[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] fetishism
That is a helpful metaphor, Andy. You are suggesting that
consciousness is our "only" window to objective reality.
If what you mean by "consciousness" (and "activity") is every aspect
of a living biological organism, then this statement is inarguable -
but uninformative with regard to the relationship of human social
consciousness to objective reality. This is an example where
classical activity theory is not very helpful, any more than chemistry
If what you mean by this metaphor is that our only window into
objective reality is our social consciousness, then you are taking a
position that makes it difficult to explain relationships such as
between biological perceptions and social conceptions, and in general,
how humans act and develop in a material world.
Vygotsky's solution, as one can see in his critique of Piaget, was to
view objective reality as a necessary and fundamental dimension in the
development of historical and individual human consciousness.
Your metaphor, if your intention is to respond to Vygotsky's
viewpoint, seems to seek to leave the role of objective reality as an
**independent** dimension unaccounted for and relatively unimportant,
reducing the sources of human consciousness to "only" forms of social
consciousness, to only what humans "know" about what they do.
On Apr 23, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
Steve, if you have access to objective reality that does not entail
any activity on your part and does not wind up in your
consciousness, then that's fine, but you don't know about it.
Granted objective reality may be more important to you than *my*
consciousness and *my* activity, but your consciousness is the only
window you have on objective reality.
xmca mailing list