Here's Lenin's famous comment on Hegel and abstract/concrete (Volume 38 in
my edition):
http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm
I'll respond to your post when I've a bit more time to think, ... this evening
Andy
At 05:30 PM 3/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Andy,
>
>I would very much like to get clearer on Vygotsky's use of both Hegel and
>Lenin. Perhaps you can help me?
>
>For example, in Pedology of the Adolescent (around 1931) V wrote on concept
>development, and in particular on counting and the number concept. It seems
>to me he oscillates between a simple view in which the concrete is primitive
>and the abstract is advanced, and a very different view in which seemingly
>abstract concepts are actually a reorganization of the relationship between
>concrete and abstract: "a completely new form of relation between abstract
>and concrete factors in thinking arises, a new form of their merging and
>synthesis" (p. 39). The latter strikes me as distinctly Hegelian. The former
>seems to come up when Vygotsky refers to Hegel. But my reading must be too
>naive, because on page 79 we find V citing Lenin citing Hegel!
>
>First on concepts: The young child's perception of number "is based on
>number images, on concrete perception of form and size of a given number of
>objects. With [the] transition to thinking in concepts, the child is
>liberated from purely concrete numerical thinking. In place of a number
>image, a number concept appears. If we compare the concept of number with a
>number image, at first glance it may seem to justify [the] premises of
>formal logic relative to the extreme poverty in content of the concept in
>comparison with the riches of the concrete content contained in the image"
>(vol 5, 78)
>
>But Vygotsky immediately continues: "Actually, this is not so. The concept
>not only excludes from its content a number of points proper to the concrete
>perception, but for the first time, it also discloses in the concrete
>perception a number of such points that are completely inaccessible to
>direct perception or contemplation, points that are introduced by thinking
>and are identified through processing the data of experience and synthesized
>into a single whole with elements of direct perception.
>
>"Thus all number concepts, for example, the concept "7," are included in a
>complex number system, occupy a certain place in it, and when this concept
>is found and processed, then all the complex connections and relations that
>exist between this concept and the rest of the system of concepts in which
>it is included are given. The concept not only reflects reality, but also
>systematizes it, includes data of concrete perception into a complex system
>of connections and relations, and discloses the connections and relations
>that are inaccessible to simple comprehension. For this reason many
>properties of size become clear and perceptible only when we begin to think
>of them in concepts" (78-79)
>
>This is all rather nice. But then, surprisingly, comes a footnote quoting
>Lenin on Hegel!
>
>Lenin: "In opposition to Kant, Hegel was essentially completely correct.
>Thinking going from the concrete to the abstract does not deviate if it is
>correct from truth, but approaches it. The abstraction of material, a laaw
>of nature, abstraction of value, etc., in a word, all scientific (correct,
>serious, not foolish) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, more
>reliably, more fully. From a living contemplation to abstract thinking and
>from it to practice such is the dialectical path of recognizing truth,
>recognizing objective reality" (Complete Works, Vol. 29, pp. 152-153). [Vol.
>29 is March Aug 1919]
>So here, apparently, are Vygotsky, Hegel and Lenin all agreeing that
>reflection is an active way of thinking which gets beyond appearances to
>essences, systematizes concrete detail, grasps complex interconnections,
>recognizes objective reality, achieves truth, and guides practice!
>
>I've tried to find this excerpt from Lenin on marxists.org, but without
>success.
>
>Martin
>
>
>
>
>On 12/3/06 4:58 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't know, Paul. I guess I would ask you to give me page references to
> > justify this observation.
> >
> > The Lenin of the 1914/15 Notebooks certainly reads as a very different
> > character from the Lenin of the 1908 ME&C, but I am sure that if Lenin had
> > anywhere in those Notebooks made any kind of self-criticism of his 1908
> > position I would have noticed it. The same Trotskyist group which spent
> > countless hours bashing M&EC into my head spent even more hours bashing
> > "Volume 38" into my head, and it was this experience which prompted me to
> > make my own study of Hegel.
> >
> > As to Ilyenkov, yes, Ilyenkov has been my guiding light to get out of the
> > dogmatism of M&EC. The problem is that while A&C and the Essays are at odds
> > with M&EC, Ilyenkov chooses to back Lenin to the hilt when he writes a book
> > about M&EC. As I said, there is nothing actually incorrect in M&EC; it
> > just, IMO, makes the wrong call in terms of emphasis and what is said/not
> > said. I am not aware that anywhere Ilyenkov said something like "M&EC was a
> > bad book".
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > At 06:07 AM 3/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >> Isn't it the case that Lenin rejected his early position of M&EC in the
> >> Philosophic Notebooks and his study of Hegel's logic? Also, isn't
> >> Ilyenkov's position in 'From the Abstract to the Concrete' also at odds
> >> with the position in M&EC?
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >> Can I see if I can say what I think Mike means by the "Russian"
> meaning of
> >> "reflection"?
> >>
> >> I was introduced both to Lenin and Vygotsky through a British Trotskyist
> >> group in the early 1980s, and this involved intensive study of Lenin's
> >> "Materialism and Empirio-criticism". This book was regarded in that
> quarter
> >> as more or less the last word in philosophy. Ilyenkov's book on
> Positivism,
> >> was published in English by the same group, and is a full-on defence of
> >> this book of Lenin's. In M&EC, Lenin uses "reflection" to mean a universal
> >> property of matter, more or less the propensity of any material thing to
> >> retain impressions of another material thing with which it has interacted.
> >> So this view of cognition as something utterly divorced from
> >> self-consciousness or even living organisms, let alone human beings, but
> >> rather as a universal property of matter, was encoded in the meaning
> >> attached by Lenin to the word "reflection."
> >>
> >> Now, my experiences in British Trotskyism may have been paralleled by the
> >> experience of others in Russian Stalinism, I don't know. But much as I
> love
> >> Ilyenkov, it has always been hard for me to understand his enthusiasm for
> >> M&EC. The political effect of ME&C as I received it was very
> >> retrograde. In the same book, Lenin blasts all forms of semiotics, by the
> >> way. There was a definite and valid purpose for Lenin's book when it was
> >> written in 1908, and he doesn't say anything in the whole several hundred
> >> pages which is actually wrong, but the drift of the polemic is
> crushing. In
> >> arguing against subjectivist epistemology, it encourages an absolutely
> >> devastatingly objectivist view of the human condition in general and
> >> cognition in particular.
> >>
> >> Personally, I find the notion of "reflection" an extremely *passive*
> >> rendering of the process of knowledge and life. The idea emphasises the
> >> dominant place of the object in a true subjective image, and the
> >> indifference of the image to the internal structure of the subject, but I
> >> have never found that it convinced anyone that didn't already understand
> >> these issues. The likening of human society to inorganic natural processes
> >> is not a point which needs to be made today.
> >>
> >> Is that what you meant Mike?
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> At 10:59 PM 2/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >>> Agreed!
> >>>
> >>> The version of 'The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology'
> that I
> >>> have to hand is in 'The Esssential Vygostky' (2004, R. W. Rieber & D. K.
> >>> Robinson, eds. Kluger). It's a compilation of the 'best' of the 6 vol
> >>> Collected Works. The mirror example is on page 327.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding reflection, which is another concept I'm puzzled by (what
> is the
> >>> Russian manner, Mike?), I'd forgotten that this paragraph begins:
> >>>
> >>> "Let us compare consciousness, as is often done, with a mirror
> image..." At
> >>> the end of the paragraph I still can't tell whether V is suggesting
> it's a
> >>> good comparison or not.
> >>>
> >>> ...and 3 pages earlier (p. 324) when he cites Lenin (1975, p. 260)
> along the
> >>> lines that I've mentioned, here again the work reflection is used:
> >>>
> >>> "the only 'property' of matter connected with philosophical
> materialism is
> >>> the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside of our
> >>> consciousness.... Epistemologically the concept of matter means NOTHING
> >>> other than objective reality, existing independently from human
> >>> consciousness and reflected by it" (original emphasis).
> >>>
> >>> I can't find the references from the Crisis anywhere in this book, but I
> >>> have the Spanish translation now too, and the citation there is to
> Lenin's
> >>> Collected Works, vol 19, p. 275. In Spanish the word 'reflected' is
> >>> translated as 'reflejada' and 'mirror image' as 'reflejo.'
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/2/06 10:40 PM, "Mike Cole" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Nothing sceptical, Martin. There are many imponderables here from
> >>>> many
> >>> sources. Trying to think with you.
> >>> I would be greatly assisted, and I
> >>>> assume I am not alone in this, if
> >>> discussants would provide page numbers
> >>>> and
> >>> references so that those not "in the know" could pin down sources and
> >>>> thus
> >>> better triangulate on what the focus
> >>> of discussion is.
> >>>
> >>> I am not versed
> >>>> in Spinoza. I am barely versed in parts of Vygotsky. So when
> >>> arcaine
> >>>> references and partial information
> >>> are floated out on xmca as if everyone were
> >>>> an insider, when we are all
> >>> border liners, it confuses me.
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>> On 12/2/06,
> >>>> Martin Packer
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike, this sounds to me like a
> >>>> skeptical Hmmmm. What strikes you as
> >>>> dubious?
> >>>> I'm happy to be
> >>>> mediated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/2/06 6:03 PM, "Mike Cole"
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hmmmm indeed.
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/2/06,
> >>>> Martin Packer
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Natalia, thanks very much.
> >>>> The cyrillic didn't come through, but I can
> >>>>>
> >>>>> piece
> >>>>> together the
> >>>> English:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "after all a cornerstone of materialism is a
> >>>>> proposition
> >>>> about (that)
> >>>>> consciousness and the brain are, both, a product
> >>>>> (of
> >>>> nature), (and) a part
> >>>>> of nature, (the one) that reflects the rest of
> >>>>>
> >>>> nature"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Might you be able to take a look at the other two excerpts in
> >>>> the
> >>>>> original
> >>>>> Russian?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let me think about this 'out loud' a
> >>>> little. This is
> >>>>> the point in Crisis
> >>>>> where Vygotsky is specifying what
> >>>> a truly Marxist
> >>>>> psychology, a 'general'
> >>>>> psychology, must study. A
> >>>> science, he insists,
> >>>>> studies not appearances but
> >>>>> what really exists.
> >>>> Optics, for example, studies
> >>>>> mirror surfaces and light
> >>>>> rays, not the
> >>>> images we see in the mirror, for the
> >>>>> latter are phantoms. A
> >>>>> scientific
> >>>> psychology must study the real processes
> >>>>> that can give rise to
> >>>>> such
> >>>> appearances, not (just) the appearances. [It's
> >>>>> not clear to me how
> >>>>>
> >>>> far
> >>>>> to go with this seeming analogy between the way a
> >>>>> mirror reflects
> >>>> and the
> >>>>> way the brain/Cs 'reflects the rest of nature'.] So
> >>>>> any
> >>>> descriptive,
> >>>>> intuitionist phenomenology must be rejected. What really
> >>>>>
> >>>> exists? A
> >>>>> materialist maintains that the brain exists, and consciousness
> >>>>
> >>>>> too. V
> >>>>> cites
> >>>>> Lenin to the effect that what is matter, what is
> >>>> objective,
> >>>>> is what exists
> >>>>> independently of human consciousness. And,
> >>>> seemingly
> >>>>> paradoxically,
> >>>>> consciousness can exist outside our
> >>>> consciousness: for we can
> >>>>> be conscious
> >>>>> without being self-conscious. I
> >>>> can see without knowing that I
> >>>>> see. So a
> >>>>> general psychology must study
> >>>> consciousness, but to know the mind
> >>>>> we can't
> >>>>> rely on introspection, in
> >>>> part because in introspection mind splits
> >>>>> into
> >>>>> subject and object: a
> >>>> dualism arises in the act of self-reflection.
> >>>>> We
> >>>>> can't
> >>>>> establish a
> >>>> psychological science only on the basis of what we
> >>>>> experience
> >>>>> directly
> >>>> (as Husserl tried to do); it must be based on knowledge,
> >>>>> which is
> >>>>> the
> >>>> result of analysis, not merely of experience. And what is
> >>>>> analysis?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Complicated answer put briefly: analysis lies at the intersection
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>
> >>>> methodology and practice: it is the exhaustive study of a single case
> >>>>> in
> >>>>
> >>>>> all
> >>>>> its connections, taken as a social microcosm. It involves what
> >>>>>
> >>>> Marx
> >>>>> (following Hegel) called abstraction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll confess I'm still
> >>>> not
> >>>>> clear what V is proposing as the solutions to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>> epistemological and
> >>>>> ontological problems that he has distinguished. It
> >>>>>
> >>>> looks
> >>>>> to me as though
> >>>>> he is saying that the epistemological problem -
> >>>> that
> >>>>> concerning the relation
> >>>>> between subject and object - arises only
> >>>> when one
> >>>>> accepts uncritically the
> >>>>> dualism that arises in introspection
> >>>> (or 'blind
> >>>>> empiricism'?). So once one
> >>>>> rejects introspection this
> >>>> problem dissolves.
> >>>>> The
> >>>>> implication is that if
> >>>>> one begins not with
> >>>> introspection but with
> >>>>> practice,
> >>>>> one avoids any
> >>>>> subject-object
> >>>> dualism. The ontological problem -
> >>>>> concerning
> >>>>> the relation
> >>>>> between
> >>>> mind and matter - is what he's trying to study, no?
> >>>>> How
> >>>>> is a
> >>>>>
> >>>> brain-in-a-body-in-a-social-world the basis for consciousness, then
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> self-consciousness, then self-mastery and knowledge?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hmmm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>>> I found it --- in Russian, vol.1 of
> >>>> "Sobranie Sochinenii", on
> >>>>> page 416.
> >>>>>> It reads in Russian as very
> >>>> similar to the English quote your
> >>>>> posted
> >>>>> above:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "à åÃÃπ --
> >>>> after all-- êâºÃ åÓãîëÃπíûì
> êà ìíåì ìÃ
> >> ÔåâºÃ¨Ã
> >>> ëèçìÃ
> >>>>> -- a corneestone
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>
> >>>> materialism -- ÿâëÿåÔñÿ
> ïîëîÃåíèå î Ôîì, -- is a
> >>>>> proposition about, ---
> >>>>
> >>>>> ÷Ôî
> >>>>>> ñîçíà íèå è ìîçã
> åñÔÃπ ïâºÃ®ÃÓêÔ ---
>-
> >> (that)
> >>>>> consciousness and the
> >>>> brain are,
> >>>>>> both, a product (of nature),--- ÷à ñÔÃπ
> >>>>> ïâºÃ¨âºÃ®Ãû, ---(and) a
>) a
> >>>> part of
> >>>>> nature, --
> >>>>>> îÔâºÃ ÃÃ ï¬ Ã’Ã ï¬ Ã¶Ã Ã¿
> îñ±Ã”à ëÃπíÓï¬
> >> ïâºÃ¨âºÃ®ÃÓ
>“
> >>>>> -- (the one)
> >>>> that reflects the rest of
> >>>>>> nature"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or something like
> >>>>>
> >>>> this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hope this is helpful, and not making things more
> >>>> confusing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Natalia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/30/06 2:47
> >>>> PM, "Natalia Gajdamaschko"
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:55:29 -0500
> >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> A few pages later:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ""After all,
> >>>>> a cornerstone of
> >>>> materialism is the proposition that
> >>>>>>> consciousness and
> >>>>> the brain are
> >>>> a product, a part of nature, which
> >>>>> reflect
> >>>>>>> the rest of
> >>>>> nature"
> >>>> (327).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The last sentence is not grammatical English, so
> >>>>>
> >>>> something has clearly
> >>>>>> gone
> >>>>>>> wrong with the translation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If
> >>>>> anyone has access to the original Russian and could comment,that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> would
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>> great. (Page numbers are from the version in The
> >>>> Essential
> >>>>> Vygotsky.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> xmca mailing
> >>>> list
> >>>>>
> >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
> >> identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------
> >> Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
> > identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:17 PST