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

[Xmca-l] Re: Intellect and consciousness



On 23 May 2014 16:43, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have in fact been reading Alex's book, Larry.
>
> I recommend strongly his chapters on Tool and Symbol and Language and
> Thought.
>
> Especially the former I found to be unusually well presented in ways that
> helped me.
>
> The future that Alex was pointing towards looks a good deal like what
> became the concerns of the Comm department here at UCSD - a combination of
> humanities, social sciences, and arts with mediation as its central
> organizing concept.
>
> If some group of xmca-ites would like to jointly read a chapter or two, I
> would be glad to join in.
>
> mike​
>
>
Yes, count me in.  I think we should do Rolf Steier's paper justice first,
though, which I haven't even downloaded yet.

Best,
Huw



> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I want to thank everyone for their reflections on consciousness and
> > intellect.
> > Mike commented,
> > Well, myself I am following Larry's lead and reading Alex's book on
> > Vygotsky so that i can understand the context in which he brought this
> > topic up, and in the context of his general interpretation of core
> > Vygotskian concepts.
> >
> > I re-read Alex last comment in the epilogue of his book *Vygotsky's
> > Psychology* which gives his understanding of why he wrote this book. Alex
> > reads Vygotsky's legacy as having moved through 3 stages.
> > In the 1920's and 1930's the focus was on SOCIAL mediation to help create
> > the *new man*.
> > In the 1960's Vygotsky was re-discovered in the West as a response to
> > Piaget's quasi-naturalistic theory of development.
> >
> > In 1990, when the book was written Kozulin suggest a new plane opened.
> Here
> > is Kozulin's understanding of this third phase of Vygotsky's legacy.
> [page
> > 278]
> >
> > "The third plane of Vygotsky's theory, the contours of which are only
> just
> > emerging, presupposes both the re-evaluation of its origins and its
> > projection into the future of psychology. What in the 1920's appeared to
> be
> > a rather straight forward thesis of SOCIAL mediation, and in the 1960's
> as
> > a necessary correction to the overly individualistic approaches of
> Western
> > psychology, nowadays appears as a new problem emerging from the
> realization
> > that social and cultural mediatory mechanisms do not coincide. Vygotsky's
> > analysis of the crisis in psychology, earlier perceived as a critique of
> > psychology's past, is now recognized as an inquiry into the fundamental
> > mechanism of psychology's divergent development. The origins and context
> of
> > Vygotsky's theory are now being seen in a new light.; in the place of
> > comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes the context of
> > PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS AND THE THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION.  In an
> > even broader sense, what once looked like Vygotsky's contribution TO
> > psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least beyond
> > traditional psychology and into the sphere of the human studies BASED on
> > the humanities, rather than the scientific model."
> >
> > Mike, how others *respond* to Kozulin's vision that a new plane based on
> > the humanities is a re-visioning that goes too far BEYOND Vygotsky or if
> > they acknowledge this third plane as a valid emerging of a hermeneutical
> > response is an open question.
> > Thought Kozulin's epilogue may generate more reflections and responses on
> > his perspective of the relation of [intellect] and [consciousness]
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "A" paradigmatic exemplar will do, Mike.
> > > Vygotsky worked hard on the emotions, but my reading of his work on the
> > > emotions is that he did not bring his methodological work to a
> > > conclusive outcome, but I think nonetheless, writers of our time have
> > > been able to write Vygotskyan studies of the emotions, thanks to the
> > > fact that Vygotsky gave us an exemplar with study of the intellect. I
> > > take Vygotsky's work on the development of the personality through
> > > perezhivanija as *another* exermplar he left us.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > >
> > >
> > > mike cole wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, myself I am following Larry's lead and reading Alex's book on
> > >> Vygotsky so that i can understand the context in which he brought this
> > >> topic up, and in the context of his general interpretation of core
> > >> Vygotskian concepts.
> > >>
> > >> I would prefer 2 or three potential paradigmatic exemplars of
> > >> consciousness before I decided that one was THE paradigmatic exemplar,
> > >> especially when that examplar is intellect. Also at the end of T&L is
> > >> Spinoza and emotion.
> > >>
> > >> mike
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:
> > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>     David, there is terminology, categorical distinctions, and the
> > >>     content of the science.
> > >>     Almost self-evidently, Thinking and Speech broke off at the
> > >>     threshold of the content of the science, and regretably, being a
> > >>     pioneer meant that his terminology was also unstable and
> > >>     rudimentary. My claim was that T&S was decisive in relaiton to the
> > >>     categorical distinctions underlying the science, despite the
> > >>     terminological mess.
> > >>
> > >>     I read Vygotsky as a Marxist, rather than as a linguist or a
> > >>     Phenomenologist or a teacher, all of which are I am sure
> > >>     legitimate standpoints for reading Vygotsky. But I think there is
> > >>     some basis for taking it that Vygotsky is using "consciousness" in
> > >>     line with Marxist terminology at the time indicating the entire
> > >>     class of phenomena encompassed by a general psychology, perhaps
> > >>     similar to what you mean by "general consciousness"?
> > >>     As to the distinction between "dialogical consciousness" and
> > >>     "intellect", if we are restricting "dialogic consciousnes"
> > >>     typologically to language use, then I think that that is too
> > >>     unstable and problematic for a categorical distinction. If on the
> > >>     other than we were to widen the meaning of "dialogical" to
> > >>     sign-use, then I would identify it with intellect. The spoken word
> > >>     is the *archetype* of sign-use, but not the only instance of
> > sign-use.
> > >>
> > >>     I remain of the view that T&S, and in particular thes closing
> > >>     lines, specify that he has devoted the book to a study of the
> > >>     *intellect* (the special) as a paradigmatic exemplar for
> > >>     psychological research into human *consciousness* (as a whole).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>     Andy
> > >>     ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> ------------
> > >>     *Andy Blunden*
> > >>     http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>