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

[Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance



Annalisa, Haydi, Andy, Martin,

If the key concepts "matter" and "consciousness" are all here, I would like
to focus on this passage that Haydi offered and hopefully explore what is
clear and distinct to others but which I still finf muddled.
The passage is:


"Mike et al
Reading "Crisis" recently again left me no doubt that Vygotsky , of his own
will and for good sake , had accepted the "order" of the Day , that is ,
Marxism . What he did not like was something else .
With the idea of 'ontology' and 'epistemology' again in "Crisis" we have
this :
Categories of 'subject' and 'object' as they refer to 'being' , that is ,
ontologically , are not tied to our content of 'knowledge' while categories
of 'matter' and 'mind' do need our content of knowledge to be comprehended .
[comment] therefore *matter* is not the concept of matter because to have a
concept of is to be conscious of. ALL concepts include consciousness and
since matter excludes consciousness [matter is NOT consciousness] therefore
the concept of matter is NOT matter.

 "One has only to apply the epistemological formula  of  materialism,
 given  by  Lenin  (a  similar  one  can  be found  in  Plekhanov)  for the
psychological subject-object, in order to see what is the matter:the  only
 ‘property’  of  matter  connected  with philosophical  materialism  is
 the  property  of being an objective reality, of existing outside of our
 consciousness  ...  Epistemologically  the concept  of  matter  means
 nothing  other  than objective  reality,  existing  independently
 from human  consciousness  and  reflected  by  it. [Lenin,Materialism and
Empirio-Criticism]"

[comment] To *be* epistemologically known is to *be* in the realm of
consciousness AS knowing. We can know without self-knowing [be conscious
without self-consciousness] but to know is to *be* in the realm of
consciousness NOT in the realm of matter [matter  by definition
is existence that is INDEPENDENT of consciousness, that exists beyond the
relation to consciousness]

 Epistemologically , it is in our 'knowing' ; Ontologically , it is in
itself [independent]  according to some especial laws and with some
especial properties , subject-matter of a couple of sciences .
"  We must not mix up the relation between subject and object with the
 relation  between  mind  and  body,  as Høffding [1908] splendidly
 explains.  The  distinction  between  mind [Geist]  and  matter  is  a
 distinction  in  the  content  of  our knowledge.

[comment] the distinction between mind/geist and matter is *a*
distinction,  but to make *a* distinction is to move beyond *matter* into
the realm of consciousness and the realm of making distinctions. Therefore
the *content* as distinctions in itself is not *matter* it is consciousness.

  the  distinction  between  subject  and  object manifests  itself
 independently  from  the  content  of  our knowledge."

[comment] This seems critical. Subject and object *manifest* [show up]
independently of epistemology. Seems to *open a space* for further inquiry.

 He continues :
"Elsewhere  Lenin  says  that  this  is,  essentially,  the  principle of
realism, but that he avoids this word, because it has been captured by
inconsistent thinkers.Thus,  this  formula <seemingly> contradicts  our
 viewpoint:  it cannot  be  true  that  consciousness  exists  outside
 our consciousness.  But,  as  Plekhanov  has  correctly
 established, self-consciousness  is  the  consciousness  of
 consciousness.  And consciousness can exist without self-consciousness: we
become convinced  of  this  by  the  unconscious  and  the
 relatively unconscious.

[comment] This seems *key* that consciousness can exist without
self-consciousness. However it is also true that matter can exist without
consciousness [essentially the *principle* [logic] of realism.

 I  can  see  not  knowing  that  I  see.  That  is  why Pavlov [1928] is
right when he says that we can live according to subjective states, but
that we cannot analyse them.

[comment] We can *live* according to subjective *states* but we cannot
analyze them. The question becomes, if not possible to analyze can we still
*show* subjective *states* [through indexical means, denoting as gestures?]
This *indexing* is not analyzing or reflecting. It requires two persons in
face to face contact gesturing at the SAME perceived object placed in front
of them. Now to analyze this *movement* of *showing* is to move beyond
gesturing to the interpretive stance and triadic relations. However
indexical movement may be a transitional stage? IF gestures require
consciousness they are not matter, but if one defines gestures as NOT
consciousness, THEN they could be defined as *matter*. It all depends
[analytically] on where you *draw* the boundary.

Not  a  single  science  is  possible without  separating direct
 experience  from  knowledge.

[comment] To have *science* is to analyze but to do this is NOT *matter* it
is consciousness. Direct experience is another *matter* and may be
considered matter IF you consider *direct experience as able to *exist*
without consciousness. Again a matter for rhetorical discourse among an
intersubjective community that is not webbed to being a *scientific
community* which is a different KIND of community with different KINDS of
*dispositions* acquired through different KINDS of inquiry. This may be
Martin's plump materialism.

 It  is  amazing:  only  the psychologist-introspectionist  thinks  that
 experience  and knowledge  coincide.  If  the  essence  of  things  and
 the  form  of their  appearance  directly  coincided,  says  Marx  [1890],
 all science would be superfluous. If in psychology appearance and being
 were  the  same,  then everybody  would  be  a scientist-psychologist and
 science  would  be  impossible. Only  registration  would  be  possible.
But,  obviously,  it  is one thing to live, to experience, and another to
analyse ."
[comment] agreed

 In this respect , even Spinoza is rejected :
" In this respect we are first of all reminded of Spinoza’s attempt to
 investigate  human  vices  and  stupidities  by  means  of
 the geometrical method and to examine human actions and drives exactly as
if they were lines, surfaces, and bodies. This method is  suitable  for
 descriptive  psychology  and  not  for  any  other approach. For it takes
from geometry only its verbal style and the  outward  appearance  of
 irrefutability  of  its  proofs,  and  all the rest – its core included –
is based upon a non-scientific way of thinking."

[comment] is Spinoza's method [being geometric] taking a particular *genre*
of discourse and the scientific *way of thinking* is following another
genre, another way of being persuasive or rhetorical. Moving from the
abstract TO the concrete is moving TO the rhetorical the realm of moving
others. This is the realm of being *effective* and scientific ways of
*constituting* effective movements [as matter of direct experience shown in
face to face movements]
is indexical [and may exist without analysis]

And one more thing again from "Crisis" :
A is the table ===> material a is its reflection in the mirror ====> just
nothing , phantom X is the operation and hitting of the light ====>
material
His explanation : two objectives : material     mere relationship between
them : subjective ====> non-material
We can ask ourselves if attributes of 'matter' are also 'material' , the
more so with 'extension' .
There are original 'emphases' if referencing is made .
Best

[comment] the *key* term [with extentions] may open up a space for further
inquiry.

I am unsure how this post will be received and answered but it was done in
the spirit of XMCA as the 30 year exploration of the ideal and matter.
Larry
 Haydi

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Annalisa,
> It is impossible to take this conversation forward unless we establish
> some shared concepts and word meanings.
> "Material" is a word which can be used very loosely and applied to almost
> anything. But "matter" (in this discourse) is a philosophical category
> denoting all that which exists outside of and independently of
> consciousness but is knowable through human activity. Any finite category
> (such as word, cosmos, thing, movement, ...) in some sense both outside of
> consciousness and a product of consciousness, but "matter" is the base
> category which distinguishes illusions, fantasies, phantoms, ideas, etc.,
> from what exists.
>
> You can mean anything you like by any of these words, but if the people
> you are talking to mean something else by the same words, then confusion
> can follow. We need to be on the same page.
>
> All the basic concepts are explained, with references for follow-up
> reading here: http://wiki.lchc.ucsd.edu/CHAT/WebHome
>
>
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>
>> Ok Andy,
>> I want to give this the time it deserves, but when I say word is not
>> material but form, what I mean is that to say word is material doesn't
>> distinguish it from sound, because word and sound are the constituted
>> identically. The difference is in form.
>>
>> If I may say, it's like saying fashion is nothing but fabric. This
>> doesn't tell me anything about fashion and why I like Commes des Garçon and
>> you like Vivian Westwood.
>> I intuit at this point in time that form is the basis of culture, not
>> material because almost everything is material.
>>
>> I would only make allowance for time and space, because neither one is
>> material. If you tell me time is a clock, I'm going to laugh. As far as
>> space, material is in space, but space is not "in" material, it is
>> pervasive, but not "in" it. Space is not made of material.
>> I think these conceptual distinctions are important.
>>
>> But that's me.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Annalisa
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:59 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance
>>
>> Annalisa, making a distinction between matter and movement is
>> problematic and was not my intention. The atoms which make up your body
>> will be dancing somewhere else 7 years from now. In any case I meant
>> "matter" in the philosophical sense, as that which exists independently
>> of and outside of consciousness. So pressure waves in air are equally
>> material as scratches on paper, characters on your screen or
>> inscriptions on stone tablets.
>> Because we are inclined to say that the little packet of sound you get
>> when you say "ger" is 'the same word' as what is written a couple of
>> inches back on this line, we easily forget that no word exists other
>> than in one or another of its material instantiations. But we don't talk
>> by mental telepathy, but only by placing material objects within the
>> perceptual fields of another person, for them to interpret. It's when
>> there is some breakdown in communication that you hyave to go back and
>> look at the actual, material form you gave to your words.
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>
>>
>> Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Andy,
>>>
>>> Please explain how words are material. Do you mean this literally or
>>> metaphorically?
>>>
>>> I am prone to accept that mind is material, but of a different order
>>> than Grandma's apple pie, mountains or a vinyl record. I can't quite see
>>> how words are material. Sounds traveling through space are movements of
>>> material (air), so that to me would be like saying dancing is material, if
>>> dancing is material, then what is the body who dances? And how is the body
>>> different from the dance?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Annalisa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>