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

[Xmca-l] Re: The Inimitability of Grammar



Martin,
Right, I remember that. 

Huw,
Thanks for the consideration.

		Joseph

On Apr 4, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>