[Xmca-l] Did Vygotsky Dream of Electric Speech?

[Annalisa Aguilar]

Hello Venerable Others, et al:

I've been off the list for awhile and returned to I discover, as usual, there's been some interesting exchanges.

In a Jungian bout of synchronicity I saw this in today's NYT Magazine on recent brain implant research, See:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/opinion/sunday/brain-machine-artificial-intelligence.html__;!!Mih3wA!UBpctb98QbTgdNnXnkfl2IJNSL38oDRGanLpjXxnO0fMGv8Q6RuGYmeguDmSkPDhRCj1Lg$ 

The idea of consciousness being a reflection and the interesting thought "Mind is the Body's Idea of Itself," that Martin tapped into the listserv, appears (!) to be supported from this recent research of electrical imaging in the brain and how they've been able to "read" thoughts based upon data captured from visual cortex stimulation and reception.

If we accept the material world as a continuum of the gross to subtle material, this idea of mind as a composite of reflections, is once again something already considered by the ancients.

Also, ahankara as a notional construct oneself, is a way of identification of "self" from "not-self" in a similar way of differentiating what is real from what is a reflection of the real (if done properly).

The NYT article very much reifies the concept of the vritti, which is Sanskrit for "thought-modification". Interestingly a "concept" might be considered an ontology of "cognitive grammars," or particular structures of vrittis.

The video in the article that presents the imaging of these electrical impluses is a wonderful illustration of a vritti in action:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://vp.nyt.com/video/2020/08/28/88321_1_28ManoffVideo_wg_720p.mp4__;!!Mih3wA!UBpctb98QbTgdNnXnkfl2IJNSL38oDRGanLpjXxnO0fMGv8Q6RuGYmeguDmSkPCqXF9mLA$ 

The imaging of the captured brain impulses present like dreamlike transformations, as if there is a matching going on instantaneously to identify what was seen from something stored in memory ("re-cognition"). It is interesting that there is a distinction between outlines and more comprehensive sensations, as with shape, color, and movement.

When a vritti matches the object to be known in the empirical world, the ancients say that knowledge takes place. Anything else is a delusion of what is real.

Another important concept of the ancients is "mithya" which is the acceptance of this apparent reality, and is, believe it or not, discussed in Vygotky's essay The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology in the very discussion of the table and its reflection, though Vygotsky probably didn't understand this concept, he is indeed pointing to it (pun intended).

Mithya is to say that there an apparent reality which has rules of its own that must be considered for the very reason that  it can't be fully dismissed. It is neither real, nor unreal.

Similar to Wittgenstein's duck-rabbit, for every person who can point to the rabbit, another can point to the duck. When we see that the subjective experience of an individual (jiva) has a logic to it, we can at the same time dismiss the same experience with objective analysis of "not being real."

The rules for evaluating the table and its reality are going to be different than the rules for evaluating the reflection of the table an its apparent reality. The catch is not to use one kind of analytical methodology for one reality to understand or analyze a different basis of reality.

We don't use the rules of the waking world and apply them to the dreaming world. And vivid dreamers might say the same that we can't use the rules of the dream world and apply them to the real world, but innovative  artists and scientists might actually be doing just that.

This means that even if we can dismiss the mind, we cannot say it's viable to dismiss mind in all cases. If that were the case, then we could have no reason for determining motives in the minds of criminals; everyone could/could not be held accountable for their acts, real or imagined.

I was also asking myself when Michael G brought up Vygotsky's interest in inner speech coming from Russian theater (in the gate of consciousness thread), how does this orient to Piaget's understanding of inner speech? Historically, or otherwise, in Vygotsky's development of the concept of inner speech? Anyone care to chat about that?

I had always thought Vygotsky had adopted that concept from Piaget. I suppose the assertion that inner speech exists is impossible to ascribe to a particular person, as every human has such experiences when talking to oneself, whether or not it's verbalized. But I'm curious where it came from as a topic of scientific inquiry?

Is it possible that  inner speech was a "electric" topic of the times and was cross-pollinating in areas of science and art in various circles?

Kind regards,

Annalisa












-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200830/9b376033/attachment.html