[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Mon Sep 30 09:01:55 PDT 2019
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 <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
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
> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> 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: *<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: *Monday, 30 September 2019 at 08:53
> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
> 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
> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home Page
> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
> 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
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Alfredo,
>
> I appreciate your generosity in
> reading/responding as well as your
> forthrightness (without which, conversation
> can feel a bit empty). And I entirely respect
> and appreciate your position.
>
> One point of clarification: on the relativism
> front I was simply making a statement of fact,
> capitalism provides a framework that people
> use to make ethical judgments. I wasn't
> suggesting that capitalism is ethical. I might
> add that as an anthropologist I believe that
> it is possible to judge beliefs and practices
> but that this can only be done after a deep
> understanding of the entire context of those
> beliefs and practices. I've had a lot of
> experience with capitalism and I'm pretty
> comfortable saying that, to my mind,
> capitalism is unethical and that it provides a
> rather unfortunate grounding for ethics and
> morality. (and you'll notice that this leads
> me directly to what I was chiding you for - an
> argument about the false consciousness of the
> proponents (pushers?) of capitalism!!).
>
> And I agree with Andy about the important
> contributions of others in this thread but I'm
> lacking the bandwidth to adequately
> acknowledge/engage right now.
>
> And still wondering if we could hear more
> from/about Vaedboncoeur and her work? Maybe
> there is a publication that someone
> could point us to?
>
> Beth Ferholt's work seems quite relevant as well.
>
> (but perhaps this thread is a bit too tiresome?).
>
> Very best,
>
> greg
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:11 PM Alfredo Jornet
> Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot Greg for your help and care,
> I really appreciate it and it is very
> helpful. And thanks also for emphasizing
> the importance of bridging across
> positions and trying to understand the
> phenomenon not only from our (often
> privileged) point of view, but also from
> that of others, even those with opposed
> belief systems. I truly appreciate that.
>
> Let me try to follow the signposts you
> nicely identified:
>
> 1. I see that my language lent itself to
> that reading. I believe the root of
> our differences is that I am trying to
> discuss denialism as a given
> historical practice, and not as
> something individual. At the
> individual level, both deniers and
> people who accept the science do so
> out of trust; just as you say, the one
> can argue that the other is the one
> who is wrong or trusting the wrong
> people. From the socio-historical
> perspective, however, neither position
> is the “free” choice of individuals
> who came upon the thought and believed
> it. Climate science communication and
> dissemination has its channels and
> ways to reach the public, just as
> climate science denial does. It so
> happens, though, that climate science
> denial was born of an explicit attempt
> to generate doubt in people, to
> confuse them and manipulate them for
> profit. This is well documented in the
> links I shared earlier. If both
> science and science denial have a
> function of persuading, and we cannot
> differentiate between the two, then I
> think we have a big problem. What I am
> saying is that we should be able to
> differentiate between the two. I am
> not saying people who believe climate
> change is real is more conscious or
> better conscious or any other
> privilege; they may be acting out of
> pure habit and submission. I am
> saying, though, that if people would
> engage in critical inquiry and
> question the history of their
> reasoning habits, then they may be
> better equipped to decide; both sides.
> It so happens, however, that, if we
> all would engage in such exercise, one
> side would find out they are
> (involuntarily perhaps) supporting
> actions that really harm people. In
> today’s modern societies, not finding
> out is truly an exercise of faith.
> 2. You invite us to try to understand
> what the frameworks are within which
> people may see choosing to deny
> climate science as “good” or the
> “right” thing to do, and I applaud and
> support that goal. I think that
> framework is the sort of sociocultural
> object I am trying to discuss. Yet, by
> the same token, I’d invite anyone to
> consider the views and positions of
> those who are already suffering the
> consequences of global warming, and I
> wonder what justifies ignoring their
> suffering. This can be extrapolated to
> a myriad practices in which all of we
> engage, from buying phones to going to
> the toilette; we live by the suffering
> of others. And when we do so, we are
> wrong, we are doing wrong. That’s my
> view, but perhaps I am wrong. I
> believe human rights are not partisan,
> or negotiable; again, my leap of trust.
> 3. Thanks for sharing your experience
> with your acquainted. I’d like to
> clarify that, when using the language
> of criminality, I refer to the people
> directly involved in making conscious
> decisions, and having recurred to
> science, to then not just ignore the
> science but also present it wrongly,
> making it possible for denial
> practices to thrive. People like the
> one you describe are having to deal
> with what it’s been left for them, and
> I totally empathize.
>
> Finally, you explicitly state that you do
> not want to relativize, but then you also
> say that “If capitalism is the framework
> for evaluating ethical behavior, then
> there is every reason to believe that EM
> execs are acting ethically”. To me, the
> suggestion that capitalism can be an
> ethical framework suggests a treatment of
> ethics as fundamentally arbitrary (meaning
> that any framework can be defined to
> evaluate ethical behavior). I am not sure
> I am ready to accept that assertion.
>
> Thanks!
> Alfredo
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
> Alfredo,
>
> Thanks for reminding me of the importance
> of my own humility with respect to the
> positions of others. (conclusion jumping
> is an unfortunate consequence of trying to
> respond quickly enough on a listserve to
> remain relevant - or at least that's a
> challenge for me).
>
> Thank you for clarifying that your
> position is not to dehumanize. I
> appreciate that.
>
> Let me see if I can recover what it was
> from your prior email that provoked my
> response and I'll do my best to stick more
> closely to your words (respectfully) and
> what I didn't quite understand.
>
> Here is the quote from your post: "I agree
> on the difficulties, but I would like to
> emphasize that being on the right or the
> wrong side in issues of climate change in
> today’s Global societies is a matter of
> having fallen pray to self-interested
> manipulation by others, or of being
> yourself one engaged in manipulating
> others for your own."
>
> This language of "fallen pray..." or,
> worse, "being... engaged in manipulating
> others..." were both phrases that I read
> to mean that this is something that THEY
> do and something that WE don't do (and
> ditto for the psychological studies that
> explain "their" behavior in terms of
> deterministic psychological principles -
> rather than as agentive humans (like
> us?)). But it seems that maybe I've
> misread you?
>
> I think calling them "criminals" is a
> little better but doesn't capture the
> systemic nature of what they are doing or
> why it is that many people would say that
> they are doing good. Or to put it another
> way, I'd like to better understand the
> minds and life situations and experiences
> of these criminals - what are the
> frameworks within which their actions make
> sense as good and right and just and true.
> The point is not to relativize but to
> understand (this is the anthropologists'
> task).
>
> Relatedly, I may have mistakenly assumed
> that your question was somewhat
> tongue-in-cheek: "the motives of these
> corporations never were the “feel that
> this is the ethically good and right
> position for humanity”. Or do we?"
>
> I think that this is a real question and
> for my two cents I would suggest that the
> answers to this question are important to
> the work of climate justice.
>
> As I mentioned in the p.s. above, I
> recently had the opportunity to push the
> ExxonMobil recruiter on these issues. He's
> been working for them for about 7 years.
> He was conflicted when first joining
> ExxonMobil (hereafter EM) but I could
> sense how hard he continues to work to
> justify working for EM. A brief summary of
> his justification (and I took this to be
> EM's justification) could be summed up
> with: "just as there was an iron age in
> which innovations were essential to the
> development of human beings, we are now in
> the oil age". He acknowledged that oil is
> a problem but then pointed out that
> everything in the room was enabled by oil
> - whether because it was transported there
> by gas-powered vehicles or because of the
> massive amounts of plastic, rubber, and
> other products that are made from oil and
> are everywhere in our everyday lives. His
> argument was that this is the way it is
> right now. Our lives (and our current
> "progress") are entirely dependent upon
> oil. And he clarified that EM's position
> is to find ways to transition away from
> oil dependency but remain as central to
> the world as they are now. He saw his
> position as one in which he could be on
> the "inside" and help to enable this
> transition and change.
>
> Now my point is NOT that he is right in
> all of what he says (or that EM is not a
> central cause of the problem that he seems
> not to be able to see). At the end of the
> day, I personally concluded that he is an
> oil apologist (and I did my best to point
> this out to him and to the potential
> ethical ironies of his work). Rather, my
> point is that I took him at his word that
> he genuinely believes what he says and
> that he did not "fall prey" to the
> manipulations of others and is not himself
> manipulating others to further his own
> interests. He does feel conflicted about
> his work but at the end of the day he
> feels that he is doing what is ethically
> good and right for humanity.
>
> And to take this one step further, I think
> that in order to evaluate whether
> something is ethical or not, we need some
> kind of framework within which to make
> such a determination. If capitalism is the
> framework for evaluating ethical behavior,
> then there is every reason to believe that
> EM execs are acting ethically.
>
> Let me know where I've misread you and/or
> misunderstood you.
>
> With apologies,
>
> greg
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 9:59 AM Alfredo
> Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg, for reminding us of the
> importance of humility. Please, let us
> all realize of the humanity of
> deniers, as much as those of anyone
> else. But no, I am not saying that
> they are the ones who live in a world
> of false consciousness. Please, if I
> wrote that somewhere, help me correct
> it, cause I did not intend to write
> so. I never said Exxon staff were not
> human, Greg. I said they are
> criminals. I am not alone in this:
> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/24/climate-justice-ecocide-humanity-crime/
>
> I am more than happy to disagree, but
> your misrepresentation of what I just
> wrote went beyond what I can explain
> or understand in the language that I
> use. So, I think I’ll need help to
> find common ground and continue dialogue.
>
> Alfredo
>
> *From:
> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>
> Alfredo,
>
> You point to an important possibility
> that I would not want to rule out, the
> possibility of false consciousness.
> Yet, I'd like to also just point to
> the fact that one must undertake such
> a claim with the utmost of humility
> since "they" are making precisely the
> same kind of claim about you.
>
> You say that THEY are the ones who
> live in a world of false
> consciousness, while WE are the ones
> who are awake to the reality of
> things. This is precisely what climate
> deniers say of you!!! They say that
> you are caught up in the
> pseudo-science of climate change that
> works to further the introduce
> governmental control over our daily
> lives (an outcome that for them is
> just as monstrous as what you describe).
>
> We can stand and shout and say that we
> are right and they are wrong, but we
> have to recognize that they are doing
> the same thing. We could try and kill
> them off since we are convinced that
> they are murders, but they might do
> the same. To me it seems, there is
> still something more that is needed.
>
> Another way to go about this is to
> seek some kind of true understanding
> across these divides. Rather than
> dismissing "them" as a bunch of
> manipulators who are just trying to
> get theirs or a bunch of dupes who are
> going along with a line that they've
> been sold, why not try to engage
> "them" as humans just like "we" are
> humans? How many climate change
> deniers have we actually talked to and
> treated as humans? (but, you object,
> they aren't human!)
>
> I don't think that this needs to be
> ALL of the work of climate justice,
> but I do think that it should be part
> of this work. And it happens to be one
> that is sorely lacking in many
> approaches. (and just to be clear, I'm
> not saying that it is lacking in
> yours, Alfredo, I'm just posing the
> question, perhaps you know and have
> had conversation with many deniers and
> realize their humanity).
>
> -greg
>
> p.s., I spoke with a recruiter for
> ExxonMobil this past week and he noted
> that their new CEO stated
> unequivocally that man-made climate
> change is real and that oil is a major
> cause of it.
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM
> Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> I see and Greg’s point. I can see
> that not everyone denying climate
> change is necessarily a “bad”
> person or the evil in and of
> themselves.
>
> However, I cannot agree with the
> statement that “everyone acts
> because they think it right to do
> so”. I’ve done (and keep doing)
> enough stupid (and wrong!) things
> in my life to be convinced of the
> falsehood of that statement. That
> statement, in my view, would ONLY
> apply to (a) instances in which
> people indeed ponder/consider what
> they are about to do before they
> do it, and (b) the nature of their
> pondering is in fact ethical.
>
> Should we refer to Exxon corporate
> decision-makers who initiated
> misinformation campaigns to cast
> doubt on climate science as
> psychopaths (as per your
> definition)? Would that be fair to
> people with actual pathologies?
> I’d rather call them criminals.
>
> You seem to assume (or I misread
> you as assuming) that all actions
> are taken based on a pondering on
> what is right or wrong, even when
> that pondering has not taken
> place. First, I don’t think we
> always act based on
> decision-making. Second, not every
> decision-making or pondering may
> consider ethical dimensions of
> right or wrong. I invite you to
> consider how many people among
> those who deny the climate science
> has actually gone through an
> ethical pondering when they
> “choose” to deny the science. My
> sense is that most deniers do not
> “choose,” but rather enact a
> position that is, in the
> metaphorical terms that the author
> of the article that Anne-Nelly has
> shared uses, in the air they
> breath within their communities. I
> am of the view that exercising
> ethics, just as exercising science
> denial in the 21st century, is
> engaging in a quite definite
> historical practice that has its
> background, resources, and
> patterns or habits. I think that
> if we exercised (practiced) more
> of ethics, science denial would be
> less of a “right” choice. That is,
> decision-making is a sociocultural
> endeavor, not something an
> individual comes up with alone.
> Sometimes we cannot choose how we
> feel or react, but we can choose
> who we get together to, the types
> of cultures within which we want
> to generate habits of action/mind.
>
> We cannot de-politicize science,
> for it is only in political
> contexts that science comes to
> effect lives outside of the
> laboratory. But we can generate
> cultures of critical engagement,
> which I think would bring us
> closer to your option (3) at the
> end of your e-mail when you ponder
> whether/how to disentangle
> bipartisanism and scientific
> literacy. I don’t think then
> relativism (that you act ethically
> or not depending on what you think
> it’s right or not, independently
> of whether great amounts of
> suffering happen because of your
> actions) is what would thrive.
> Rather, I believe (and hope!)
> **humanity** would thrive, for it
> would always ponder the question
> Dewey posed when considering why
> we should prefer democracy over
> any other forms of political
> organization, such as fascism:
>
> “Can we find any reason that does
> not ultimately come down to the
> belief that democratic social
> arrangements promote a better
> quality of human experience, one
> which is more widely accessible
> and enjoyed, than do nondemocratic
> and antidemocratic forms of social
> life? Does not the principle of
> regard for individual freedom and
> for decency and kindliness of
> human relations come back in the
> end to the conviction that these
> things are tributary to a higher
> quality of experience on the part
> of a greater number than are
> methods of repression and coercion
> or force?” (Dewey, Experience and
> Education, chapter 3).
>
> Please, help me see how Exxon
> leaders considered any of these
> when they chose to deny the
> science, and thought it was right.
> I know voters did not “choose” in
> the same way (Exxon staff trusted
> the science, indeed!). But it is
> back there where you can find an
> explanation for climate change
> denial today; it is in the
> cultural-historical pattern of
> thinking they contributed
> engineering, along with political
> actors, and not in the individual
> head of the person denying that
> you find the explanation.
>
> Alfredo
>
> *From:
> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019
> at 15:28
> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and
> Science
>
> Alfredo, I think Greg's point is
> basically right, that is, everyone
> acts because they think it right
> to do so. The only exception would
> be true psychopaths. The issue is:
> /why/ does this person believe
> this is the right thing to do and
> believe that this is the person I
> should trust and that this is the
> truth about the matter?
>
> Take Darwinian Evolution as an
> example. In the USA, this question
> has been "politicised," that is,
> people either accept the science
> or not according to whether they
> vote Democrat or Republican. There
> are variants on this, and various
> exceptions, but for the largest
> numbers belief in the Bible or
> belief in the Science textbook are
> choices of being on this side or
> the other side. This is not the
> case in many other countries where
> Evolution is simply part of the
> Biology lesson.
>
> In the UK, Anthropogenic climate
> change is not a Party question
> either. People believe it whether
> they vote Tory or Labour. Still,
> how much people change their
> lives, etc., does vary, but that
> varies according to other issues;
> it is not a Party question.
>
> In Australia, Anthropogenic
> climate change is a Party
> question, even though this year
> right-wing political leaders no
> longer openly scorn climate
> science, but everyone knows this
> is skin deep. But like in the UK,
> Evolution is not a partisan
> question and eve the right-wing
> support public health (though it
> was not always so).
>
> The strategic questions, it seems
> to me are: (1) is it possible to
> break a single issue away from the
> partisan platform, and for
> example, get Republicans to
> support the teaching of Biology
> and sending their kids to science
> classes with an open mind? Even
> while they still support capital
> punishment and opposed abortion
> and public health? Or (2) Is it
> possible to lever a person away
> from their partisan position on a
> scientific or moral question,
> without asking for them to flip
> sides altogether? or (3) Is it
> easier to work for the entire
> defeat of a Party which opposes
> Science and Humanity (as we see it)?
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements
> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home Page
> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
>
> On 29/09/2019 8:16 pm, Alfredo
> Jornet Gil wrote:
>
> Thanks Anne-Nelly, I had not
> read this one. Very telling!
>
> Alfredo
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2019, at 10:20,
> PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly
> <Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch
> <mailto:Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch>>
> wrote:
>
> Alfredo,
>
> You probably remember
> this very interesting
> report from a journalist :
>
> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/6/8/1863530/-A-close-family-member-votes-Republican-Now-I-understand-why-The-core-isn-t-bigotry-It-s-worse
>
> I like to mention it
> because it contributes to
> illustrate your point,
> shading light on powerful
> micro-mechanisms.
>
> Anne-Nelly
>
> Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly
> Perret-Clermont
>
> Institut de psychologie et
> éducation Faculté des
> lettres et sciences humaines
>
> Université de Neuchâtel
>
> Espace Tilo-Frey 1
> (Anciennement: Espace
> Louis-Agassiz 1)
>
> CH- 2000 Neuchâtel (Suisse)
>
> http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont
>
> A peine sorti de presse:
> https://www.socialinfo.ch/les-livres/38-agir-et-penser-avec-anne-nelly-perret-clermont.html
>
> *De :
> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Alfredo
> Jornet Gil
> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
> *Répondre à : *"eXtended
> Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date : *dimanche, 29
> septembre 2019 à 09:45
> *À : *"eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur
> Jennifer
> <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
> <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
> *Objet : *[Xmca-l] Re:
> Trust and Science
>
> Greg,
>
> Thanks, we are on the same
> page. But you write: «most
> climate change deniers are
> such because they feel
> that this is the ethically
> good and right position
> for humanity». I agree on
> the difficulties, but I
> would like to emphasize
> that being on the right or
> the wrong side in issues
> of climate change in
> today’s Global societies
> is a matter of having
> fallen pray to
> self-interested
> manipulation by others, or
> of being yourself one
> engaged in manipulating
> others for your own.
>
> When you pick up a
> scientific article (very
> unlikely if you are a
> denier) or a press
> article, and read that the
> Earth is warming due to
> human civilization, and
> then think, “nah,
> bullshit”, you most likely
> are inclined to infer that
> way cause that’s a
> cultural pattern of
> thinking characteristic of
> a group or community you
> belong to. There are out
> there many psychology
> studies showing the extent
> to which “opinions” on
> climate science vary not
> with respect to how much
> one knows or understand,
> but rather with respect to
> your religious and
> political affiliation
> (see, for example,
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547).
>
> My point being that, when
> you deny climate change
> today, you engage in a
> practice that has a very
> definite historical origin
> and motive, namely the
> coordinated, systematic
> actions of a given set of
> fossil fuel corporations
> that, to this date,
> continue lobbying to
> advance their own
> interests, permeating
> through many spheres of
> civic life, including
> education:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
>
> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Greenpeace_Dealing-in-Doubt-1.pdf?53ea6e
>
> We know that the motives
> of these corporations
> never were the “feel that
> this is the ethically good
> and right position for
> humanity”. Or do we?
>
> Again, educating about
> (climate) **justice** and
> accountability may be
> crucial to the “critical”
> approach that has been
> mentioned in prior e-mails.
>
> I too would love seeing
> Jen V. chiming in on these
> matters.
>
> Alfredo
>
> *From:
> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended
> Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Sunday, 29
> September 2019 at 04:15
> *To: *"eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Cc: *Jennifer
> Vadeboncoeur
> <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
> <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re:
> Trust and Science
>
> Alfredo and Artin, Yes and
> yes.
>
> Alfredo, yes, I wasn't
> suggesting doing without
> them, but simply that
> something more is needed
> perhaps an "ethical
> dimension" is needed
> (recognizing that such a
> thing is truly a hard
> fought accomplishment -
> right/wrong and good/evil
> seems so obvious from
> where we stand, but
> others will see
> differently; most climate
> change deniers are such
> because they feel that
> this is the ethically good
> and right position for
> humanity not because they
> see it as an evil and
> ethically wrong position).
>
> Artin, I wonder if Dr.
> Vadeboncoeur might be
> willing to chime in??
> Sounds like a fascinating
> and important take on the
> issue. Or maybe you could
> point us to a reading?
>
> (and by coincidence, I had
> the delight of dealing
> with Dr. Vadebonceour's
> work in my data analysis
> class this week via
> LeCompte and Scheunsel's
> extensive use of her work
> to describe data analysis
> principles - my students
> found her work to be super
> interesting and very
> helpful for thinking about
> data analysis).
>
> Cheers,
>
> greg
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at
> 9:19 AM Goncu, Artin
> <goncu@uic.edu
> <mailto:goncu@uic.edu>> wrote:
>
> The varying meanings
> and potential abuses
> of the connection
> between imagination
> and trust appear to be
> activity specific.
> This can be seen even
> in the same activity,
> i.e., trust and
> imagination may be
> abused. For example,
> I took pains for many
> years to illustrate
> that children’s
> construction of
> intersubjectivity in
> social imaginative
> play requires trust in
> one another. Children
> make the proleptic
> assumption that their
> potential partners are
> sincere, know
> something about the
> topics proposed for
> imaginative play, and
> will participate in
> the negotiations of
> assumed joint
> imaginative pasts and
> anticipated futures.
> However, this may not
> always be the case. As
> Schousboe showed,
> children may abuse
> play to institute
> their own abusive
> agendas as evidenced
> in her example of two
> five year old girls
> pretending that actual
> urine in a bottle was
> soda pop trying to
> make a three year old
> girl to drink it. This
> clearly supports
> exploring how we
> can/should inquire
> what Alfredo calls the
> third dimension. More
> to the point, how do
> we teach right from
> wrong in shared
> imagination?
> Vadeboncoeur has been
> addressing the moral
> dimensions of
> imagination in her
> recent work.
>
> Artin
>
> Artin Goncu, Ph.D
>
> Professor, Emeritus
>
> University of Illinois
> at Chicago
>
> www.artingoncu.com/
> <http://www.artingoncu.com/>
>
> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Alfredo
> Jornet Gil
> *Sent:* Saturday,
> September 28, 2019 9:35 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l]
> Re: Trust and Science
>
> Yes, Greg, I agree
> there is all grounds
> and rights to question
> trust and imagination,
> but I am less inclined
> to think that we can
> do without them both.
> So, if there is a
> difference between
> imaginative propaganda
> aimed at confusing the
> public, and
> imaginative education
> that grows from hope
> and will for the
> common good, then
> perhaps we need a
> third element that
> discerns good from
> evil? Right from
> wrong? That may why,
> in order for people to
> actually engage in
> transformational
> action, what they need
> the most is not just
> to understand Climate
> Change, but most
> importantly, Climate
> Justice. Don’t you think?
>
> Alfredo
>
> *From:
> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Greg
> Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended
> Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Saturday, 28
> September 2019 at 16:05
> *To: *"eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l]
> Re: Trust and Science
>
> Note that there is a
> great deal of trust
> and imagination going
> on right now in the
> US. We have the most
> imaginative president
> we’ve had in years. He
> can imagine his way to
> bigly approval ratings
> and a massive
> inaugural turnout. He
> imagines that trying
> to get dirt on an
> opponent is a
> “beautiful
> conversation”. And if
> you watch the media
> these days, he has a
> cadre of others who
> are doing additional
> imagining for him as
> well - they are
> imagining what the DNC
> is trying to do to
> ouster this president,
> they are imagining
> what Joe Biden might
> really have been up to
> with that prosecutor.
> And what makes matters
> worst is that there is
> a rather large
> contingent of people
> in the US who trust
> this cadre of
> imaginative
> propagandists and who
> trust Trump and
> believe that they are
> the only ones who have
> the real truth.
>
> So I guess I’m
> suggesting there might
> be reason to question
> imagination and trust
> (and this all was
> heightened for me by a
> dip into the
> imaginative and
> trust-filled land of
> conservative talk
> radio yesterday - but
> you can find the same
> message from anyone
> who is a Trump truster
> - including a number
> of politicians who are
> playing the same game
> of avoiding the facts
> (no one on those talk
> shows actually
> repeated any of the
> damning words from
> Trumps phone call)
> while constructing an
> alternative narrative
> that listeners trust).
>
> Sadly,
>
> Greg
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019
> at 5:17 AM Alfredo
> Jornet Gil
> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
> wrote:
>
> Henry, all,
>
> Further resonating
> with Beth et al’s
> letter, and with
> what Henry and
> Andy just wrote, I
> too think the
> point at which
> trust and
> imagination meet
> is key.
>
> A couple of days
> ago, I watched,
> together with my
> two daughters (10
> and 4 years old
> respectively)
> segments of the
> /Right to a Future
> /event organized
> by The Intercept
> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/greta-thunberg-naomi-klein-climate-change-livestream/,
> where young and
> not-so-young
> activists and
> journalists
> discussed visions
> of 2029 if we,
> today, would lead
> radical change. It
> was a great chance
> to engage in some
> conversation with
> my children about
> these issues,
> specially with my
> older one; about
> hope and about the
> importance of
> fighting for justice.
>
> At some point in a
> follow-up
> conversation that
> we had in bed,
> right before
> sleep, we spoke
> about the good
> things that we
> still have with
> respect to nature
> and community, and
> I–perhaps not
> having considered
> my daughter’s
> limited awareness
> of the reach of
> the
> crisis–emphasized
> that it was
> important to value
> and enjoy those
> things we have in
> the present, when
> there is
> uncertainty as to
> the conditions
> that there will be
> in the near
> future. My
> daughter, very
> concerned, turned
> to me and, with
> what I felt was a
> mix of fair and
> skepticism, said:
> “but dad, are not
> people fixing the
> problem already so
> that everything
> will go well?”
>
> It truly broke my
> heart. I reassured
> her that we are
> working as hard as
> we can, but
> invited her not to
> stop reminding
> everyone that we
> cannot afford stop
> fighting.
>
> My daughter
> clearly exhibited
> her (rightful)
> habit of trust
> that adults
> address problems,
> that they’ll take
> care of us, that
> things will end
> well, or at least,
> that they’ll try
> their best. In
> terms of purely
> formal scientific
> testing, it turns
> out that my
> daughter’s
> hypothesis could
> easily be
> rejected, as it is
> rather the case
> that my parent’s
> generation did
> very little to
> address problems
> they were “aware”
> of (another
> discussion is what
> it is meant by
> “awareness” in
> cases such as
> being aware of the
> effects of fossil
> fuels and still
> accelerating their
> exploitation).
> Yet, it would
> totally be against
> the interest of
> science and
> society that my
> daughter loses
> that trust. For if
> she does, then I
> fear she will be
> incapable of
> imagining a
> thriving future to
> demand and fight
> for. I fear she
> will lose a firm
> ground for agency.
> Which teaches me
> that the pedagogy
> that can help in
> this context of
> crisis is one in
> which basic trust
> in the good faith
> and orientation
> towards the common
> good of expertise
> is restored, and
> that the only way
> to restore it is
> by indeed acting
> accordingly,
> reclaiming and
> occupying the
> agency and
> responsibility of
> making sure that
> younger and older
> can continue
> creatively
> imagining a future
> in which things
> will go well at
> the end.
>
> Alfredo
>
> *From:
> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> on behalf of Andy
> Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
> *Reply to:
> *"eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Date: *Saturday,
> 28 September 2019
> at 04:38
> *To:
> *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> *Subject:
> *[Xmca-l] Trust
> and Science
>
> Science is based
> on trust, isn't
> it, Henry. Only a
> handful of people
> have actually
> measured climate
> change, and then
> probably only one
> factor. If we have
> a picture of
> climate change at
> all, for
> scientists and
> non-scientists
> alike, it is only
> because we /trust/
> the institutions
> of science
> sufficiently. And
> yet, everyone on
> this list knows
> how wrong these
> institutions can
> be when it comes
> to the area of our
> own expertise. So
> "blind trust" is
> not enough, one
> needs "critical
> trust" so to
> speak, in order to
> know anything
> scientifically.
> Very demanding.
>
> Important as trust
> is, I am inclined
> to think trust and
> its absence are
> symptoms of even
> more fundamental
> societal
> characteristics,
> because it is
> never just a
> question of *how
> much* trust there
> is in a society,
> but *who* people
> trust. It seems
> that nowadays
> people are very
> erratic about *who
> *they trust about
> *what *and who
> they do not trust.
>
> Probably the
> agreement you saw
> between Huw and me
> was probably
> pretty shaky, but
> we have a
> commonality in our
> trusted sources,
> we have worked
> together in the
> past and share
> basic respect for
> each other and for
> science. Workable
> agreement. I
> despair over what
> I see happening in
> the UK now, where
> MPs genuinely fear
> for their lives
> because of the
> level of hatred
> and division in
> the community,
> which is beginning
> to be even worse
> than what Trump
> has created in the
> US. A total
> breakdown in trust
> *alongside*
> tragically
> misplaced trust in
> a couple of
> utterly cynical
> criminals! The
> divisions are just
> as sharp here in
> Oz too, but it has
> not go to that
> frightening level
> of menace it has
> reached in the UK
> and US.
>
> Greta Thunberg
> talks of a plural,
> collective "we" in
> opposition to a
> singular personal
> "you." She
> brilliantly, in my
> opinion, turns
> this
> black-and-white
> condition of the
> world around in a
> manner which just
> could turn it into
> its negation. Her
> use of language at
> the UN is
> reminiscent of
> Churchill's "we
> fill fight them on
> the beaches ..."
> speech and Martin
> Luther King's "I
> have a dream"
> speech. There's
> something for you
> linguists to get
> your teeth into!
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social
> Movements
> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home Page
> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
> On 28/09/2019 2:42
> am, HENRY SHONERD
> wrote:
>
> Andy and Huw,
>
> This is a
> perfect
> example of
> what I was
> talking about
> in the
> discussion of
> your article
> on Academia:
> Two
> philosophers
> having a
> dialog about
> the same
> pholosophical
> object, a
> dialog
> manifesting an
> experience of
> common
> understanding.
> In the same
> way that two
> mathematicians
> might agree on
> a mathematical
> proof. I have
> to believe
> that you are
> not bull
> shitting, that
> you really
> have
> understood
> each other via
> your language.
> So, of course
> this is of
> interest to a
> linguist, even
> though he/I
> don’t really
> get the
> “proof”. I may
> not understand
> the arguments
> you are
> making, but I
> can imagine,
> based on
> slogging
> through
> thinking as a
> lingist, what
> it’s like to
> get it.
>
> I think this
> relates to the
> problem in the
> world of a
> lack of trust
> in scientific
> expertise, in
> expertise in
> general. Where
> concpetual
> thinking
> reigns. So
> many climate
> deniers. So
> many
> Brexiters. But
> can you blame
> them entirely?
> Probably it
> would be
> better to say
> that trust
> isn’t enough.
> The problem is
> a lack of
> connection
> between trust
> and the
> creative
> imagination.
> It’s what Beth
> Fernholt and
> her pals have
> sent to the
> New Yorker.
>
> Henry
>
> On Sep 27,
> 2019, at
> 6:40 AM,
> Andy
> Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Huw.
>
> The
> interconnectedness
> of the
> "four
> concepts,"
> I agree,
> they imply
> each
> other, but
> nonetheless,
> they
> remain
> distinct
> insights.
> Just
> because
> you get
> one, you
> don't
> necessarily
> get the
> others.
>
> Hegel uses
> the
> expression
> "true
> concept"
> only
> rarely.
> Generally,
> he simply
> uses the
> word
> "concept,"
> and uses a
> variety of
> other
> terms like
> "mere
> conception"
> or
> "representation"
> or
> "category"
> to
> indicate
> something
> short of a
> concept,
> properly
> so called,
> but there
> is no
> strict
> categorisation
> for Hegel.
> Hegel is
> not
> talking
> about
> Psychology,
> let alone
> child
> psychology.
> Like with
> Vygotsky,
> all
> thought-forms
> (or forms
> of
> activity)
> are just
> phases (or
> stages) in
> the
> development
> of a
> concept.
> Reading
> your
> message, I
> think I am
> using the
> term "true
> concept"
> in much
> the same
> way you are.
>
> (This is
> not
> relevant
> to my
> article,
> but I
> distinguish
> "true
> concept"
> from
> "actual
> concept."
> All the
> various
> forms of
> "complexive
> thinking"
> fall
> short, so
> to speak,
> of "true
> concepts,"
> and
> further
> development
> takes an
> abstract
> concept,
> such as
> learnt in
> lecture
> 101 of a
> topic, to
> an "actual
> concept".
> But that
> is not
> relevant
> here.
> Hegel
> barely
> touches on
> these issues.)
>
> I don't
> agree with
> your
> specific
> categories,
> but yes,
> for
> Vygotsky,
> chapters
> 4, 5 and 6
> are all
> talking
> about
> concepts
> in a
> developmental
> sense.
> There are
> about 10
> distinct
> stages for
> Vygotsky.
> And they
> are not
> equivalent
> to any
> series of
> stages
> identified
> by Hegel.
> Vgotsky's
> "stages"
> were drawn
> from a
> specific
> experiment
> with
> children;
> Hegel's
> Logic is
> cast
> somewhat
> differently
> (the Logic
> is not a
> series of
> stages)
> and has a
> domain
> much
> larger
> than
> Psychology.
>
> The
> experienced
> doctor
> does not
> use what I
> would call
> "formal
> concepts"
> in her
> work,
> which are
> what I
> would call
> the
> concepts
> they
> learnt in
> Diagnostics
> 101 when
> they were
> a student.
> After 20
> years of
> experience,
> these
> formal
> concepts
> have
> accrued
> practical
> life
> experience,
> and remain
> true
> concepts,
> but are no
> longer
> "formal."
> Of course,
> the
> student
> was not
> taught
> pseudoconcepts
> in
> Diagnostics
> 101. But
> all this
> is nothing
> to do with
> the
> article in
> question.
>
> Hegel and
> Vygotsky
> are
> talking
> about
> different
> things,
> but even
> in terms
> of the
> subject
> matter,
> but
> especially
> in terms
> of the
> conceptual
> form,
> there is
> more Hegel
> in
> "Thinking
> and
> Speech"
> than
> initially
> meets the eye.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for
> Social
> Movements
> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home Page
> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
> On
> 27/09/2019
> 4:32 pm,
> Huw Lloyd
> wrote:
>
> The
> "four
> concepts",
> for
> me,
> are
> four
> aspects
> of one
> understanding
> --
> they
> imply
> each
> other.
>
> Quoting
> this
> passage:
>
>
> "The
> ‘abstract
> generality’
> referred
> to
> above
> by
> Hegel,
> Vygotsky
> aptly
> called
> a
> ‘pseudoconcept’
> - a
> form
> of
> abstract
> generalization,
> uniting
> objects
> by
> shared
> common
> features,
> which
> resembles
> conceptual
> thinking
> because,
> within
> a
> limited
> domain
> ofexperience,
> they
> subsume
> the
> same
> objects
> and
> situations
> as the
> true
> concept
> indicated
> by the
> same word.
> The
> pseudoconcept
> is not
> the
> exclusive
> achievement
> of the
> child.
> In our
> everyday
> lives,
> our
> thinking
> frequently
> occurs
> in
> pseudoconcepts.
> From
> the
> perspective
> of
> dialectical
> logic,
> the
> concepts
> that
> we
> find
> in our
> living
> speech
> are
> not
> concepts
> in the
> true
> sense
> of the
> word.
> They
> are
> actually
> general
> representations
> of
> things.
> There
> is no
> doubt,
> however,
> that
> these
> representations
> are a
> transitional
> stage
> between
> complexes
> or
> pseudoconcepts
> and
> true
> concepts.
> (Vygotsky,
> 1934/1987,
> p. 155)"
>
> My
> impression
> from
> your
> text,
> Andy,
> is
> that
> you
> are
> misreading
> Vygotsky's
> "Thinking
> and
> Speech".
> Implicit
> LSV's
> whole
> text
> of
> vol. 1
> is an
> appreciation
> for
> different
> kinds
> of
> conception
> (3
> levels:
> pseudo,
> formal,
> and
> dialectical),
> but
> the
> terminology
> of
> "concept"
> is
> only
> applied
> to the
> formal
> concept,
> i.e.
> where
> Vygotsky
> writes
> "concept"
> one
> can
> read
> "formal
> concept".
>
> In
> vol.
> 1,
> the analysis
> of the
> trajectory
> of the
> thought
> of the
> child
> is
> towards
> a
> growing
> achievement
> of
> employing
> formal
> concepts.
> These
> formal
> concepts
> are
> only
> called
> "true
> concepts"
> (not
> to be
> confused
> with
> Hegel's
> true
> concept)
> in
> relation
> to the
> pseudo
> (fake
> or
> untrue)
> formal
> concepts.
> The
> pseudo
> concepts
> pertain
> to a
> form
> of
> cognition
> that
> is
> considered
> by
> Vygotsky
> (quite
> sensibly)
> to
> precede
> the
> concepts
> of
> formal
> logic.
> This
> is
> quite
> obvious
> to any
> thorough-going
> psychological
> reading
> of the
> text.
>
> However,
> within
> the
> frame
> of
> analysis
> of the
> text
> there
> is
> another
> form
> of
> conception
> which
> is
> Vygotsky's
> approach
> towards
> a
> dialectical
> understanding.
> None
> of
> Vygotsky's
> utterances
> about
> dialectics
> (in
> this
> volume)
> should
> be
> conflated
> with
> the
> "true
> concept"
> which
> he is
> using
> as a
> short-hand
> for
> the
> "true
> formal
> concept",
> similarly
> none
> of
> Vygotsky's
> utterances
> about
> "pseudo
> concepts"
> should
> be
> confused
> with
> formal
> concepts.
>
> I hope
> that
> helps,
>
> Huw
>
> On
> Sat,
> 21 Sep
> 2019
> at
> 06:37,
> Andy
> Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
> wrote:
>
> I'd
> dearly
> like
> to
> get
> some
> discussion
> going
> on
> this:
>
> It
> will
> be
> shown
> that
> at
> least
> four
> foundational
> concepts
> of
> Cultural
> Historical
> Activity
> Theory
> were
> previously
> formulated
> by
> Hegel,
> viz.,
> (1)
> the
> unit
> of
> analysis
> as
> a
> key
> concept
> for
> analytic-synthetic
> cognition,
> (2)
> the
> centrality
> of
> artifact-mediated
> actions,
> (3)
> the
> definitive
> distinction
> between
> goal
> and
> motive
> in
> activities,
> and
> (4)
> the
> distinction
> between
> a
> true
> concept
> and
> a
> pseudoconcept.
>
> https://www.academia.edu/s/7d70db6eb3/the-hegelian-sources-of-cultural-historical-activity-theory
>
> Andy
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Andy
> Blunden*
> Hegel
> for
> Social
> Movements
> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
> Home
> Page
> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball
> Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE:
> greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE:
> greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
> --
>
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
>
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20191001/9e5baa05/attachment-0001.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list