[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Sep 29 06:22:04 PDT 2019
Alfredo, I think Greg's point is basically right, that is,
everyone acts because they think it right to do so. The only
exception would be true psychopaths. The issue is: /why/
does this person believe this is the right thing to do and
believe that this is the person I should trust and that this
is the truth about the matter?
Take Darwinian Evolution as an example. In the USA, this
question has been "politicised," that is, people either
accept the science or not according to whether they vote
Democrat or Republican. There are variants on this, and
various exceptions, but for the largest numbers belief in
the Bible or belief in the Science textbook are choices of
being on this side or the other side. This is not the case
in many other countries where Evolution is simply part of
the Biology lesson.
In the UK, Anthropogenic climate change is not a Party
question either. People believe it whether they vote Tory or
Labour. Still, how much people change their lives, etc.,
does vary, but that varies according to other issues; it is
not a Party question.
In Australia, Anthropogenic climate change is a Party
question, even though this year right-wing political leaders
no longer openly scorn climate science, but everyone knows
this is skin deep. But like in the UK, Evolution is not a
partisan question and eve the right-wing support public
health (though it was not always so).
The strategic questions, it seems to me are: (1) is it
possible to break a single issue away from the partisan
platform, and for example, get Republicans to support the
teaching of Biology and sending their kids to science
classes with an open mind? Even while they still support
capital punishment and opposed abortion and public health?
Or (2) Is it possible to lever a person away from their
partisan position on a scientific or moral question, without
asking for them to flip sides altogether? or (3) Is it
easier to work for the entire defeat of a Party which
opposes Science and Humanity (as we see it)?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
On 29/09/2019 8:16 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> Thanks Anne-Nelly, I had not read this one. Very telling!
> Alfredo
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2019, at 10:20, PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly
> <Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch
> <mailto:Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch>> wrote:
>
>> Alfredo,
>> You probably remember this very interesting report from
>> a journalist :
>> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/6/8/1863530/-A-close-family-member-votes-Republican-Now-I-understand-why-The-core-isn-t-bigotry-It-s-worse
>> I like to mention it because it contributes to illustrate
>> your point, shading light on powerful micro-mechanisms.
>> Anne-Nelly
>>
>> Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
>> Institut de psychologie et éducation Faculté des lettres
>> et sciences humaines
>> Université de Neuchâtel
>> Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement: Espace Louis-Agassiz 1)
>> CH- 2000 Neuchâtel (Suisse)
>> http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont
>> A peine sorti de presse:
>> https://www.socialinfo.ch/les-livres/38-agir-et-penser-avec-anne-nelly-perret-clermont.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> De : <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of
>> Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
>> Répondre à : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 à 09:45
>> À : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>> <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
>> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> Thanks, we are on the same page. But you write: «most
>> climate change deniers are such because they feel that
>> this is the ethically good and right position for
>> humanity». I agree on the difficulties, but I would like
>> to emphasize that being on the right or the wrong side in
>> issues of climate change in today’s Global societies is a
>> matter of having fallen pray to self-interested
>> manipulation by others, or of being yourself one engaged
>> in manipulating others for your own.
>>
>> When you pick up a scientific article (very unlikely if
>> you are a denier) or a press article, and read that the
>> Earth is warming due to human civilization, and then
>> think, “nah, bullshit”, you most likely are inclined to
>> infer that way cause that’s a cultural pattern of
>> thinking characteristic of a group or community you
>> belong to. There are out there many psychology studies
>> showing the extent to which “opinions” on climate science
>> vary not with respect to how much one knows or
>> understand, but rather with respect to your religious and
>> political affiliation (see, for example,
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547 ).
>>
>> My point being that, when you deny climate change today,
>> you engage in a practice that has a very definite
>> historical origin and motive, namely the coordinated,
>> systematic actions of a given set of fossil fuel
>> corporations that, to this date, continue lobbying to
>> advance their own interests, permeating through many
>> spheres of civic life, including education:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
>>
>> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Greenpeace_Dealing-in-Doubt-1.pdf?53ea6e
>>
>> We know that the motives of these corporations never were
>> the “feel that this is the ethically good and right
>> position for humanity”. Or do we?
>>
>> Again, educating about (climate) **justice** and
>> accountability may be crucial to the “critical” approach
>> that has been mentioned in prior e-mails.
>>
>> I too would love seeing Jen V. chiming in on these matters.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of
>> Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>> <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo and Artin, Yes and yes.
>>
>> Alfredo, yes, I wasn't suggesting doing without them, but
>> simply that something more is needed perhaps an "ethical
>> dimension" is needed (recognizing that such a thing is
>> truly a hard fought accomplishment - right/wrong and
>> good/evil seems so obvious from where we stand, but
>> others will see differently; most climate change deniers
>> are such because they feel that this is the ethically
>> good and right position for humanity not because they see
>> it as an evil and ethically wrong position).
>>
>> Artin, I wonder if Dr. Vadeboncoeur might be willing to
>> chime in?? Sounds like a fascinating and important take
>> on the issue. Or maybe you could point us to a reading?
>>
>> (and by coincidence, I had the delight of dealing with
>> Dr. Vadebonceour's work in my data analysis class this
>> week via LeCompte and Scheunsel's extensive use of her
>> work to describe data analysis principles - my students
>> found her work to be super interesting and very helpful
>> for thinking about data analysis).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> greg
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:19 AM Goncu, Artin
>> <goncu@uic.edu <mailto:goncu@uic.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> The varying meanings and potential abuses of the
>> connection between imagination and trust appear to be
>> activity specific. This can be seen even in the same
>> activity, i.e., trust and imagination may be abused.
>> For example, I took pains for many years to
>> illustrate that children’s construction of
>> intersubjectivity in social imaginative play requires
>> trust in one another. Children make the proleptic
>> assumption that their potential partners are sincere,
>> know something about the topics proposed for
>> imaginative play, and will participate in the
>> negotiations of assumed joint imaginative pasts and
>> anticipated futures. However, this may not always be
>> the case. As Schousboe showed, children may abuse
>> play to institute their own abusive agendas as
>> evidenced in her example of two five year old girls
>> pretending that actual urine in a bottle was soda pop
>> trying to make a three year old girl to drink it.
>> This clearly supports exploring how we can/should
>> inquire what Alfredo calls the third dimension. More
>> to the point, how do we teach right from wrong in
>> shared imagination? Vadeboncoeur has been addressing
>> the moral dimensions of imagination in her recent work.
>>
>> Artin
>>
>> Artin Goncu, Ph.D
>>
>> Professor, Emeritus
>>
>> University of Illinois at Chicago
>>
>> www.artingoncu.com/ <http://www.artingoncu.com/>
>>
>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] *On Behalf
>> Of *Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 28, 2019 9:35 AM
>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Yes, Greg, I agree there is all grounds and rights to
>> question trust and imagination, but I am less
>> inclined to think that we can do without them both.
>> So, if there is a difference between imaginative
>> propaganda aimed at confusing the public, and
>> imaginative education that grows from hope and will
>> for the common good, then perhaps we need a third
>> element that discerns good from evil? Right from
>> wrong? That may why, in order for people to actually
>> engage in transformational action, what they need the
>> most is not just to understand Climate Change, but
>> most importantly, Climate Justice. Don’t you think?
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf
>> of Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Note that there is a great deal of trust and
>> imagination going on right now in the US. We have the
>> most imaginative president we’ve had in years. He can
>> imagine his way to bigly approval ratings and a
>> massive inaugural turnout. He imagines that trying to
>> get dirt on an opponent is a “beautiful
>> conversation”. And if you watch the media these days,
>> he has a cadre of others who are doing additional
>> imagining for him as well - they are imagining what
>> the DNC is trying to do to ouster this president,
>> they are imagining what Joe Biden might really have
>> been up to with that prosecutor. And what makes
>> matters worst is that there is a rather large
>> contingent of people in the US who trust this cadre
>> of imaginative propagandists and who trust Trump and
>> believe that they are the only ones who have the real
>> truth.
>>
>> So I guess I’m suggesting there might be reason to
>> question imagination and trust (and this all was
>> heightened for me by a dip into the imaginative and
>> trust-filled land of conservative talk radio
>> yesterday - but you can find the same message from
>> anyone who is a Trump truster - including a number of
>> politicians who are playing the same game of avoiding
>> the facts (no one on those talk shows actually
>> repeated any of the damning words from Trumps phone
>> call) while constructing an alternative narrative
>> that listeners trust).
>>
>> Sadly,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:17 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Henry, all,
>>
>> Further resonating with Beth et al’s letter, and
>> with what Henry and Andy just wrote, I too think
>> the point at which trust and imagination meet is
>> key.
>>
>> A couple of days ago, I watched, together with my
>> two daughters (10 and 4 years old respectively)
>> segments of the /Right to a Future /event
>> organized by The Intercept
>> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/greta-thunberg-naomi-klein-climate-change-livestream/,
>> where young and not-so-young activists and
>> journalists discussed visions of 2029 if we,
>> today, would lead radical change. It was a great
>> chance to engage in some conversation with my
>> children about these issues, specially with my
>> older one; about hope and about the importance of
>> fighting for justice.
>>
>> At some point in a follow-up conversation that we
>> had in bed, right before sleep, we spoke about
>> the good things that we still have with respect
>> to nature and community, and I–perhaps not having
>> considered my daughter’s limited awareness of the
>> reach of the crisis–emphasized that it was
>> important to value and enjoy those things we have
>> in the present, when there is uncertainty as to
>> the conditions that there will be in the near
>> future. My daughter, very concerned, turned to me
>> and, with what I felt was a mix of fair and
>> skepticism, said: “but dad, are not people fixing
>> the problem already so that everything will go well?”
>>
>> It truly broke my heart. I reassured her that we
>> are working as hard as we can, but invited her
>> not to stop reminding everyone that we cannot
>> afford stop fighting.
>>
>> My daughter clearly exhibited her (rightful)
>> habit of trust that adults address problems, that
>> they’ll take care of us, that things will end
>> well, or at least, that they’ll try their best.
>> In terms of purely formal scientific testing, it
>> turns out that my daughter’s hypothesis could
>> easily be rejected, as it is rather the case that
>> my parent’s generation did very little to address
>> problems they were “aware” of (another discussion
>> is what it is meant by “awareness” in cases such
>> as being aware of the effects of fossil fuels and
>> still accelerating their exploitation). Yet, it
>> would totally be against the interest of science
>> and society that my daughter loses that trust.
>> For if she does, then I fear she will be
>> incapable of imagining a thriving future to
>> demand and fight for. I fear she will lose a firm
>> ground for agency. Which teaches me that the
>> pedagogy that can help in this context of crisis
>> is one in which basic trust in the good faith and
>> orientation towards the common good of expertise
>> is restored, and that the only way to restore it
>> is by indeed acting accordingly, reclaiming and
>> occupying the agency and responsibility of making
>> sure that younger and older can continue
>> creatively imagining a future in which things
>> will go well at the end.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38
>> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Trust and Science
>>
>> Science is based on trust, isn't it, Henry. Only
>> a handful of people have actually measured
>> climate change, and then probably only one
>> factor. If we have a picture of climate change at
>> all, for scientists and non-scientists alike, it
>> is only because we /trust/ the institutions of
>> science sufficiently. And yet, everyone on this
>> list knows how wrong these institutions can be
>> when it comes to the area of our own expertise.
>> So "blind trust" is not enough, one needs
>> "critical trust" so to speak, in order to know
>> anything scientifically. Very demanding.
>>
>> Important as trust is, I am inclined to think
>> trust and its absence are symptoms of even more
>> fundamental societal characteristics, because it
>> is never just a question of *how much* trust
>> there is in a society, but *who* people trust. It
>> seems that nowadays people are very erratic
>> about *who *they trust about *what *and who they
>> do not trust.
>>
>> Probably the agreement you saw between Huw and me
>> was probably pretty shaky, but we have a
>> commonality in our trusted sources, we have
>> worked together in the past and share basic
>> respect for each other and for science. Workable
>> agreement. I despair over what I see happening in
>> the UK now, where MPs genuinely fear for their
>> lives because of the level of hatred and division
>> in the community, which is beginning to be even
>> worse than what Trump has created in the US. A
>> total breakdown in trust *alongside* tragically
>> misplaced trust in a couple of utterly cynical
>> criminals! The divisions are just as sharp here
>> in Oz too, but it has not go to that frightening
>> level of menace it has reached in the UK and US.
>>
>> Greta Thunberg talks of a plural, collective "we"
>> in opposition to a singular personal "you." She
>> brilliantly, in my opinion, turns this
>> black-and-white condition of the world around in
>> a manner which just could turn it into its
>> negation. Her use of language at the UN is
>> reminiscent of Churchill's "we fill fight them on
>> the beaches ..." speech and Martin Luther King's
>> "I have a dream" speech. There's something for
>> you linguists to get your teeth into!
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> On 28/09/2019 2:42 am, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>>
>> Andy and Huw,
>>
>> This is a perfect example of what I was
>> talking about in the discussion of your
>> article on Academia: Two philosophers having
>> a dialog about the same pholosophical object,
>> a dialog manifesting an experience of common
>> understanding. In the same way that two
>> mathematicians might agree on a mathematical
>> proof. I have to believe that you are not
>> bull shitting, that you really have
>> understood each other via your language. So,
>> of course this is of interest to a linguist,
>> even though he/I don’t really get the
>> “proof”. I may not understand the arguments
>> you are making, but I can imagine, based on
>> slogging through thinking as a lingist, what
>> it’s like to get it.
>>
>> I think this relates to the problem in the
>> world of a lack of trust in scientific
>> expertise, in expertise in general. Where
>> concpetual thinking reigns. So many climate
>> deniers. So many Brexiters. But can you blame
>> them entirely? Probably it would be better to
>> say that trust isn’t enough. The problem is a
>> lack of connection between trust and the
>> creative imagination. It’s what Beth Fernholt
>> and her pals have sent to the New Yorker.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2019, at 6:40 AM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Huw.
>>
>> The interconnectedness of the "four
>> concepts," I agree, they imply each
>> other, but nonetheless, they remain
>> distinct insights. Just because you get
>> one, you don't necessarily get the others.
>>
>> Hegel uses the expression "true concept"
>> only rarely. Generally, he simply uses
>> the word "concept," and uses a variety of
>> other terms like "mere conception" or
>> "representation" or "category" to
>> indicate something short of a concept,
>> properly so called, but there is no
>> strict categorisation for Hegel. Hegel is
>> not talking about Psychology, let alone
>> child psychology. Like with Vygotsky, all
>> thought-forms (or forms of activity) are
>> just phases (or stages) in the
>> development of a concept. Reading your
>> message, I think I am using the term
>> "true concept" in much the same way you are.
>>
>> (This is not relevant to my article, but
>> I distinguish "true concept" from "actual
>> concept." All the various forms of
>> "complexive thinking" fall short, so to
>> speak, of "true concepts," and further
>> development takes an abstract concept,
>> such as learnt in lecture 101 of a topic,
>> to an "actual concept". But that is not
>> relevant here. Hegel barely touches on
>> these issues.)
>>
>> I don't agree with your specific
>> categories, but yes, for Vygotsky,
>> chapters 4, 5 and 6 are all talking about
>> concepts in a developmental sense. There
>> are about 10 distinct stages for
>> Vygotsky. And they are not equivalent to
>> any series of stages identified by Hegel.
>> Vgotsky's "stages" were drawn from a
>> specific experiment with children;
>> Hegel's Logic is cast somewhat
>> differently (the Logic is not a series of
>> stages) and has a domain much larger than
>> Psychology.
>>
>> The experienced doctor does not use what
>> I would call "formal concepts" in her
>> work, which are what I would call the
>> concepts they learnt in Diagnostics 101
>> when they were a student. After 20 years
>> of experience, these formal concepts have
>> accrued practical life experience, and
>> remain true concepts, but are no longer
>> "formal." Of course, the student was not
>> taught pseudoconcepts in Diagnostics 101.
>> But all this is nothing to do with the
>> article in question.
>>
>> Hegel and Vygotsky are talking about
>> different things, but even in terms of
>> the subject matter, but especially in
>> terms of the conceptual form, there is
>> more Hegel in "Thinking and Speech" than
>> initially meets the eye.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> On 27/09/2019 4:32 pm, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> The "four concepts", for me, are four
>> aspects of one understanding -- they
>> imply each other.
>>
>> Quoting this passage:
>>
>>
>> "The ‘abstract generality’ referred
>> to above by Hegel, Vygotsky aptly
>> called a ‘pseudoconcept’ - a form of
>> abstract generalization, uniting
>> objects by shared common features,
>> which resembles conceptual thinking
>> because, within a limited domain
>> ofexperience, they subsume the same
>> objects and situations as the true
>> concept indicated by the same word.
>> The pseudoconcept is not the
>> exclusive achievement of the child.
>> In our everyday lives, our thinking
>> frequently occurs in pseudoconcepts.
>> From the perspective of dialectical
>> logic, the concepts that we find in
>> our living speech are not concepts in
>> the true sense of the word. They are
>> actually general representations of
>> things. There is no doubt, however,
>> that these representations are a
>> transitional stage between complexes
>> or pseudoconcepts and true concepts.
>> (Vygotsky, 1934/1987, p. 155)"
>>
>> My impression from your text, Andy,
>> is that you are misreading Vygotsky's
>> "Thinking and Speech". Implicit LSV's
>> whole text of vol. 1 is an
>> appreciation for different kinds of
>> conception (3 levels: pseudo, formal,
>> and dialectical), but the terminology
>> of "concept" is only applied to the
>> formal concept, i.e. where Vygotsky
>> writes "concept" one can read "formal
>> concept".
>>
>> In vol. 1, the analysis of the
>> trajectory of the thought of the
>> child is towards a growing
>> achievement of employing formal
>> concepts. These formal concepts are
>> only called "true concepts" (not to
>> be confused with Hegel's true
>> concept) in relation to the pseudo
>> (fake or untrue) formal concepts. The
>> pseudo concepts pertain to a form of
>> cognition that is considered by
>> Vygotsky (quite sensibly) to precede
>> the concepts of formal logic. This is
>> quite obvious to any thorough-going
>> psychological reading of the text.
>>
>> However, within the frame of analysis
>> of the text there is another form of
>> conception which is Vygotsky's
>> approach towards a dialectical
>> understanding. None of Vygotsky's
>> utterances about dialectics (in this
>> volume) should be conflated with the
>> "true concept" which he is using as a
>> short-hand for the "true formal
>> concept", similarly none of
>> Vygotsky's utterances about "pseudo
>> concepts" should be confused with
>> formal concepts.
>>
>> I hope that helps,
>>
>> Huw
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 06:37, Andy
>> Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I'd dearly like to get some
>> discussion going on this:
>>
>> It will be shown that at
>> least four foundational
>> concepts of Cultural
>> Historical Activity Theory
>> were previously formulated by
>> Hegel, viz., (1) the unit of
>> analysis as a key concept for
>> analytic-synthetic cognition,
>> (2) the centrality of
>> artifact-mediated actions,
>> (3) the definitive
>> distinction between goal and
>> motive in activities, and (4)
>> the distinction between a
>> true concept and a pseudoconcept.
>>
>> https://www.academia.edu/s/7d70db6eb3/the-hegelian-sources-of-cultural-historical-activity-theory
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> --
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190929/2b63ea52/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list