Yep, that's the idea, Leif. What page ref in T&L? I am reading so many
volumes simultaneously
i feel as if I have wandered into the taiga or a Garcia Marquez labarynth as
a result of the recent
spate of interesting messages!
Martin's note about osoznanie has now made it into the data base. Apparently
weber went to sleep over the weekend. :-)
mike
On 2/11/07, Leif Strandberg <leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com> wrote:
>
> Just a note from The North
>
> consciousness in Swedish is MED-VETANDE (knowing together WITH) i.e.
> impossible for one - possible for two (Feuerbach in T&L)
>
> Leif
>
>
> 2007-02-12 kl. 06.09 skrev Mike Cole:
>
> > co-co-co-coriko-cu!
> > mike
> >
> > On 2/11/07, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> But "recognition" (in the relevant usages) comes from "cognate" -
> >> co-born,
> >> i.e., of the same kin.
> >> Andy
> >> At 10:32 PM 11/02/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >> >Did you know that the root word both for the English KNOWLEDGE and
> >> Slavic
> >> >"ZNANYE", Latin "GNOSIS" is the same Sanskrit "jna"? (remark
> >> >CO-GNITION!!= SO-ZNANYE)
> >> >Here is an interesting etymological view:
> >> >http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=know&searchmode=none
> >> ><http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=know&searchmode=none>
> >> >Ana
> >> >
> >> >Mike Cole wrote:
> >> >>OK, here is the message on this topic. It has not appeared on the
> >> archive
> >> >>where I looked for it. I
> >> >>am trying to figure out why. Thanks to Ed Wall for pointing me to
> >> it.
> >> >>
> >> >>There is a cluster of messages from David, Vera, Ana and Martin and
> >> ??
> >> here
> >> >>that seems to me
> >> >>especially important and potentially generative.
> >> >>
> >> >>Referring to the note I sent earlier with the analysis of the
> >> Russian
> >> who
> >> >>also knew Sanskrit, I questioned
> >> >>the issue of so- as a prefix in Russian. ditto o-
> >> >>
> >> >>And when we combine the two prefixes ( so-znanie/ o-so-znanie) what
> >> is
> >> being
> >> >>created. Peter? MGU Aspiranti?
> >> >>Anna S? ???
> >> >>
> >> >>znanie =knowledge
> >> >>so-znanie ~ co knowledge ????
> >> >>o-so-znanie ~~ about-co-knowledge, concerning-co-knowledge???????
> >> >>
> >> >>mike
> >> >>
> >> >>---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> >>From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> >> >>Date: Feb 9, 2007 6:36 PM
> >> >>Subject: Re: [xmca] Harried instructor seeks words of wisdom
> >> >>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >> >>
> >> >>Vera,
> >> >>
> >> >>I would certainly be interested in hearing more about the
> >> distinctions
> >> >>you're making between responsiveness, awareness and consciousness.
> >> >>
> >> >>To add to the (my) confusion, digging through my notes I've come
> >> across
> >> the
> >> >>following note by translator Norris Minick in Thinking & Speech (p.
> >> 388,
> >> n.
> >> >>12):
> >> >>
> >> >>"By the phrase 'conscious awareness' we gloss the Russian osaznanie,
> >> which V
> >> >>carefully and consistently uses and distinguishes from the term
> >> soznanie
> >> or
> >> >>'consciousness.' Vygotsky clarifies the difference between the two
> >> at
> >> >>several points in the text
the earlier translation of this volume
> >> (
Thought
> >> >>and language
) rendered both terms as 'consciousness,' introducing a
> >> >>confusion not to be found in the original Russian text."
> >> >>
> >> >>The links to neuroscience are very interesting. If I understand it
> >> >>correctly, Vygotsky's psychology was the study of consciousness and
> >> >>physiology (the material basis of consciousness). The division of
> >> labor
> >> that
> >> >>developed between Vygotsky and Luria speaks to this, I think. Modern
> >> >>neuroscience too often wants to treat consciousness as an
> >> epiphenomenon,
> >> but
> >> >>Vygotsky clearly viewed it as having a purpose: it has evolved
> >> because
> >> it
> >> >>serves an important function. After my last message I recalled
> >> Vygotsky's
> >> >>insistence that consciousness appears when action meets an
> >> obstacle. I'm
> >> >>pretty confident he says this as early as Educational Psychology,
> >> and as
> >> >>late as T&S, but I can't track down specific citations at this
> >> moment.
> >> And
> >> >>this links to David's comments about volition. Consciousness occurs
> >> when
> >> our
> >> >>prereflective action is blocked, and we must deliberate, look
> >> around,
> >> and
> >> >>consider alternatives. A two-way link to volition: Cs arises from
> >> practical
> >> >>activity, and serves to reorganize that activity. Cs gives us the
> >> will
> >> to do
> >> >>what is hard to do, what needs to be done, what at first grasp seems
> >> >>impossible to do.
> >> >>
> >> >>And while I'm cutting and pasting from my notes, this is from the
> >> last
> >> pages
> >> >>of Educational Psychology:
> >> >>
> >> >>"Man has set himself the goal of becoming master of his own
> >> feelings, of
> >> >>lifting the instincts to the heights of consciousness and making
> >> them
> >> >>transparent, of stretching the thread of will into what is
> >> concealed and
> >> >>into the underground, and to thereby lift himself up to a new
> >> stage, to
> >> >>create a 'higher' sociociological type, a, so to speak, super-man."
> >> 351
> >> >>
> >> >>None of this gives my students a *definition* of consciousness. But
> >> perhaps
> >> >>one has to be satisfied with a *history* of it, a story that
> >> describes
> >> how
> >> >>it comes into being and then departs again.
> >> >>
> >> >>Martin
> >> >>
> >> >>On 2/9/07 11:24 AM, "Vera Steiner" <vygotsky@unm.edu> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I sent my message on consciousness before reading Martin's "harried
> >> >>>instructor seeks words of wisdom." It is a fine discussion, and my
> >> >>>apologies for not referring to it in my somewhat differently
> >> focused
> >> >>>comments.In my class last night, I tried to differentiate between
> >> >>>responsiveness, awareness and consciousness, a hard task, but if
> >> anyone
> >> >>>is interested, I would be willing to struggle with it some more in
> >> our
> >> >>>discussions. Right now, I have to leave the house and the computer,
> >> >>>Vera
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Martin Packer wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Trying to get the worms out of one can I seem to have opened
> >> another,
> >> but
> >> >>I
> >> >>>>think David may have rescued me before I started to ask. Trying to
> >> >>explain
> >> >>>>why studying consciousness was important to Vygotsky, I started
> >> with
> >> the
> >> >>>>assertion that for him (and me too) consciousness is in our
> >> interaction
> >> >>with
> >> >>>>the world. I suppose that all animals have consciousness, perhaps
> >> even
> >> >>>>plants in some sense, since they respond to changes in the
> >> environment
> >> >>(day
> >> >>>>& night; the movement of the sun) and so must sense these in some
> >> way.
> >> >>But
> >> >>>>human consciousness is, one supposes, much more complex, and it
> >> develops.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>If consciousness is in our interactions, not in our heads, that is
> >> >>helpful
> >> >>>>when we are trying to avoid dualistic thinking. And, yes,
> >> Vygotsky
> >> was
> >> >>>>trying to give a materialistic account of consciousness, which at
> >> first
> >> >>>>seems pretty contradictory.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Psychology today generally doesnıt consider consciousness: in one
> >> class
> >> >>one
> >> >>>>might study memory, in another perception, in a third language,
> >> and so
> >> >>on.
> >> >>>>> From Vygotskyıs point of view this has divided up something
> >> unitary
> >>
> >> >>after
> >> >>>>all, in my conscious existence I am thinking at one moment,
> >> remembering
> >> >>>>something the next, then imagining something, talking, ... and
> >> even
> >> this
> >> >>>>account divides consciousness up too much. So the proper study of
> >> >>>>consciousness is the study of all these functions in their
> >> >>>>interrelationship. It is, I said, only to keep things simple that
> >> >>Vygotsky
> >> >>>>focuses mainly on thinking and talking in the book we are reading.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>I said some more. I said it in (bad) Spanish and now I canıt
> >> remember
> >> it
> >> >>in
> >> >>>>English!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>And they said, okay, very good, but what was Vygotskyıs
> >> definition of
> >> >>>>consciousnessı? Give us a definition of consciousness, and keep
> >> it
> >> >>concise
> >> >>>>and formal. They said this with a (collective) smile, so I know
> >> they
> >> >>werenıt
> >> >>>>expecting a dictionary definition, even before reading Davidıs
> >> message.
> >> >>But
> >> >>>>I wasnıt able to give a (good) answer.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>David, for me, too, consciousness is not cognition. I completely
> >> agree
> >> >>with
> >> >>>>you that volition is crucial for Vygotsky. (For example, I think
> >> >>Vygotskyıs
> >> >>>>position on scientific concepts is misunderstood when people say
> >> that
> >> >>such
> >> >>>>concepts enable self-control; V is clear that itıs the other way
> >> round:
> >> >>>>self-control, mastery of oneıs own psychological functions, makes
> >> such
> >> >>>>concepts possible.) But Iım not entirely comfortable *equating*
> >> >>>>consciousness with volition. I guess for a first shot Iıd say that
> >> >>volition
> >> >>>>is a relation between consciousness and functions that lack
> >> >>consciousness.
> >> >>>>One thing I like about this formulation is that it includes the
> >> >>possibility
> >> >>>>that consciousness is social, intersubjective, and that
> >> self-control
> >> has
> >> >>its
> >> >>>>roots in control-by-others. And I do believe that this was
> >> Vygotskyıs
> >> >>>>position (in-itself; for-others; for-itself). But having put it
> >> this
> >> >>way
> >> >>>>one has to distinguish carefully between consciousness and
> >> >>>>self-consciousness, no?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Enough for one day. Iım off for enchiladas. More words of wisdom
> >> from
> >> >>XMCAıs
> >> >>>>collective consciousness will be much appreciated!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Martin
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>p.s I think Osimbologia may be a Nahuatl word. ;) I saw a
> >> wonderful
> >> >>>>Spanish-Nahuatl dictionary the other day. Any takers?
> >> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >> >>>>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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >//
> >> >
> >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---
> >> >/Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Ph.D./
> >> >/151 W. Tulpehocken St./
> >> >
> >> >/Philadelphia//, PA 19144///
> >> >
> >> >/(h) 215-843-2909/
> >> >
> >> >/ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>/
> >> >
> >> >/http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane <
> >> http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Eanamshane>/
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >xmca mailing list
> >> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >> Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical
> >> Theory -
> >> Resisting Neoconservatism Today
> >> http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 10:36:50 PST