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

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



Mmm. Thanks Huw. But it wasn't the word "is" that was confusing me.

My point has been that consciousness is a material process, not some kind of mysterious 'mental' process that goes on in a mysterious place called 'mind.'

And the point of the discussion about Lenin's formula was to emphasize that in Crisis this formula was part of LSV's argument that consciousness is material, that it exists objectively.

And this in turn means that consciousness can an object of inquiry for science. For LSV, the new psychology was to be the scientific study of consciousness as an objective existence. Consciousness, how it functions (as a dynamic system), and how it develops.

Martin

On Nov 26, 2014, at 5:16 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin, the use of 'is' in an assertion about categories is to assert that
> one category is a sub-category of the other.  Hence, 'a square is a
> rectangle' is an assertion that a square is special kind of rectangle in
> which both sides have the same length.
> 
> Best,
> Huw
> 
> On 24 November 2014 at 22:13, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> wrote:
> 
>> Don't get your point, Huw. A rectangle is generally defined as having
>> unequal sides, in contrast to a square, so that's not helping me. Obviously
>> (I would think) I am not saying that consciousness is the entirely of
>> matter.
>> 
>> Perhaps you can help me in my struggle...
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Nov 24, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> A small point, perhaps: "Consciousness is materially constituted".
>>> 
>>> Stating that "consciousness is matter (or material)" is rather like
>> saying
>>> that a square is matter as opposed to saying that a square is a
>> rectangle,
>>> unless of course one intends to assert that consciousness is the entirety
>>> of matter.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 24 November 2014 at 21:19, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Apologies! That was a response to something else entirely (major snow
>>>> forecast following summer temps in the Philadelphia/NYC area). p
>>>> 
>>>> Peter Smagorinsky
>>>> Distinguished Research Professor of English Education
>>>> Department of Language and Literacy Education
>>>> The University of Georgia
>>>> 315 Aderhold Hall
>>>> Athens, GA 30602
>>>> 
>>>> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education
>>>> 
>>>> Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Personal twitter account: @psmagorinsky
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 4:02 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance
>>>> 
>>>> Amazing when juxtaposed with today's temps:
>>>> 
>>>> [cid:image001.png@01D007FF.FEAF7170]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Peter Smagorinsky
>>>> 
>>>> Distinguished Research Professor of English Education
>>>> 
>>>> Department of Language and Literacy Education
>>>> 
>>>> The University of Georgia
>>>> 
>>>> 315 Aderhold Hall
>>>> 
>>>> Athens, GA 30602
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education
>>>> 
>>>> Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Personal twitter account: @psmagorinsky
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:53 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Andy,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see that being rude advances the conversation.  When I assert a
>>>> position here in this discussion I try to base it on an argument,
>> and/or in
>>>> sources that we all have access to. I'm certainly not trying to cloud
>> any
>>>> issues, and I don't think that arguing from authority (one's own
>> assumed)
>>>> dispels the clouds.  I guess I simply don't have access to "a whole
>>>> tradition of science."  :(
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> To respond to your other message, yes, I am arguing that consciousness
>>>> (and thinking) are material processes. They are consequences of (certain
>>>> kinds of) matter in (certain kinds of) motion.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Against whom am I arguing? I am arguing against all those psychologists
>>>> who argue that consciousness (and thinking) are mental processes -
>>>> processes which they believe take place in some mysterious realm called
>>>> "the mind" that is populated by "mental representations" of the "world
>>>> outside." I deal with people who make this argument on a daily basis.
>> They
>>>> believe that the proper object of investigation for psychology is
>> "mind,"
>>>> and so they have no interest in setting, or culture, or practical
>>>> activities.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, Haydi's message is the portion of Crisis that I pointed to in my
>> last
>>>> message.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Martin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I am speaking from a whole tradition of science, Martin, not trying to
>>>> translate Vygotsky's Russian.
>>>> 
>>>>> You are an expert yourself in using the word "material" to cloud the
>>>> issue so I hardly think I need give you lessons.
>>>> 
>>>>> Read Haydi's message. It's all there.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Andy
>>>> 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> 
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Martin John Packer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Andy, from where do you obtain this distinction between 'matter' and
>>>> 'material'? Are we dealing here with two distinct words in Russian? Do
>> you
>>>> have any evidence that LSV draws such a distinction? One, of course, is
>> an
>>>> adjective and the other is a noun. But why would anyone apply the
>> adjective
>>>> to anything to which the noun would not also apply.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Martin
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 23, 2014, at 10:43 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>>>> 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<mailto:
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net<mailto: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
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>