsuistainable. > > Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is seeking the good life for > humans" is as good a basic principle as I know of. > > Bourgeois society is undoubtedly an ethical order, based on exchange of > commodities and the equal value of every individual. The contradiction is > that this basic principle generates unlimited inequality of wealth and > unlimited destruction of Nature. The main defect of bourgeois ethics is > that it is based on the fiction of independent, individual agents. This is > what Marx was dealing with in *Capital*. In my view, it is worthwhile to > demand adherence to the basic moral and ethical tenets of capitalism which > militate against racial prejudice, patriarchy, dishonesty, etc., but in the > meantime a new ethic has to be developed which goes beyond the limits of > bourgeois ethics. > > Andy > ------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > Hegel for Social Movements > Home Page > > On 30/09/2019 3:59 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 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 > 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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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> 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 ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > humaines > > Universit? de Neuch?tel > > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1) > > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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 : * on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> > *R?pondre ? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > *? : *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur > *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 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/ > > > > > > > > *From:*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 > *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: * on behalf of Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *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 > 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: * on behalf of Andy Blunden < > andyb@marxists.org> > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38 > *To: *"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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > 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 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 > Home Page > > > > -- > > 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://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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/69765907/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Sep 30 09:01:55 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 02:01:55 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science In-Reply-To: References: <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> Message-ID: <144bf17d-337c-b567-52ad-bf5991f5c94c@marxists.org> On critique of capitalist ethics: this has long been a concern of mine. I argue that "collaborative ethics" is the ethics that arises as the negation of the ethics of bourgeois society, and its founding principles were announced in the founding documents of the First International in 1864 and are immanent in the labour movement. I argue this here: https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Collaborative%20Ethics.pdf I find Greg's argument about changing attitudes within the corporations believable. It must be remembered that climate denial is not an economically 'self-interested' position for capital as a whole, only for one section of capital, that based on fossil fuels and a range of similar industries. The insurance industry is going crazy over climate change, and advanced manufacturing stand to do very well out of emissions reduction and mitigation. So there is a struggle within the bourgeoisie over this. It makes sense that the Tories in the UK, who shut down coal decades ago, btw, and who are mainly involved with finance capital, don't have much reason to deny anthropogenic climate change. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 1/10/2019 1:38 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > Alfredo, > I think the conversation is slowly changing in > corporations to not climate change denial but to the kind > of apologetics that I described from the ExxonMobil exec I > met with. There is still plenty of denying, but that's > become more of a populist movement, in the U.S. at least. > And of course that works even better for the corporations > to cast themselves as benevolent and just. > I would say that one of the dominant the logics/ethics of > capitalism is the logic of the invisible hand - what's > best for me is what's best for everyone. (even though this > was barely mentioned in Adam Smith's tome about the wealth > of nations and his take even seems to cut against > neoliberalist interpretations of it!). > -greg > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:59 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil > > wrote: > > Thanks Andy! Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for > humans is seeking the good life for humans"?resonates > well with the passage from Dewey I pasted the other day. > > I can understand the characterization of capitalism as > an ethical order, in the broadest sense. I still have > problems (and this only due to my ignorance) to then > think of it also from an instrumentalist perspective, > as a resource framework for ethical decision making, > in the way, for example, Greg?s allusion that even > ecocide perpetrators may take the actions they take > based on their own ethical assessment. Or when when > the ethical and unethical dimensions of capitalism > itself are judged, as in your e-mail. > > If capitalism is both context and resource for ethics, > what is the ethical framework that judges capitalism > itself as ethical or unethical? In Andy?s response, I > sense this is capitalism itself, which embodies > contradictions and therefore self-development. But > then capitalism, as ethical order, embodies also a > plurality of ethics; which to me means that no one > really makes ethical judgements based on ?capitalism?, > but rather everyone exercises forms of decision making > that stem from capitalist organization (including > anti-capitalism). > > I?d be very interested in conducting an ethnography of > corporate climate science denial; and I will, as Greg > invites us to do, withhold judgement before we get to > understand what exercise of ethical reasoning there is > behind. > > As a fellow citizen, though, my prejudice is that it > is highly likely that what we will find is not a > special ethics, but a very narrow exercise of ethical > reasoning (as in, ?The good life for humans is seeking > the good life for humans, as long as by ?humans? we > mean shareholders?). > > Alfredo > > *From: * > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Monday, 30 September 2019 at 08:53 > *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > " > > > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science > > Ethics is about what we ought to do togetehr. It may > be distinguished from morality in that ethics > explicitly includes acting together with others, with > social practices, and not just individual "decisions." > Though I think I'd say that Ethics presupposes > morality. But this is a contested field and there will > be other views. But every social theory is also > implicitly an ethical order, and conversely every > ethical order has an implied social theory within it. > > Ethics is meaningful only within historically > articulated, sustainable forms of life, not small > groups of sects which may generate aberration, or > forms of life which are unsuistainable. > > Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is > seeking the good life for humans" is as good a basic > principle as I know of. > > Bourgeois society is undoubtedly an ethical order, > based on exchange of commodities and the equal value > of every individual. The contradiction is that this > basic principle generates unlimited inequality of > wealth and unlimited destruction of Nature. The main > defect of bourgeois ethics is that it is based on the > fiction of independent, individual agents. This is > what Marx was dealing with in /Capital/. In my view, > it is worthwhile to demand adherence to the basic > moral and ethical tenets of capitalism which militate > against racial prejudice, patriarchy, dishonesty, > etc., but in the meantime a new ethic has to be > developed which goes beyond the limits of bourgeois > ethics. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > Hegel for Social Movements > > Home Page > > > On 30/09/2019 3:59 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 > > 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 > 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: * > > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *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 > 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: > * > > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *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 > 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: > * > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 > at 15:28 > *To: *"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 > > Home Page > > > > 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 > > > 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 > ?ducation Facult? des > lettres et sciences humaines > > Universit? de Neuch?tel > > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 > (Anciennement: Espace > Louis-Agassiz 1) > > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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?: > * > > on behalf of Alfredo > Jornet Gil > > > *R?pondre ??: *"eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date?: *dimanche, 29 > septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > *??: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Cc?: *Vadeboncoeur > Jennifer > > > *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: > * > > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 > September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Cc: *Jennifer > Vadeboncoeur > > > *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 > > 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/ > > > *From:*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 > > > *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: > * > > on behalf of Greg > Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended > Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > > *Date: *Saturday, 28 > September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *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 > > > 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: > * > > on behalf of Andy > Blunden > > > *Reply to: > *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Saturday, > 28 September 2019 > at 04:38 > *To: > *"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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 > > Home > Page > > > -- > > 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://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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20191001/9e5baa05/attachment-0001.html From andyb@marxists.org Mon Sep 30 20:32:09 2019 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:32:09 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Trust, Science and Lying In-Reply-To: References: <432CB640-45AE-4B28-A26B-D5457C4FCBCB@ils.uio.no> <0e5052e6-efcc-1318-442e-684be270050d@marxists.org> <71AB4B22-A219-46F1-8733-BDC4D9D12A0A@uio.no> <602A54D2-4B1D-4BDC-B865-0F8AC2BB2DC8@uio.no> Message-ID: Here's an interesting bye-way for this discussion. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/30/europe-populist-lie-shamelessly-salvini-johnson Trump, Johnson, Morrison, &Co., routinely and blatantly lie. The thing is that their supporters *know* they are lying and that is precisely their point of attraction. Which means that exposing lies is not as fruitful as you'd think.? What worried me though is how close this attitude is to the fascist maxim that "truth is power." A variant on this is the use of corporate double-speak. Before I retired I drew the conclusion that the people using it *knew* it made no sense, but it was willingness to talk utter bullshit with a straight face which qualified you for promotion. If you're willing to humiliate yourself in front of your staff, then you'll do /anything/ the boss tells you to. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Hegel for Social Movements Home Page On 1/10/2019 1:38 am, Greg Thompson wrote: > Alfredo, > I think the conversation is slowly changing in > corporations to not climate change denial but to the kind > of apologetics that I described from the ExxonMobil exec I > met with. There is still plenty of denying, but that's > become more of a populist movement, in the U.S. at least. > And of course that works even better for the corporations > to cast themselves as benevolent and just. > I would say that one of the dominant the logics/ethics of > capitalism is the logic of the invisible hand - what's > best for me is what's best for everyone. (even though this > was barely mentioned in Adam Smith's tome about the wealth > of nations and his take even seems to cut against > neoliberalist interpretations of it!). > -greg > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:59 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil > > wrote: > > Thanks Andy! Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for > humans is seeking the good life for humans"?resonates > well with the passage from Dewey I pasted the other day. > > I can understand the characterization of capitalism as > an ethical order, in the broadest sense. I still have > problems (and this only due to my ignorance) to then > think of it also from an instrumentalist perspective, > as a resource framework for ethical decision making, > in the way, for example, Greg?s allusion that even > ecocide perpetrators may take the actions they take > based on their own ethical assessment. Or when when > the ethical and unethical dimensions of capitalism > itself are judged, as in your e-mail. > > If capitalism is both context and resource for ethics, > what is the ethical framework that judges capitalism > itself as ethical or unethical? In Andy?s response, I > sense this is capitalism itself, which embodies > contradictions and therefore self-development. But > then capitalism, as ethical order, embodies also a > plurality of ethics; which to me means that no one > really makes ethical judgements based on ?capitalism?, > but rather everyone exercises forms of decision making > that stem from capitalist organization (including > anti-capitalism). > > I?d be very interested in conducting an ethnography of > corporate climate science denial; and I will, as Greg > invites us to do, withhold judgement before we get to > understand what exercise of ethical reasoning there is > behind. > > As a fellow citizen, though, my prejudice is that it > is highly likely that what we will find is not a > special ethics, but a very narrow exercise of ethical > reasoning (as in, ?The good life for humans is seeking > the good life for humans, as long as by ?humans? we > mean shareholders?). > > Alfredo > > *From: * > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Monday, 30 September 2019 at 08:53 > *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > " > > > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science > > Ethics is about what we ought to do togetehr. It may > be distinguished from morality in that ethics > explicitly includes acting together with others, with > social practices, and not just individual "decisions." > Though I think I'd say that Ethics presupposes > morality. But this is a contested field and there will > be other views. But every social theory is also > implicitly an ethical order, and conversely every > ethical order has an implied social theory within it. > > Ethics is meaningful only within historically > articulated, sustainable forms of life, not small > groups of sects which may generate aberration, or > forms of life which are unsuistainable. > > Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is > seeking the good life for humans" is as good a basic > principle as I know of. > > Bourgeois society is undoubtedly an ethical order, > based on exchange of commodities and the equal value > of every individual. The contradiction is that this > basic principle generates unlimited inequality of > wealth and unlimited destruction of Nature. The main > defect of bourgeois ethics is that it is based on the > fiction of independent, individual agents. This is > what Marx was dealing with in /Capital/. In my view, > it is worthwhile to demand adherence to the basic > moral and ethical tenets of capitalism which militate > against racial prejudice, patriarchy, dishonesty, > etc., but in the meantime a new ethic has to be > developed which goes beyond the limits of bourgeois > ethics. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > Hegel for Social Movements > > Home Page > > > On 30/09/2019 3:59 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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 > > 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 > 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: * > > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *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 > 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: > * > > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > *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 > 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: > * > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 > at 15:28 > *To: *"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 > > Home Page > > > > 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 > > > 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 > ?ducation Facult? des > lettres et sciences humaines > > Universit? de Neuch?tel > > Espace Tilo-Frey 1 > (Anciennement: Espace > Louis-Agassiz 1) > > CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (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?: > * > > on behalf of Alfredo > Jornet Gil > > > *R?pondre ??: *"eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date?: *dimanche, 29 > septembre 2019 ? 09:45 > *??: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Cc?: *Vadeboncoeur > Jennifer > > > *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: > * > > on behalf of Greg Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Sunday, 29 > September 2019 at 04:15 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Cc: *Jennifer > Vadeboncoeur > > > *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 > > 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/ > > > *From:*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 > > > *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: > * > > on behalf of Greg > Thompson > > > *Reply to: *"eXtended > Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > > *Date: *Saturday, 28 > September 2019 at 16:05 > *To: *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *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 > > > 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: > * > > on behalf of Andy > Blunden > > > *Reply to: > *"eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity" > > > *Date: *Saturday, > 28 September 2019 > at 04:38 > *To: > *"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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 > > Home Page > > > 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 > > > 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 > > Home > Page > > > -- > > 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://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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20191001/2949b8c8/attachment.html