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

Mon Nov 24 13:02:06 PST 2014

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

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28923 bytes
Desc: image001.png
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20141124/6595144e/attachment.png 