Re: [xmca] Classical German Philosophy

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Sounds right to me, Martin. Trying to go through the thread one thread-lette
at a time.
mike

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:

> I think that 'backgrounding' is exactly what one does, in the sense that
> although in ones analysis one focuses on some aspect, one should always
> remain aware that although this aspect is the foreground, it always exists
> against a background which should not be discarded or ignored.
>
> Consciousness, then, is not a kind of phenomenon of which we should say
> that  other phenomena are either 'in' it ('inside') or 'out' of it
> ('outside'). Consciousness is an intentional awareness: consciousness is
> always *of* something, and that something is itself always one aspect of a
> larger unity. At the same time consciousness ('mine' let me say) is itself
> always a moment in something larger; the activities and projects that on
> reflection I could also say are 'mine,' and in which my labor is divided
> with that of others, and so that define who (I say) I am.
>
> Martin
>
> On Mar 7, 2010, at 11:28 AM, mike cole wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andy, and Michael for the section ref to Leontiev.
> >
> > Could I repeat a second part of my question which appears to have gotten
> > lost in the multiple threads?
> >
> > Michael wrote: "you have been breaking out individual (constitutive)
> moments
> > of activity and treated them as elements, much like others take the YE
> > triangle and then break out the object, the subject, the division of
> labor,
> > the tools..."
> >
> > I asked about how one talks about how one breaks out "moments of
> activity"
> > (that is how I phrase the matter when I am thoughtful enough to do so),
> and,
> > having highlighted them, given the impression that they are
> > elements in a static sense. What sort of language does one use to be
> able,
> > for example, to talk about a particular division of labor, without at
> least
> > deep backgrounding, say, the tools being used or the web of social rules
> > that are recruited in this instance?
> >
> > Even to say that "everything is connected to everything else" implies
> some
> > notion of "things/processes" that are connected. How to avoid
> > misunderstanding and distinguish it from disagreement?
> > mike
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If anyone is interested in exploring the German Idealists, and the roots
> of
> >> Activity Theory and Cultural Psychology in their writings, I have put
> >> together a page :
> >> http://www.marxists.org/subject/philosophy/german.htm
> >> where you can browse as you wish ...
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca