[Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness

[Rauno Huttunen]

Hello,

Heidegger started his academic career as formal logic specialist. And he game the first scholar of Husserl's logic. He was also scholar of Kant's transcendental logic.

Althusser liked Heidegger's Humanism Letter. Althusser told his nearest students to read Humanism Letter.

Rauno

Lähetetty iPadista

> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <pmocombe@mocombeian.com> kirjoitti 26.4.2016 kello 7.15:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially working on the mathematics to prove that the ancients were right... I use althusser to parallel general relativity at the aggregated social level.  Heideggerian phenomenology to capture the psychology of the quantum realm... the key is in the mathematics!
> 
> 
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> 
> Date: 4/25/2016  10:56 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> 
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> You crack me up. You know there's a much better and simpler way of explaining this don't you?
> 
> Why not give it a try?
> 
> In Vedic understanding of human experience, the ahankara (the I-notion or I-thought) is not seen as a bad thing, but a necessary (perhaps evolutionary) requirement of human experience. It means I take care of this body as mine. It explains survival tendencies. 
> 
> Ego has a lot of (Freudian) baggage as a word, which is why I don't like to use it. Especially when it comes to discourse claiming the ego must be destroyed or reviled. I believe this creates mental splits that aren't helpful.
> 
> I suppose in a certain regard, ahankara could culturally extend to others, depending upon one's culture. Consider the dividual.
> 
> But what if the "substance" if my ahankara and yours are identical? Then it means you are no different than me, despite apparent differences in appearance. We are one. I'm not just talking about stardust.
> 
> I recognize a correspondence with phenomenological notional experiences of "I", "me" and "mine" and the definition of ahankara. When I use a pen there is a point that I forget the pen is not me, and it as-though becomes me. I think there have been neurological studies about how the brain's sense of the body adopts and extends into the spaces of tool use and automaticity. Consider how the mind "expands" from using a bike, to using a car, to using a semi-truck. Or how we imagine what is east or north, or just around the bend. It's my sense the ahankara functions in the mind in a similar way, however because of neurological wiring I have a more intimate experience of my hand than my pen. 
> 
> There is no need to be rid of it, just like there is no need to try to stop appearance of "mine" in the automaticity of writing with a pen. Or fishing with a flyrod. Or even "Vera is my teacher," or "you are my friend." All of these thoughts offer me a sense of mine-ness, and I would offer promotes care.
> 
> The preprogramming I have a hard time with, because who programed the program? Perhaps the material is not separate from intelligence itself? That existence/being, knowledge/intelligence and consciousness/reflectivity are one and the same, inseparable? Then it doesn't matter whether the "information" is destroyed or not. No programer necessary. It's all just awareness-light (as-if light, anyway).
> 
> I'm curious how this would line up with althusser's consciousness and even yours. When you say his dispensation of space-time, I presume you mean then there is an "outside" space-time. Is that what you believe to be a blackhole? But if you are aware of a blackhole then it means it is inside space and time, otherwise you could not know about it.
> 
> Now concerning that programming, let's say that it does exist, then it means in order for consciousness to perceive itself it must be in harmony with itself to see itself. Otherwise it other-fies itself. It sees itself as not-self, when actually it is. It means it denies its own being. It means that in order to see itself, it must be non-separate from itself. Which means that any theory that theorizes about the reality as such (i.e. consciousness) any mind must also be in harmony in order to reflect itself properly. Which means that it does matter if althusser cared about his wife, as this "not caring" would affect his ideas about consciousness.
> 
> It means kicking the tires is not enough when buying a used car, you kinda have to look under the hood.
> 
> All this offered in good cheer, despite the fact I realize that the timespace continuum seems to have blasted out one of my brake lights today. Or did you do that? :)
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Annalisa