[Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal

[Andy Blunden]

As I understand it, the problem with the aspiration to 
non-dualism which Michael, as a Pragmatist, is challenging 
may be this: If you claim that an individual has a number of 
mental attributes which are "carried" from one context to 
another and go through a process of development, then this 
implies that the locus of these capacities is the person's 
body. If a person is replaced in some activity with another 
person, to carry on the same activity, then they take those 
attributes with them. The fact that this is not 100.0% true 
(a person may lose certain capacities when they change the 
context of their activity, and an activity will change when 
a new person enters it) does not alter the fact that the 
individual's body is the locus of their mind (cognitive 
activity, thinking, personal development, etc).

So this appears to be a problem for those of us who are 
Activity Theorists, and see the mind (or mental processes) 
as phenomena abstracted from activity not as something 
distinct from or counterposed to activity. Activity is *not* 
a dualist concept, as Michael suggested earlier, when he 
asked: "How do you posit activity as developing without a 
human mind that manipulates activity?" That is, Activity 
Theory does not see subjective mind "manipulating" objective 
behaviour.

It is similar to the problem which Mike drew our attention 
to a few months ago of how he spent a car journey ruminating 
on a problem, and only acted on that when he arrived at his 
destination.

Now, I do *not* believe that this conundrum forces us to 
adopt a dualism, and nor does a rejection of the problematic 
nature of the conundrum oblige us to abandon the idea of 
mental development (which presupposes a human body as the 
locus of mind). But I do think it is a reasonable problem to 
pose.

Now I may have misunderstood you, Michael, but does my 
puzzle fairly present your issue?

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 29/06/2016 2:11 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
> Don't mind the piling on.  Just making the point that perhaps non-dualism is an issue to be grappled with rather than adhered to.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:02 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal
>
> Michael,
> I didn't mean to be cavalier. Just posing a genuine question.
>
> One more question:
> Do we carry a constant something around with us?
> And does that constant something not develop/change?
> (if not, then it sure sounds a lot like a soul. Designed intelligence
> perhaps?)
>
> And, is there no one else out there in XMCA land willing to support Michael's doubting non-dualism? (Feeling badly for piling on here...
> someone switch sides?).
>
> -greg
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes I worried about using the example of intelligent design for this
>> reason, we would get bogged down in the whole God thing rather than
>> the idea that there is a separate mind manipulating and controlling
>> our activity or consciousness or personality, or whatever you might
>> want to call this constant that we carry around with us.  I'm not
>> making an argument for intelligent design - and I actually think you
>> know that.  I am saying that our conception of development has
>> similarities to the conception of intelligent design, in that there is
>> a mind, an internal, constant force which is manipulating activity.
>> One of the reasons the early Pragmatists were no against dualism is
>> because of the destructive tendencies of the idea that God has a plan.
>> If we can't get there then I would like to withdraw my example because it just becomes a distraction.
>>
>> Michael
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer
>> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:33 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Noumenal and Phenomenal
>>
>> I am not following your argument, Michael. You suggest that the
>> explanation of individual development is somehow parallel to the issue
>> of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the claim that the order
>> we see in the universe must have been designed, and design requires
>> intelligence, therefore a god must exist. Presumably you find that
>> argument convincing, or you would not suggest the parallel. I,
>> however, do not find it a convincing argument: order in the universe emerges and evolves over time.
>>
>> In the same way, the order in human activity emerges and evolves over
>> time. You seem to be suggesting that explaining order in individual
>> psychological development must require something that remains
>> "constant as the circumstances of activity constantly change.” Well,
>> children are born into a highly structured social context. And LSV
>> *does* posit something else that is, or becomes, relatively “constant”
>> in human psychological
>> development: he calls it personality. Not mind.
>>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
>