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

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

Hi Everyone,
How does Eric Fromm's thinking on the dialectic of subconsciousness/
consciousness set with you?
Not a trick question just Lake being consciously curious.

Consciousness is the mental activity in our state of being preoccupied with
external reality-with acting. The unconscious is the mental experience in a
state of existence in which we have shut off communications with the outer
world are no longer preoccupied with action but with our self-experience.
The unconscious is an experience related to a special mode of life – that
of non-activity; and the characteristics of the unconscious follow from the
nature of this mode of existence. The qualities of consciousness, on the
other hand, are determined by the nature of action and by the survival
function of the waking state of existence. ― (Fromm,1951a: The Forgotten
Language. An Introduction to the Understanding of Dreams, Fairy Tales and
Myths, New York (Rinehart and Co.) 1951, p. 29.)

Our consciousness is all those human experiences of which our particular
society permits us to be aware. Usually, aside from very small individual
differences, we are aware only of that which our language, our logic, and
the taboos of our societies permit us to be aware. There is, you might say,
something like a „social filter,“ and only those experiences that can pass
through that social filter are the things we are aware of; they are our
consciousness. ― And what is our unconscious? Our unconscious is humanity.
Our unconscious is the universal man. Our unconscious is all that is human
– the good and the bad – all that exists in everybody, minus that small
sector which is conscious, which represents the experience, thinking,
feeling of the culture that we are thrown into rather accidentally. Our
unconscious is the total man. ― (1992m [1962]: A New Humanism as a
Condition for the One World, in: E. Fromm, On Being Human, New York
(Continuum) 1994, pp. 77f.)

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Martin John Packer <
mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:

> Yes, of course he uses those words. But he never applies them to
> consciousness. Consciousness, for LSV, is a phenomenon, not an appearance.
> Consciousness is an objective process. This is LSV's argument, and I don't
> see how one can reasonably disagree with it. Consciousness is an objective
> process, just as life is an objective process. *In* consciousness various
> experiences are given, some of them illusory (like Muller-Lyer), others not.
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 9:49 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > Martin, the word "illusion" appears three times, as I recall,  in that
> paragraph. "Appearance" is a synonym for "illusion" and that appears 4
> times, so he uses the terms 7 times in all, in that one paragraph.
> >
> > Andy
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >
> >
> > Martin John Packer wrote:
> >> Andy, I don't see anything here that suggests that LSV viewed
> consciousness as an illusion. If you are drawing our attention to the
> phrase "It does not exist in reality," this refers to the apparent
> difference between the lengths of two lines in the Muller-Lyer illusion.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> On Nov 26, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> In physics we try to eliminate the subjective factor from what we
> perceive as an object. In psychology, when we study perception it is again
> required to separate perception as such, as it is, from how it seems to me.
> Who will study what has been eliminated both times, this /*appearance*/?
> >>>
> >>> But the problem of appearance is an apparent problem. After all, in
> science we want to learn about the /*real*/ and not the /*apparent*/ cause
> of appearance. This means that we must take the phenomena as they exist
> independently from me. The appearance itself is an /*illusion*/ (in
> Titchener’s basic example: Muller-Lyer’s lines are physically equal,
> psychologically one of them is longer). This is the difference between the
> viewpoints of physics and psychology. It /*does not exist in reality*/, but
> results from two non-coincidences of two really existing processes. If I
> would know the physical nature of the two lines and the objective laws of
> the eye, as they are in themselves, I would get the explanation of the
> appearance, of the illusion as a result. The study of the subjective factor
> in the knowledge of this illusion is a subject of logic and the historical
> theory of knowledge: just like being, the subjective is the result of two
> processes which are objective in themselve
> >>>
> >> s. The mind is not always a subject. In introspection it is split into
> object and subject. The question is whether in introspection phenomenon and
> being coincide. 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 <
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five2.htm#bkV14P260F01
> >]
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm#p1371
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Martin John Packer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where does LSV say that consciousness is an illusion, Andy?
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 26, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> No, no! And we are close to agreement here!
> >>>>> LSV says that consciousness is an illusion, and science does not
> study illusions, but that this illusion arises from the "noncoincidence" of
> two objective, material processes, physiology and behaviour, both of which
> can be studied by science (just as light rays and the things reflected by
> light rays can), therefore we can study scientifically how these illusions
> arise and how they mediate human activity! This is called psychology. I
> completely agree with Vygotsky. Don't you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andy
> >>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martin John Packer wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy, LSV argues in Crisis that a science does not, cannot, study
> illusions. Science studies what actually exists, and in doing so seeks to
> *explain* how illusions occur. Science studies the real candle and the real
> mirror, in order to *explain* how an image of a candle appears in the
> mirror.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By saying that consciousness is an illusion, you appear to be
> suggesting that it cannot be studied scientifically. Or perhaps you find
> some flaw with LSV's argument?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 26, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Huw, don't misunderstand me. By saying "consciousness is an
> illusion" I am saying something very positive about it. It is an illusion
> which proves more or less adequate for guiding my activity, just as for
> example, my rear vision mirror is adequate for guiding my driving, because
> I am "educated" about mirrors. It is useful I think to frankly say that
> consciousness is an illusion - an illusion with survival value for humans -
> because it opens a point of agreement between the positivists and the
> psychologists. We both can say "consciousness is an illusion." OK, let's
> discuss that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But consciousness differs from a material process like
> stimuli-response, that is, an unmediated relation between an organism and
> its environment, between physiology and behaviour. This is what the
> neuroscientist typically overlooks. We say "yes, the mediating element is
> just an illusion, which is why you can't find it, but hey! it's a very
> useful illusion." :)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would concur with Andy that 'mysterious' is not useful, but I'd
> say
> >>>>>>>> Andy's use of 'illusion' has this problem too, because any such
> illusions
> >>>>>>>> are materially manifested.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >


*Robert Lake  Ed.D.*Associate Professor
Social Foundations of Education
Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
Georgia Southern University
Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
P. O. Box 8144
Phone: (912) 478-0355
Fax: (912) 478-5382
Statesboro, GA  30460