[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: The Inimitability of Grammar



That's all from me, Joseph.  If my surmising is correct, you have my
sympathies.

Best,
Huw


On 4 April 2014 17:07, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> Dear Huw,
> I have presented plenty to think about. I have gotten no responsive reply.
> My "interest" is not a belief; it is an observation, a discovery, as plain
> as day to me. I discovered it BY inquiring. Once something is found, one no
> longer searches for it. Regarding logic; i would like to receive some
> logical responses to what I say. So far, I have not. Why is that? What is
> your logical response? This brings to mind a situation that happened when I
> was in middle school. During volley-ball I developed a serve that none
> could/would return. I did not develop it for that purpose, it just turned
> out that way. I would hit the ball  from below and it would soar high over
> the court and then gracefully descend right in the middle of the other
> side. It was not a fast-ball. I guess it was the unusualness of it that
> befuddled the players. They just didm.t seem to be able to "get" it.
>          Please check out some of my writings which can be accessed by
> searching for "Joseph Gilbert sound symbolism". Once I saw and understood
> the landscape of vocal/verbal communication, there was no need for more
> research. I saw how the vibratory state of the speaker is transferred to
> the hearer along with the emotional feeling associated with that state.
> That was a major revelation. Look at phonograph records: The shape of the
> ripples within the grooves correlates to specific sounds and the specific
> sounds correlate to universal emotional reactions. So, there is a
> correlation between the shape of what is read by a stylus, sound waves
> imparted into the air and the experience of certain emotional states by a
> listener. That shape can be utilized as a storage medium for sound sheds
> light on human vocal communication.
>         Rather than presenting me with suggestions of unnecessary and
> irrelevant roadblocks why not try to understand what I have already shown?
> Did you understand it? Did it make sense? Did it not make sense? If not,
> why not? Why do youall not present me with any rational/logical come-back?
> Is it that you do not want to embarrass me with your "learned"
> perspectives? Is it that you have no time for "meaningless chatter"? Or is
> it that you are unwilling to consider something simply and perhaps take a
> controversial stand? It seems this is still the Wild West and you are like
> the sheriff who seeks to maintain the status quo. "There'll be none of
> those new-fangled ideas around hear, not as long as I'm in charge".
>         Research can be a distraction from the obvious. An experiment was
> done with monkeys to determine whether babies prefer a bare wire "mother"
> or a soft and cuddly "mother". Research can be done forever without ever
> necessitating one to take a stand. And research is never conclusive. There
> is always more that can be done. Let us discuss without prejudice, what is
> already evident. If one is truly hungry for understanding, one will not
> insist on unnecessary research, but will actually apply what is available
> now. The more I see of the establishment, the sadder does the picture
> become. There is not one sector of society that does not exhibit the theme
> of the whole. Like fractals.
>          I identified with my quest and not with some hierarchy of
> established authority. What makes sense, makes sense. I would like to be
> received on that basis rather than with some non-responsive put-down. "Go
> off and do more research", is not responsive. The problem seems to be a
> genuine lack of interest and a hostility to controversy. Astonishing! Who
> would have guessed? I used to hold high esteem for professorial folk. That
> was an ideal, my ideal, and evidently not representative of what is really
> happening. How could I have been so naive?!
>         Can't you say some thing in response to what I have presented you
> with regarding my original reason for contributing my work to this forum?
> That the sounds of our voice communicate meaning is not obscure or hidden.
> It is obvious to everyone except, it seems to some who understand its
> implications and shy away from that conclusion.
>
>                 Joseph C. Gilbert
>
> On Apr 4, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Joseph,
> >
> >> From scanning your occasionally posts over the last six years, as far
> as I
> > can see the principal problem you are having stems from holding your
> > interest as a belief rather than an object of inquiry.  You are not
> > admitting for any thorough logic in your interest, which is why are you
> are
> > continually faced with "academic" rejection.
> >
> > Have you, for example, studied some of the bio-mechanics of the ear, such
> > as how movements in the air matter become translated into nerve pulses?
> > Have you studied how word utterances influence the nervous structure of
> > behaviour?  Have you studied the social processes in the establishment of
> > norms and how these influence meaning of sounds?
> >
> > If you undertake such disciplined study and demonstrate the logic of your
> > interest, then I would predict you'll get more favourable responses --
> from
> > the scientific perspective, you'd start to be useful and relevant.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4 April 2014 02:55, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear David,
> >> I was not expecting you to agree with me, but rather hoping that you'll
> >> would grasp what I was explaining and respond in some relevant fashion.
> It
> >> seems either you do not understand or do not want to understand my
> >> offering. I admit, I am disappointed and frustrated with this long-time
> >> situation. For me, it is not about blaming or, heaven forbid, insulting
> >> anyone, it's simply about attempting to share a discovery. I assumed,
> long
> >> ago, that those in the academic world would be the most likely to
> >> understand what I had found. But it eventually became evident to me that
> >> the very ones who, I had assumed it would be the most fruitful to share
> my
> >> work with, are the most resistant to new ideas that relate to their
> turf. I
> >> have yet to receive a cogent or even minimally relevant response from
> any
> >> person in the world of academia, except for one Margaret Magnus. She was
> >> denied consideration of her doctorate thesis by Chomsky's linguistics
> >> department at MIT. She persisted and received her doctor of philosophy
> >> degree from Trondheim University. It seems that because her findings ran
> >> counter to the doctrine of many current linguists (that there is no
> >> relationship between the sounds of words and their meanings), that even
> >> though her method of proof of her assertion was scientifically sound,
> the
> >> established order would not even consider her work on its merit. She is
> the
> >> only one of those in academia who responded intelligently to what I
> shared
> >> with her. She posted my writings on her website, "Magical Letter Page"
> and
> >> also put it on the web so that when one searches for "Joseph Gilbert
> sound
> >> symbolism" my writing comes up.
> >>        I was saying that, after seeing many examples of academic
> writings
> >> on the subject of phonosemiotics, I have found almost none that make any
> >> sense and/or offer any solid assertions. It is obvious to me that the
> >> sounds we make with our voices express what's going on with us. The
> ability
> >> to vocalize evolved because the ability to communicate was an advantage.
> >> So, what was being communicated by vocal utterances? Whatever it was
> still
> >> persists in all spoken-word languages. Ultimately, after all our
> thinking,
> >> we are left with the sounds of our words and with the persistent
> >> uncertainty of the final meaning of any of the many things we may talk
> >> about. We can gain an abstract understanding, with words, of how things
> >> work, but with all our reasoning we still cannot come to any conclusion
> as
> >> to what any of it means to us. It is the sounds themselves of our words,
> >> that serve to inform us of how we are affected by that which makes up
> our
> >> world. Although this informing takes place subliminally, it is all we
> have
> >> to go on in our quest for a sense of meaning. That is the magic of
> >> language: How we spell/pronounce our words is what creates the spell of
> the
> >> our language. This is very primal and quite simple, but has far-reaching
> >> ramifications. The spoken word is the driver of human affairs.
> >>        I come from a partly Jewish background and have much appreciation
> >> for who the Jewish people are and the role they play in earthly affairs.
> >>        It's all about asking the relevant questions and not taking any
> >> wooden nickels.
> >>
> >>                Joseph C. Gilbert
> >>
> >> On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, of course, I sent out the results of the experiment without any
> >>> explanation because I believe that people should think for themselves.
> >>> But Mike is right--I am mildly insulted when I receive exhortations to
> >>> be relevant, be useful, and think for myself by agreeing with the
> >>> person insulting me.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps I shouldn't be. The truth is that I have been thinking for
> >>> myself for so long that I actually bore myself while still managing to
> >>> baffle the reviewers of prominent journals. And it is true that
> >>> sometimes--yea, often--I would rather think the way that Vygotsky did,
> >>> particularly since the way he thought seems more useful and relevant
> >>> to my work than the way that I do.
> >>>
> >>> I would also like to think the way that Hannah Arendt did. One of the
> >>> interesting remarks she makes in support of the Kantian idea that evil
> >>> is always superficial and only moral good is genuinely profound is
> >>> that Eichman had not mastered the grammar of the German language, and
> >>> he speaks it rather the way that Arendt herself speaks English, even
> >>> though Eichmann is a native speaker of German. What Arendt means that
> >>> rather than consciously and deliberately master the intricate system
> >>> of German articles and case endings and genders, Eichmann takes a
> >>> shortcut--he simply memorizes phrases and uses them whole, the way we
> >>> do when we are speaking or trying to write a very complex foreign
> >>> language (in my case, Russian).
> >>>
> >>> At first I thought this was merely the hauteur of a very educated
> >>> German Jew, the star pupil of Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers,
> >>> confronted with an unsuccessful peripatetic oil salesman who failed to
> >>> complete a high school education and used the extermination of the
> >>> Jews as a way of advancing a lackluster career. But Margaret Von
> >>> Trotta, who in the course of making the film "Hanna Arendt" also
> >>> subjected herself to thousands of hours of Eichmann testimony, makes
> >>> exactly the same remark. As a consequence of a lack of conscious
> >>> awareness of the way the German language works and a reliance on
> >>> memorized phrases, Eichmann's language is necessarily thoughtless and
> >>> cliche ridden.
> >>>
> >>> Von Trotta's example is this. The judge asks Eichmann if the "Final
> >>> Solution" would have unrolled differently had their been "civic
> >>> responsibility", the judge is very clearly interested in whether
> >>> people like Eichmann, who essentially bear no ill will whatsoever
> >>> towards Jews and are simply doing a job that is somewhat more
> >>> lucrative and promising than selling oil, would want to change their
> >>> job if they were confronted with the kind of civic resistance that the
> >>> "Final Solution" encountered in, say, Denmark or Serbia or Bulgaria
> >>> (where local populations actively resisted the attempt to round up
> >>> Jews).
> >>>
> >>> Eichmann makes no attempt to understand the question. He simply says
> >>> had it benefited from sufficient hierarchical organization, it would
> >>> undoubtedly have been more efficient and more efficiacious. But of
> >>> course the result is nonsense, because in this case "X" is precisely a
> >>> form of resistance to hierarchical organization. Eichmann does not
> >>> speak German; instead, German speaks him.
> >>>
> >>> Bateson remarks that the reason why keeping a room tidy requires work,
> >>> but it just gets untidy by itself is simple entropy; there are many
> >>> more ways of being untidy than there are of being tidy (and when he
> >>> says this, what he is really showing us--almost perfectly--is the big
> >>> difference between the way we mediate reality and the way reality,
> >>> objectively, really is). In the same way, being grammatical requires
> >>> work, because there are infinitely many ways of being ungrammatical
> >>> and relatively fewer ways of being grammatical. We can, of course,
> >>> save work by replacing one psychological function (grammaticality)
> >>> with another (memory), but when we do this run up against Arendt's
> >>> biggest problem.
> >>>
> >>> Arendt is shocked that Eichmann uses Kant to justify his actions and
> >>> even gives a reasonably good, though no doubt memorized, version of
> >>> the Categorical Imperative. She concludes that there are simply very
> >>> many ways of being evil, and relatively few of being good. The only
> >>> reliable method of telling the difference is to think and speak for
> >>> yourself. Paradoxically, or perhaps not so, this is something we do
> >>> not do well unless we actually listen to others and respond to them in
> >>> sentences that cannot be readily Googled.
> >>>
> >>> David Kellogg
> >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> simply want to advance their career,   So the I want people to think
> >>> for themselves. B
> >>>
> >>> On 4 April 2014 01:35, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I believe David is commenting on Joseph's exhortation that we spend
> our
> >>>> time more usefully, Michael.
> >>>>
> >>>> hangin' out in southern california.
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Michael <mlevykh@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But what exactly does your "little experiment" mean?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Michael
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dr. Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therapist, Affective Speech Remediation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Psycho-Educational Consultant
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Voice Teacher, Vocal Coach
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <http://www.autisticvancouver.com/> www.autisticvancouver.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 604.322.1019
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sharpening the Ear for Better Communication
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and Socially Appropriate Behaviour
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
> >>>>> Sent: April-02-14 11:48 PM
> >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just tried a little experiment. I googled "Think for yourself!" "Be
> >>>>>
> >>>>> relevant!" and "Be useful!" to see how many times someone has had,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> more or less, these exact sentiments in these exact words.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's what I found:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Be useful!"  4,030,020 matches in .32 seconds.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Be relevant!" 607,000,000 in 0.26 seconds. (Much easier to find.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Think for yourself!" 717 million mentions in only .040 seconds!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 3 April 2014 11:24, Lois Holzman <lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Joseph
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd like to know more about you. I appreciate your comment on the
> >> current
> >>>>> "conversational thread."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Lois
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Lois Holzman
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Social Media
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Blogs
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Websites
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All Stars Project
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> May I suggest that you-all emphasize your own questioning and
> >> thinking
> >>>>> rather than mainly referring to great innovators and thinkers of the
> >> past.
> >>>>> By concentrating on what has already been said by recognized
> >> authorities,
> >>>>> one stays mired in the past. It is natural for intelligent, conscious
> >>>>> beings
> >>>>> to have their own wonderings/questions. What are yours? Do you wish
> to
> >>>>> remake the world in any way? Would you like to have a peaceful planet
> >> for
> >>>>> your grandchildren? What needs to be done in order to achieve that?
> How
> >>>>> about a new perception, an updated world-view, based upon our best
> >> current
> >>>>> knowledge of human nature? Just as many Christians look backward to
> >> Jesus
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> chart their course, academicians in this current corporate state tend
> >> to
> >>>>> remain stuck in the already accepted arguments and premises
> established
> >>>>> long
> >>>>> ago. Please break free and really accomplish something useful with
> your
> >>>>> wealth of knowledge rather than mostly engaging in "small talk" among
> >> your
> >>>>> cohorts in an isolated i
> >>>>>
> >>>>> vory tower. We (humanity) need all the help we can get. It seems you
> >>>>> should
> >>>>> be able to do more than split hairs among yourselves while the real
> >> needs
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> the world go unaddressed. Get back to the basics and build from
> there,
> >>>>> using
> >>>>> what you really believe to be true as your navigational instruments.
> >> Think
> >>>>> for yourselves! Be original! Be relevant! Be useful!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>             Joseph Gilbert
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 8:27 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Seems like you nailed it, Robert, (and Benjamin read it there?).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The lesson I take away from this is that we are all "so-called
> >>>>> thinkers"
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> virtue  of the fact that our consciousness is mediated through
> >> culture.
> >>>>> The
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> imagined present never precisely matches the encountered future.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In so far as there is an antidote to this characteristic of
> humans,
> >> so
> >>>>> far
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> as I can figure out, it is develop cultural practices that might
> be
> >>>>> called
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "critical" in that they diverge from the common imaginary worlds.
> >>>>> Having
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> criticized, the preferred next step would be to test out your
> >> imagined
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> world in practice in order to discover its flaws.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do others conclude?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Robert Lake
> >>>>> <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> See highlighted phrase below :-).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Marx-Engels Correspondence 1893
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Engels to Franz Mehring Abstract
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Source: *Marx and Engels Correspondence*;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Publisher: International Publishers (1968);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> First Published: *Gestamtausgabe*;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Translated: Donna Torr;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Transcribed: Sally
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ryan<
> >> http://www.marxists.org/admin/volunteers/biographies/sryan.htm
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2000;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> HTML Markup: Sally Ryan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> London, July 14, 1893
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Today is my first opportunity to thank you for the *Lessing
> Legend*
> >>>>> you
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> were kind enough to send me. I did not want to reply with a bare
> >>>>> formal
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> acknowledgment of receipt of the book but intended at the same
> >> time to
> >>>>> tell
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> you something about it, about its contents. Hence the delay.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I shall begin at the end -- the appendix on historical
> >> materialism, in
> >>>>> which
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> you have described the main things excellently and for any
> >>>>> unprejudiced
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> person convincingly. If I find anything to object to it is that
> you
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> attribute more credit to me than I deserve, even if I count in
> >>>>> everything
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> which I might possibly have found out for myself - in time - but
> >> which
> >>>>> Marx
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> with his more rapid *coup d'oeil* (grasp) and wider vision
> >> discovered
> >>>>> much
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> more quickly. When one has the good fortune to work for forty
> years
> >>>>> with a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> man like Marx, one does not usually get the recognition one
> thinks
> >> one
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> deserves during his lifetime. Then if the greater man dies, the
> >> lesser
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> easily gets overrated, and this seems to me to be just my case at
> >>>>> present;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> history will set all this right in the end and by that time one
> >> will
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> safely round the corner and know nothing more about anything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Otherwise there is only one other point lacking, which, however,
> >> Marx
> >>>>> and I
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to
> >> which
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and *were
> >> bound
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> lay*,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the main emphasis, in the first place, on the *derivation* of
> >>>>> political,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising
> >>>>> through
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so
> >> doing we
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> neglected the formal side -- the ways and means by which these
> >>>>> notions,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> etc., come about -- for the sake of the content. This has given
> our
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings, of which
> >> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Barth is a striking example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker
> >>>>> consciously,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> indeed, but with a false consciousness.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Martin John Packer
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia attributes the phase to Engels.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2014, at 8:13 PM, Douglas Williams <djwdoc@yahoo.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi--
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The term false consciousness is from Walter Benjamin in a 1930
> >>>>> review
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Siegfried Kracauer's Die Angestellten, drawing from Marx. The
> >> idea in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Marx
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> is described in terms of alienation and estrangement from real
> >>>>> objects
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> activity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 5:14 PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic
> >> interactionism
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tom, so far as I know, the term "false consciousness" was
> >> invented
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> feminists in the 1970s and was never used by Marx, and I don't
> >> think
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> concept is consistent with his ideas, as expressed in the
> Theses
> >> on
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Feuerbach which you quoted, for example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tom Richardson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... In the first place, it should be noted that Marx, like
> >> Spinoza
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> later
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Freud, believed that most of what men consciously think is
> >> "false"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness, is ideology and rationalization; that the true
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> mainsprings
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of man's actions are unconscious to him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>