[Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

[Harshad Dave]

Hi,

I think we may grasp it as follow.

** Conscious awareness:

"To be aware" gives us a sense that the person who is aware... is with
concerned information reagarding the subject matter.

It seems logical that the word "awareness" has emerged from above concept
of human characteristic to remain aware of information of the subject
matter as shown above. He punctually and intentionally puts his efforts to
remain aware about the latest status of the concerned subject matter.

I think it is "conscious awareness".

** Conscious unawareness:

I clarified the word awareness as above. The "unawareness" is antimony of
"awareness".

But, its emergence might be from......,

His various negative characteristics that might have casted his mindset to
remain negligent towards the felt necessity of the time...
i. e. "to remain aware about the concerned subject matter".
and due to his mind set he is unaware of the subject matter but he knows he
should be aware of the same. This is "conscious unawareness".

** Unconscious awareness:

Here is interesting point.
I recall one event of my primary school time. We were playing cricket in
our street. One gentleman (uncle) neighbor was reading news paper in his
corridor. I was near to him and bats man gave a shot to the ball (it was a
light tennis ball) that hit the uncle on the back side of his head as he
was seating keeping back towards the batsman side.
It was not at all a serious hit and he pleasantly returned our balk with a
smile.
But, I clearly remember....
When the ball was just near to his head in the trajectory.. say 4 to 5 inch
away from his head back.... though he was not at all aware of this looming
hit..... he bowed his head well before the moment of the hitting. I was/am
the witness that though he had not seen the ball perhaps his sixth sense
made him aware of the event to happen after a moment.

We many times come across the events where our sixth sense makes us
conscious about the looming happenings. I think it is....
"Unconscious awareness".

with regards,

Harshad Dave.




On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 10:53 Annalisa Aguilar, <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hi Andy, Henry and vo's
>
> Thank you for your reply Andy, but I think that what you are talking about
> is attention, not awareness. Like Henry explains, attention has a focus.
> That isn't "conscious awareness," for the very reason on cannot say
> "unconscious awareness" or "conscious unawareness" these states do not
> exist.
>
> The examples you bring to the table have to do with the autonomic nervous
> system which aids walking, balance, and so on, which are not outside of
> awareness, but  can be outside of attention. The sympathetic system is the
> fight or flight response so there is not necessarily a "consciousness
> awareness" that propels the person to prevent a fall, but something that is
> automatic and reflexive; it is instinctual. I don't think that that is
> "conscious awareness."
>
> As you can see it is a problematic phrase.
>
> Also what is the consciousness of a whale, or a dolphin, that mediates
> between physiology and behavior? Sleeping or awake?
>
> I maintain that what you are describing is attentional, not "conscious
> awareness."
>
> This child directs her attention to steps that chunk the activity of tying
> shoes, (as you illustrated), that eventually becomes an automatic
> motorskill and becomes smooth, and with practice doesn't require
> attentional focus once it does become automatic.
>
> Tying my shoes I am not thinking about tying my shoes, but I could
> tomorrow have attentional focus about tying my shoes whether I know how to
> do it or not. But the stance of "conscious awareness" means that the child
> doesn't require it at some point, but the child also doesn't consider, "I
> am aware that I am learning to tie my shoes." Nor "I am aware that if I tie
> my shoes I will be proud of myself." These states of mind do not create
> mastery of tying of shoes.
>
> The glaring flaw in this conceptual construct of "conscious awareness" is
> that it "falls away" after mastery, but where does it go and when does it
> end? And how does it start when it starts?
>
> What is the genesis of "conscious awareness?"
>
> Learning about anything is about internalizing subjectively what maps
> to/reflects the external world faithfully. How you learned to tie your
> shoes may be different than how I did, than perhaps someone who suffered a
> brain injury and had to re-learn the task.  In all cases there is no one
> way to master tying of shoes, but there does come a common goal of
> internalizing the knowledge required to tie ones shoes, and once it is
> known, it is known/
>
> Actually it is the ignorance of shoe-tying that has been fully removed
> because no one learns to tie her shoes in a vacuum, but from someone else,
> a knowledgeable other, by sharing attention to the task.
>
> The problem of the phrase "conscious awareness" shows its glaring flaw
> were I to ask you to please tell me the exact time you fell asleep last
> night. No matter how many times you practice, you will never be able to do
> it. Does that mean you will never be able to master falling asleep because
> you didn't go out the gate with conscious awareness? If anything, such a
> task might keep you from sleeping.
>
> If you say, sleeping doesn't count. Well, you did say "consciousness"
> mediates between physiology and behavior, the totality of mental processes
> in an individual organism, sleeping or awake.
>
> Kind egads!
>
> Annalisa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2020 7:37 PM
> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a
> Participation Question)
>
>
> *  [EXTERNAL]*
>
> Annalisa, for Marxists, "consciousness" is a very broad term covering what
> mediates between physiology and behaviour, the totality of mental processes
> in an individual organism, whether sleeping or awake.
>
>
> "Conscious awareness" on the other hand refers to knowing and attending to
> what you are doing at the time. A couple of classic examples will
> illustrate. When you're walking down the street you do not have conscious
> awareness of how yor foot is laying itself flat on the footpath, how your
> body is overbalancing slightly forwards and your other leg swinging
> slightly outward and bending as you bring it forward, etc. ... but if for
> example you step over a kerb and having underestimated the depth of the
> step and momentarily losing you balance, your walking suddenly springs back
> into conscious awareness and you look down at the ground, and take
> conscious control of your balance, etc.
> On the other hand, consider when a child is first learning to tie their
> own shoelaces; let's suppose they have been taught the rabbit ears method.
> The child says to herself "make the rabbit ears ... this one ...  that one
> ... cross over ... put through the hole ...  grab it .,. and PULL IT TIGHT!
> Yeh!" That is, she tied her laces with conscious awareness, according to
> how she was instructed, paying attention to every operation, using internal
> speech (more or less). But a couple of months later she now thinks about
> getting out the door in time to meet her friends while she is tying her
> laces and isn't even looking at what she's doing. She has achieved mastery.
>
>
> OK?
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviQcZ_PAJg$>
> Home Page
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviQmlKG-rg$>
> On 14/08/2020 4:13 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>
> Hello conscious and venerable others,
>
> Mike points out a very important point that conscious awareness cannot be
> a product of scientific concepts. "Conscious awareness" is a gummy term.
>
> I am confused about the citation about chess. Is that Spinoza or Vygotsky?
>
> It's V not S, right? What was the Spinoza text that caught Vygotsky's
> attention? David would you mind to cite it?
>
> I am also curious what the Russian words used to create the English
> translation of "conscious awareness"? Can someone illuminate that for my
> awareness?
>
> "Conscious awareness"  is sort of like saying "wet water,"
>
> No, actually? it is like saying "watery water."
>
> If we can say "conscious awareness" does that mean we say "unconscious
> awareness"?
>
> What does that look like?
>
> Can we say "conscious unawareness"?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Awareness is awareness.
>
> I can take a drop out of the sea, but I can't call it the sea, though if I
> put it back it's not the sea + drop.
>
> It's just the sea, see?
>
> However, you can't parse a drop of awareness.
>
> If it were possible to take one awareness with another awareness, it's
> still awareness. If I take part of awareness from another awareness it's
> still awareness.
>
> Awareness is not really something that can be divided into parts or added
> to into something "larger."
>
> The trouble with the word "consiousness," is that it gets tangled with
> states of brain activity, being awake vs. asleep vs. deep sleep vs.
> catatonic vs. comatose, unconscious, etc.
>
> "Consciousness" is a word like "space." We can divide space, but it is
> really an illusion. Everything is in space, so the small room vs the big
> room is just an illusion in terms of conceptual size. It's more of a
> perceptual relationship than something quantitative (say, if looking from
> the standpoint of space, space is just space). The walls of the rooms are
> in space too.
>
> This is why awareness/consciousness cannot be mixed up with thinking
> processes.
>
> Awareness is always present, but I sense the content of what is discussed
> here pertains to knowledge not awareness.
>
> That's why I'm suspicious about the translation. Is this mistake in the
> translation? or did Vygotsky make this mistake?
>
> Of course it seems a silly semantic argument, but the meaning of the words
> do substantially alter how we think about the concepts they convey,
> especially if we do not precisely understand the intention the the words
> were used by the speaker/writer.
>
> There is a distinct (and special) relationship between perception and
> knowledge. We can't perceive anything without awareness. We also can't know
> anything without awareness. I maintain that this is what Spinoza references
> as "substance." He is right about that. It's that necessary white elephant.
>
> To master something is to know it. To know it isn't always to master it.
> We could say Vygotsky attempts to isolate what is different about mastery
> compared to when mastery isn't evident.
>
> If we could as-if parse awareness from cognition and set awareness aside,
> we could then look at the relationship between knowledge and cognition, in
> that knowledge can be measured in the individual based upon how well the
> individual's knowledge effectively maps to the world (or reality), while
> cognition on the other hand is the manifest biological interaction to build
> those maps. We know cognition is distributed, and that it includes society,
> tools, etc. It's not just happening in the chamber of the brain, that
> crafty and mysterious black, I mean grey box.
>
> Like many philosophers and psychologists, I take it Vygotsky is discussing
> the ways in which perceptions and awareness of perceptions are organized
> subjectively.
>
> If that "structure" is organized in such a way that it maps accurately to
> the environment, then one can assert there is objective knowledge of the
> environment, and the better this map "functions," the more mastery is
> evident.
>
> When it is not mapping that effectively, I think we might call that in a
> positive sense "imagination" or in a negative sense, "delusion."
>
> Humans do have a tendency for delusion as can be witnessed today. It's a
> very interesting experiment to see the battle of "everyday concepts" and
> "scientific concepts" in the news about the pandemic.
>
> In this sense, on the matter of subjective organization of thinking,
> "primitive" people can have "higher" conceptual developments, as
> Levi-Strauss has shown us long ago. We might not recognize the value of
> that mastery because we might not share those thought-organizations of the
> natural environment that that culture possesses. Why would we share them?
>
> It's a little like witnessing two foreigners speaking to one another and
> basing their intelligence on the way the phonetic profile of the language
> appeals or repels our aesthetic sensibilities for sound.
>
> Vygotsky was a little guilty of this kind of "modern" chauvanism. (who
> isn't?)
>
> I might ask, how much of this might have been self-censorship (or
> circumspection) within a Soviet society? To possibly barter his ideas
> better? Is there any evidence of Vygotsky doing that? (I'm inclined to say
> no, but would like to hear from others mor familier with his texts and
> relationships with others) Might you help me understand that part. I
> suppose it depends on how aware he was of this chauvanism?
>
> Was there for example anything political about Vygotsky's relationship
> with Krupskaya? Was there anything political about the anthropology study
> with Luria?
>
> Is it fair to say that Soviet thinking at the time was to ask "How to
> create a better human?" But for Vygotsky (and other learning scientists) it
> was "How to *scientifically* create a better human?" using what we know
> about mind and how it develops?
>
> Is it me or can there be something Frankenstein-ish about the question,
> frankly (pun ha ha), if not arrogant. Who decides what is "better"?
>
> If "scientific" is referencing an empirical method of analysis, based upon
> trial and error, OK, but does the individual have to know that it is
> scientific in order for it to be scientific?
>
> I guess this is where the functional/structural argument loops about.
>
> Why couldn't the reality of learning be both functional and structural.
>
> My take is that what is in common about functions and structures are their
> patterns.
>
> A pattern is the differential between the function and the structure.
>
> Consider the music score (structure) and the musician playing the music
> (function).
>
> The pattern is what is present in both. An added benefit is that its
> translation can evolve in time into other patterns (think Jazz).
>
> I remember Vera saying that the phrase "scientific concept" is a little
> problematic. I know she didn't like "everyday concepts" either. My memory
> is not recalling what she thought was more appropriate at the moment.
>
> I hope it isn't heretical to suggest that the pattern might a better unit
> for analysis than activity. (Gee is that my hair that has been singed??)
>
> When considering conceptual development the pattern is effective because
> the it can translate between subjective experience and objective experience
> (biological, social, cultural, etc).
>
> On another note: Has anyone considered Vygotsky through a feminist lens?
>
> Also: Is it possible that there were so many women who he cited because
> women were more likely to be school teachers, as is the case today?
>
> I am quite enjoying this thread. Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annalisa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:23 PM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a
> Participation Question)
>
>
> *  [EXTERNAL]*
> Hi Anthony
>
> I understand that to mean that humans who have not achieved
> scientific/real concepts do not have conscious awareness.
>
> What am I missing?
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:06 PM Anthony Barra <anthonymbarra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> This is a question -- and an invitation:
>
> First the question: *What do you understand the passage below (at the
> bottom of this email) to mean?*
>
> Second, the invitation: *How about sharing your thoughts in short video
> form?* It's quite enjoyable (ask Andy; ask David; etc) -- and it's also
> helpful, not only to me but to anyone watching or listening. (Here is the
> question again, in video form: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/l41nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RZ2zxbK1nnT9KHPtKezS1QacRCh5tM9q_cjnw44fRY_mIkgVo-TPoqZlpuN31vzbS05y9A$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/l41nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RbTsEBrr1M-JQ2E0Cza-8aoA440vsBAtR7DQicuejOZvYN1AOyytgVid7plmKnYKHKx2jw$>
> )
>
> I believe that many people -- including many teachers -- would benefit
> from answers to this question, preferably multiple answers. With
> permission, I will nicely edit and add your response to this growing list
> of asked-and-answered questions: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/451nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RZ2zxbK1nnT9KHPtKezS1QacRCh5tM9q_cjnw44fRY_mIkgVo-TPoqZlpuN31vy5uU3NMg$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/451nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RbTsEBrr1M-JQ2E0Cza-8aoA440vsBAtR7DQicuejOZvYN1AOyytgVid7plmKnayu3KfOQ$>
> Thanks for considering it, and note that we don't care about perfectionism
> here; it's mostly for fun.
>
> *Here is the passage in question*, from *Thinking and Speech*, Ch. 6, pp.
> 190-1:
>
> "To perceive something in a different way means to acquire new potentials
> for acting with respect to it. At the chess board, to see differently is to
> play differently. By generalizing the process of activity itself, I acquire
> the potential for new relationships with it. To speak crudely, it is as if
> this process has been isolated from the general activity of consciousness.
> I am conscious of the fact that I remember. I make my own remembering the
> object of consciousness. An isolation arises here. In a certain sense, any
> generalization or abstraction isolates its object. This is why conscious
> awareness – understood as generalization – leads directly to mastery.
>
>
>
> *Thus, the foundation of conscious awareness is the generalization or
> abstraction of the mental processes, which leads to their mastery*.
> Instruction has a decisive role in this process. Scientific concepts have a
> unique relationship to the object. This relationship is mediated through
> other concepts that themselves have an internal hierarchical system of
> interrelationships. It is apparently in this domain of the scientific
> concept that conscious awareness of concepts or the generalization and
> mastery of concepts emerges for the first time. And once a new structure of
> generalization has arisen in one sphere of thought, it can – like any
> structure – be transferred without training to all remaining domains of
> concepts and thought. Thus, *conscious awareness enters through the gate
> opened up by the scientific concept*."
>
>
> What do you understand this passage to mean?
>
> Thanks 😎
>
> Anthony Barra
>
> P.S. My first encounter with *Thinking and Speech* was very difficult,
> even with the help of talented classmates and a smart professor.
> Thankfully, three online videos from Nikolai Veresov, presented not as a
> definitive reading but as a general map of the book's terrain, were really
> so helpful and encouraging for me. If any videos I'm posting turn out to be
> similarly useful (as a number of people have told me), that's great. So
> thank you again to anyone interested in participating.
>
>
> --
>
> I[image: Angelus Novus]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus_Novus__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANlVawtVtw$>The
> Angel's View of History
>
> It is only in a social context that subjectivism and objectivism,
> spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity cease to be
> antinomies, and thus cease to exist as such antinomies. The resolution of
> the theoretical contradictions is possible only through practical means,
> only through the practical energy of humans. (Marx, 1844).
> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!RZ2zxbK1nnT9KHPtKezS1QacRCh5tM9q_cjnw44fRY_mIkgVo-TPoqZlpuN31vwOmNgplw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANlZapN6Hg$>
> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANnwRjh-9A$>
> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu.
> Narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200814/fa0d82ce/attachment.html