[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science

Andy Blunden andyb@marxists.org
Tue Oct 1 05:08:27 PDT 2019


Haydi, Marx /also/ said in the Rules of International 
Workingmen’s Association:

    "That all efforts aiming at the great end hitherto
    failed from the want of *solidarity *between the
    manifold divisions of labor in each country, and from
    the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the
    working classes of different countries"

and the Rules of International Workingmen’s Association 
began with the maxim:

    “the emancipation of the working classes must be
    conquered by the working classes *themselves*.”

In my opinion, these two statements point to the foundations 
of socialist ethics: self-emancipation and solidarity.

For his own reasons, writing in the 1860s, Marx chose not to 
frame these principles as Ethical.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
On 1/10/2019 8:04 pm, Haydi Zulfei wrote:
>
> Dear Greg , Alfredo--
>
> It was said that the thread has come to be too tiresome 
> but still it goes on and I’ve not read to the end yet.
>
> In the past we have discussed this point.
>
> This is Alfredo :
>
> Thanks Greg; I did not think you suggested capitalism is 
> “ethical”, but I was questioning the notion that 
> capitalism was a framework for ethical evaluation. I of 
> course see it is a context within which all sorts of 
> practices emerge, but that it itself provides an ethical 
> framework crashes with my preconceptions of what ethics 
> means. I think I need someone to help us clarify what 
> “ethics” means.
> And this is Greg :
>
> …to my mind, capitalism is unethical and that it provides 
> a rather unfortunate grounding for ethics and morality. 
> (and you'll notice that this leads me directly to what I 
> was chiding you for - an argument about the false 
> consciousness of the proponents (pushers?) of capitalism!!).
>
> Cristopher J Arthur is a Hegelian. Let’s ponder over what 
> he says :
>
> [[Moreover, besides political mediations, moral 
> imperatives also have a place.
> If workers are class-conscious this by no means abolishes 
> individual interests. Game theory has shown it is often 
> impossible *to reduce common action
> for common benefit to the rational self-interest of each 
> individual taken
> separately*. ‘Selling out’ often presents itself as a 
> preferred option. Hence
> the need for mediation by ***proletarian morality 
> expressed in such terms as
> ‘solidarity’, ‘class loyalty’, ‘revolutionary duty’; and 
> the inculcation of contempt for ratebusters, scabs, 
> ‘blue-eyed boys’ and the like***. The contradiction
> between class interest and individual interest is a lived 
> experience that cannot be abolished in thought but only as 
> a result of practical action to change
> the situation.
> Marx** worried** that morality, as an ideological 
> superstructure, was *a bourgeois ambush* tying the workers 
> to a ***fake universal***; he wanted to rely on
> class interest alone. It is interesting that when he *was 
> forced* to include in the
> Rules of the WMIA phrases about ‘duty’, ‘right’ ‘truth’, 
> ‘justice’, and ‘morality’,11 he wrote to Engels that they 
> were so placed as to *‘do no harm’*.12 When
> this ‘place’ is examined the context is in the first 
> instance that of members’
> *‘conduct towards each other’*; and in any event it is 
> clear that such notions
> are *subordinate to the struggle against class rule*. Marx 
> here as elsewhere
> failed to grasp that the necessary loyalty of individuals 
> to their class cannot
> be reduced to a purely prudential calculation—Marx did not 
> commit such a reduction What he did was tactical And as he 
> did it in a way that it did no HARM then it was like he 
> did not do it altogether--; the individual’s identity as a
> class warrior has to be socially constituted, and 
> instrumental in this is the
>
> inculcation of the **appropriate values.**--that the Moral 
> Values as habitual un-reflected ungrounded fake universals 
> of no worked out “particularity” to be weighed as against 
> bounded “Universality” as a WHOLE are beyond CONCRETE 
> COGNITION.]]
>
> The markings well say what Ethics means at least in 
> Capitalism as Marx depicts it. I fear to be too “too 
> tiresome”.
>
> Just it remains for dear Greg to object that we are again 
> glancing at the point extraneously , that is we have not 
> installed our VISION DEVICE within Capitalism. And it’s up 
> to us to say that when the “Internal value” has reached us 
> as Unethical/Counter-ethical , then it’s not just 
> impermissible for us to advocate the Evil but to make a 
> haste to uproot it.
>
>
> [Marx’s Verbatim :I saw that it was impossible to make 
> anything out of the stuff. In order to justify the 
> extremely strange way in which I intended to present the 
> "sentiment" already "voted for", I wrote an Address to the 
> Working Classes (which was not in the original plan: a 
> sort of review of the adventures of the working classes 
> since 1845); on the pretext that everything material was 
> included in the address and that we ought not to repeat 
> the same things three times over, I altered the whole 
> preamble, threw out the declaration of principles, and 
> finally replaced the 40 rules with 10. Insofar as 
> international politics come into the address, I speak of 
> countries, not of nationalities, and denounce Russia, not 
> the lesser nations. My proposals were all accepted by the 
> subcommittee. Only I was obliged to insert two phrases 
> about "duty" and "right" into the preamble to the 
> statutes, ditto "truth, morality, and justice", but these 
> are placed in such a way that they can do no harm.]
>
> [For these reasons –
>
> The International Working Men's Association has been founded.
>
> It declares:
>
> That all societies and individuals adhering to it will 
> acknowledge truth, justice, and morality as the basis of 
> their conduct toward each other and toward all men, 
> without regard to color, creed, or nationality;…]
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 30, 2019, 09:34:04 AM GMT+3:30, 
> Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Greg; I did not think you suggested capitalism is 
> “ethical”, but I was questioning the notion that 
> capitalism was a framework for ethical evaluation. I of 
> course see it is a context within which all sorts of 
> practices emerge, but that it itself provides an ethical 
> framework crashes with my preconceptions of what ethics 
> means. I think I need someone to help us clarify what 
> “ethics” means.
> Alfredo
>
> On 30 Sep 2019, at 07:44, Greg Thompson 
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com 
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> I appreciate your generosity in reading/responding as 
>> well as your forthrightness (without which, conversation 
>> can feel a bit empty). And I entirely respect and 
>> appreciate your position.
>>
>> One point of clarification: on the relativism front I was 
>> simply making a statement of fact, capitalism provides a 
>> framework that people use to make ethical judgments. I 
>> wasn't suggesting that capitalism is ethical. I might add 
>> that as an anthropologist I believe that it is possible 
>> to judge beliefs and practices but that this can only be 
>> done after a deep understanding of the entire context of 
>> those beliefs and practices. I've had a lot of experience 
>> with capitalism and I'm pretty comfortable saying that, 
>> to my mind, capitalism is unethical and that it provides 
>> a rather unfortunate grounding for ethics and morality. 
>> (and you'll notice that this leads me directly to what I 
>> was chiding you for - an argument about the false 
>> consciousness of the proponents (pushers?) of capitalism!!).
>>
>> And I agree with Andy about the important contributions 
>> of others in this thread but I'm lacking the bandwidth to 
>> adequately acknowledge/engage right now.
>>
>> And still wondering if we could hear more from/about 
>> Vaedboncoeur and her work? Maybe there is a publication 
>> that someone could point us to?
>> Beth Ferholt's work seems quite relevant as well.
>> (but perhaps this thread is a bit too tiresome?).
>>
>> Very best,
>> greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:11 PM Alfredo Jornet Gil 
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>>     Thanks a lot Greg for your help and care, I really
>>     appreciate it and it is very helpful. And thanks also
>>     for emphasizing the importance of bridging across
>>     positions and trying to understand the phenomenon not
>>     only from our (often privileged) point of view, but
>>     also from that of others, even those with opposed
>>     belief systems. I truly appreciate that.
>>
>>     Let me try to follow the signposts you nicely
>>     identified:
>>
>>      1. I see that my language lent itself to that
>>         reading. I believe the root of our differences is
>>         that I am trying to discuss denialism as a given
>>         historical practice, and not as something
>>         individual. At the individual level, both deniers
>>         and people who accept the science do so out of
>>         trust; just as you say, the one can argue that
>>         the other is the one who is wrong or trusting the
>>         wrong people. From the socio-historical
>>         perspective, however, neither position is the
>>         “free” choice of individuals who came upon the
>>         thought and believed it. Climate science
>>         communication and dissemination has its channels
>>         and ways to reach the public, just as climate
>>         science denial does. It so happens, though, that
>>         climate science denial was born of an explicit
>>         attempt to generate doubt in people, to confuse
>>         them and manipulate them for profit. This is well
>>         documented in the links I shared earlier. If both
>>         science and science denial have a function of
>>         persuading, and we cannot differentiate between
>>         the two, then I think we have a big problem. What
>>         I am saying is that we should be able to
>>         differentiate between the two. I am not saying
>>         people who believe climate change is real is more
>>         conscious or better conscious or any other
>>         privilege; they may be acting out of pure habit
>>         and submission. I am saying, though, that if
>>         people would engage in critical inquiry and
>>         question the history of their reasoning habits,
>>         then they may be better equipped to decide; both
>>         sides. It so happens, however, that, if we all
>>         would engage in such exercise, one side would
>>         find out they are (involuntarily perhaps)
>>         supporting actions that really harm people. In
>>         today’s modern societies, not finding out is
>>         truly an exercise of faith.
>>      2. You invite us to try to understand what the
>>         frameworks are within which people may see
>>         choosing to deny climate science as “good” or the
>>         “right” thing to do, and I applaud and support
>>         that goal. I think that framework is the sort of
>>         sociocultural object I am trying to discuss. Yet,
>>         by the same token, I’d invite anyone to consider
>>         the views and positions of those who are already
>>         suffering the consequences of global warming, and
>>         I wonder what justifies ignoring their suffering.
>>         This can be extrapolated to a myriad practices in
>>         which all of we engage, from buying phones to
>>         going to the toilette; we live by the suffering
>>         of others. And when we do so, we are wrong, we
>>         are doing wrong. That’s my view, but perhaps I am
>>         wrong. I believe human rights are not partisan,
>>         or negotiable; again, my leap of trust.
>>      3. Thanks for sharing your experience with your
>>         acquainted. I’d like to clarify that, when using
>>         the language of criminality, I refer to the
>>         people directly involved in making conscious
>>         decisions, and having recurred to science, to
>>         then not just ignore the science but also present
>>         it wrongly, making it possible for denial
>>         practices to thrive. People like the one you
>>         describe are having to deal with what it’s been
>>         left for them, and I totally empathize.
>>
>>     Finally, you explicitly state that you do not want to
>>     relativize, but then you also say that “If capitalism
>>     is the framework for evaluating ethical behavior,
>>     then there is every reason to believe that EM execs
>>     are acting ethically”. To me, the suggestion that
>>     capitalism can be an ethical framework suggests a
>>     treatment of ethics as fundamentally arbitrary
>>     (meaning that any framework can be defined to
>>     evaluate ethical behavior). I am not sure I am ready
>>     to accept that assertion.
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>     Alfredo
>>
>>     *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf
>>     of Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>>     *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>     <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>     *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44
>>     *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>     <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>     *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>>     Alfredo,
>>
>>     Thanks for reminding me of the importance of my own
>>     humility with respect to the positions of others.
>>     (conclusion jumping is an unfortunate consequence of
>>     trying to respond quickly enough on a listserve to
>>     remain relevant - or at least that's a challenge for
>>     me).
>>
>>     Thank you for clarifying that your position is not to
>>     dehumanize. I appreciate that.
>>
>>     Let me see if I can recover what it was from your
>>     prior email that provoked my response and I'll do my
>>     best to stick more closely to your words
>>     (respectfully) and what I didn't quite understand.
>>
>>     Here is the quote from your post: "I agree on the
>>     difficulties, but I would like to emphasize that
>>     being on the right or the wrong side in issues of
>>     climate change in today’s Global societies is a
>>     matter of having fallen pray to self-interested
>>     manipulation by others, or of being yourself one
>>     engaged in manipulating others for your own."
>>
>>     This language of "fallen pray..." or, worse,
>>     "being... engaged in manipulating others..." were
>>     both phrases that I read to mean that this is
>>     something that THEY do and something that WE don't do
>>     (and ditto for the psychological studies that explain
>>     "their" behavior in terms of deterministic
>>     psychological principles - rather than as agentive
>>     humans (like us?)). But it seems that maybe I've
>>     misread you?
>>
>>     I think calling them "criminals" is a little better
>>     but doesn't capture the systemic nature of what they
>>     are doing or why it is that many people would say
>>     that they are doing good. Or to put it another way,
>>     I'd like to better understand the minds and life
>>     situations and experiences of these criminals - what
>>     are the frameworks within which their actions make
>>     sense as good and right and just and true. The point
>>     is not to relativize but to understand (this is the
>>     anthropologists' task).
>>
>>     Relatedly, I may have mistakenly assumed that your
>>     question was somewhat tongue-in-cheek: "the motives
>>     of these corporations never were the “feel that this
>>     is the ethically good and right position for
>>     humanity”. Or do we?"
>>
>>     I think that this is a real question and for my two
>>     cents I would suggest that the answers to this
>>     question are important to the work of climate justice.
>>
>>     As I mentioned in the p.s. above, I recently had the
>>     opportunity to push the ExxonMobil recruiter on these
>>     issues. He's been working for them for about 7 years.
>>     He was conflicted when first joining ExxonMobil
>>     (hereafter EM) but I could sense how hard he
>>     continues to work to justify working for EM. A brief
>>     summary of his justification (and I took this to be
>>     EM's justification) could be summed up with: "just as
>>     there was an iron age in which innovations were
>>     essential to the development of human beings, we are
>>     now in the oil age". He acknowledged that oil is a
>>     problem but then pointed out that everything in the
>>     room was enabled by oil - whether because it
>>     was transported there by gas-powered vehicles or
>>     because of the massive amounts of plastic, rubber,
>>     and other products that are made from oil and are
>>     everywhere in our everyday lives. His argument was
>>     that this is the way it is right now. Our lives (and
>>     our current "progress") are entirely dependent upon
>>     oil. And he clarified that EM's position is to find
>>     ways to transition away from oil dependency but
>>     remain as central to the world as they are now. He
>>     saw his position as one in which he could be on the
>>     "inside" and help to enable this transition and change.
>>
>>     Now my point is NOT that he is right in all of what
>>     he says (or that EM is not a central cause of the
>>     problem that he seems not to be able to see). At the
>>     end of the day, I personally concluded that he is an
>>     oil apologist (and I did my best to point this out to
>>     him and to the potential ethical ironies of his
>>     work). Rather, my point is that I took him at his
>>     word that he genuinely believes what he says and that
>>     he did not "fall prey" to the manipulations of others
>>     and is not himself manipulating others to further his
>>     own interests. He does feel conflicted about his work
>>     but at the end of the day he feels that he is doing
>>     what is ethically good and right for humanity.
>>
>>     And to take this one step further, I think that in
>>     order to evaluate whether something is ethical or
>>     not, we need some kind of framework within which to
>>     make such a determination. If capitalism is the
>>     framework for evaluating ethical behavior, then there
>>     is every reason to believe that EM execs are acting
>>     ethically.
>>
>>     Let me know where I've misread you and/or
>>     misunderstood you.
>>
>>     With apologies,
>>
>>     greg
>>
>>     On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 9:59 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>     <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>>         Thanks Greg, for reminding us of the importance
>>         of humility. Please, let us all realize of the
>>         humanity of deniers, as much as those of anyone
>>         else. But no, I am not saying that they are the
>>         ones who live in a world of false consciousness.
>>         Please, if I wrote that somewhere, help me
>>         correct it, cause I did not intend to write so. I
>>         never said Exxon staff were not human, Greg. I
>>         said they are criminals. I am not alone in this:
>>         https://theintercept.com/2019/09/24/climate-justice-ecocide-humanity-crime/
>>
>>         I am more than happy to disagree, but your
>>         misrepresentation of what I just wrote went
>>         beyond what I can explain or understand in the
>>         language that I use. So, I think I’ll need help
>>         to find common ground and continue dialogue.
>>
>>         Alfredo
>>
>>         *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>         <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>>         behalf of Greg Thompson
>>         <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>>         *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>         <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>         <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>         *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45
>>         *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>         <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>         <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>         *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>>         Alfredo,
>>
>>         You point to an important possibility that I
>>         would not want to rule out, the possibility of
>>         false consciousness. Yet, I'd like to also just
>>         point to the fact that one must undertake such a
>>         claim with the utmost of humility since "they"
>>         are making precisely the same kind of claim about
>>         you.
>>
>>         You say that THEY are the ones who live in a
>>         world of false consciousness, while WE are the
>>         ones who are awake to the reality of things. This
>>         is precisely what climate deniers say of you!!!
>>         They say that you are caught up in the
>>         pseudo-science of climate change that works to
>>         further the introduce governmental control over
>>         our daily lives (an outcome that for them is just
>>         as monstrous as what you describe).
>>
>>         We can stand and shout and say that we are right
>>         and they are wrong, but we have to recognize that
>>         they are doing the same thing. We could try and
>>         kill them off since we are convinced that they
>>         are murders, but they might do the same. To me it
>>         seems, there is still something more that is needed.
>>
>>         Another way to go about this is to seek some kind
>>         of true understanding across these divides.
>>         Rather than dismissing "them" as a bunch of
>>         manipulators who are just trying to get theirs or
>>         a bunch of dupes who are going along with a line
>>         that they've been sold, why not try to engage
>>         "them" as humans just like "we" are humans? How
>>         many climate change deniers have we actually
>>         talked to and treated as humans? (but, you
>>         object, they aren't human!)
>>
>>         I don't think that this needs to be ALL of the
>>         work of climate justice, but I do think that it
>>         should be part of this work. And it happens to be
>>         one that is sorely lacking in many approaches.
>>         (and just to be clear, I'm not saying that it is
>>         lacking in yours, Alfredo, I'm just posing the
>>         question, perhaps you know and have had
>>         conversation with many deniers and realize their
>>         humanity).
>>
>>         -greg
>>
>>         p.s., I spoke with a recruiter for ExxonMobil
>>         this past week and he noted that their new CEO
>>         stated unequivocally that man-made climate change
>>         is real and that oil is a major cause of it.
>>
>>         On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Alfredo Jornet
>>         Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>>         <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>>             Andy,
>>
>>             I see and Greg’s point. I can see that not
>>             everyone denying climate change is
>>             necessarily a “bad” person or the evil in and
>>             of themselves.
>>
>>             However, I cannot agree with the statement
>>             that “everyone acts because they think it
>>             right to do so”. I’ve done (and keep doing)
>>             enough stupid (and wrong!) things in my life
>>             to be convinced of the falsehood of that
>>             statement. That statement, in my view, would
>>             ONLY apply to (a) instances in which people
>>             indeed ponder/consider what they are about to
>>             do before they do it, and (b) the nature of
>>             their pondering is in fact ethical.
>>
>>             Should we refer to Exxon corporate
>>             decision-makers who initiated misinformation
>>             campaigns to cast doubt on climate science as
>>             psychopaths (as per your definition)? Would
>>             that be fair to people with actual
>>             pathologies? I’d rather call them criminals.
>>
>>             You seem to assume (or I misread you as
>>             assuming) that all actions are taken based on
>>             a pondering on what is right or wrong, even
>>             when that pondering has not taken place.
>>             First, I don’t think we always act based on
>>             decision-making. Second, not every
>>             decision-making or pondering may consider
>>             ethical dimensions of right or wrong. I
>>             invite you to consider how many people among
>>             those who deny the climate science has
>>             actually gone through an ethical pondering
>>             when they “choose” to deny the science. My
>>             sense is that most deniers do not “choose,”
>>             but rather enact a position that is, in the
>>             metaphorical terms that the author of the
>>             article that Anne-Nelly has shared uses, in
>>             the air they breath within their communities.
>>             I am of the view that exercising ethics, just
>>             as exercising science denial in the 21st
>>             century, is engaging in a quite definite
>>             historical practice that has its background,
>>             resources, and patterns or habits. I think
>>             that if we exercised (practiced) more of
>>             ethics, science denial would be less of a
>>             “right” choice. That is, decision-making is a
>>             sociocultural endeavor, not something an
>>             individual comes up with alone. Sometimes we
>>             cannot choose how we feel or react, but we
>>             can choose who we get together to, the types
>>             of cultures within which we want to generate
>>             habits of action/mind.
>>
>>             We cannot de-politicize science, for it is
>>             only in political contexts that science comes
>>             to effect lives outside of the laboratory.
>>             But we can generate cultures of critical
>>             engagement, which I think would bring us
>>             closer to your option (3) at the end of your
>>             e-mail when you ponder whether/how to
>>             disentangle bipartisanism and scientific
>>             literacy. I don’t think then relativism (that
>>             you act ethically or not depending on what
>>             you think it’s right or not, independently of
>>             whether great amounts of suffering happen
>>             because of your actions) is what would
>>             thrive. Rather, I believe (and hope!)
>>             **humanity** would thrive, for it would
>>             always ponder the question Dewey posed when
>>             considering why we should prefer democracy
>>             over any other forms of political
>>             organization, such as fascism:
>>
>>             “Can we find any reason that does not
>>             ultimately come down to the belief that
>>             democratic social arrangements promote a
>>             better quality of human experience, one which
>>             is more widely accessible and enjoyed, than
>>             do nondemocratic and antidemocratic forms of
>>             social life? Does not the principle of regard
>>             for individual freedom and for decency and
>>             kindliness of human relations come back in
>>             the end to the conviction that these things
>>             are tributary to a higher quality of
>>             experience on the part of a greater number
>>             than are methods of repression and coercion
>>             or force?” (Dewey, Experience and Education,
>>             chapter 3).
>>
>>             Please, help me see how Exxon leaders
>>             considered any of these when they chose to
>>             deny the science, and thought it was right. I
>>             know voters did not “choose” in the same way
>>             (Exxon staff trusted the science, indeed!).
>>             But it is back there where you can find an
>>             explanation for climate change denial today;
>>             it is in the cultural-historical pattern of
>>             thinking they contributed engineering, along
>>             with political actors, and not in the
>>             individual head of the person denying that
>>             you find the explanation.
>>
>>             Alfredo
>>
>>             *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>             <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>>             behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
>>             <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>             *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>             Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>             <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>             *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28
>>             *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>             <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
>>             <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>             <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>             *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>>             Alfredo, I think Greg's point is basically
>>             right, that is, everyone acts because they
>>             think it right to do so. The only exception
>>             would be true psychopaths. The issue is:
>>             /why/ does this person believe this is the
>>             right thing to do and believe that this is
>>             the person I should trust and that this is
>>             the truth about the matter?
>>
>>             Take Darwinian Evolution as an example. In
>>             the USA, this question has been
>>             "politicised," that is, people either accept
>>             the science or not according to whether they
>>             vote Democrat or Republican. There are
>>             variants on this, and various exceptions, but
>>             for the largest numbers belief in the Bible
>>             or belief in the Science textbook are choices
>>             of being on this side or the other side. This
>>             is not the case in many other countries where
>>             Evolution is simply part of the Biology lesson.
>>
>>             In the UK, Anthropogenic climate change is
>>             not a Party question  either. People believe
>>             it whether they vote Tory or Labour. Still,
>>             how much people change their lives, etc.,
>>             does vary, but that varies according to other
>>             issues; it is not a Party question.
>>
>>             In Australia, Anthropogenic climate change is
>>             a Party question, even though this year
>>             right-wing political leaders no longer openly
>>             scorn climate science, but everyone knows
>>             this is skin deep. But like in the UK,
>>             Evolution is not a partisan question and eve
>>             the right-wing support public health (though
>>             it was not always so).
>>
>>             The strategic questions, it seems to me are:
>>             (1) is it possible to break a single issue
>>             away from the partisan platform, and for
>>             example, get Republicans to support the
>>             teaching of Biology and sending their kids to
>>             science classes with an open mind? Even while
>>             they still support capital punishment and
>>             opposed abortion and public health? Or (2) Is
>>             it possible to lever a person away from their
>>             partisan position on a scientific or moral
>>             question, without asking for them to flip
>>             sides altogether? or (3) Is it easier to work
>>             for the entire defeat of a Party which
>>             opposes Science and Humanity (as we see it)?
>>
>>             Andy
>>
>>             ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>             *Andy Blunden*
>>             Hegel for Social Movements
>>             <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>>             Home Page
>>             <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>>
>>             On 29/09/2019 8:16 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>>
>>                 Thanks Anne-Nelly, I had not read this
>>                 one. Very telling! __
>>
>>                 Alfredo
>>
>>
>>                 On 29 Sep 2019, at 10:20, PERRET-CLERMONT
>>                 Anne-Nelly
>>                 <Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch
>>                 <mailto:Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch>>
>>                 wrote:
>>
>>                     Alfredo,
>>
>>                     You probably remember  this very
>>                     interesting report from a journalist :
>>
>>                     https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/6/8/1863530/-A-close-family-member-votes-Republican-Now-I-understand-why-The-core-isn-t-bigotry-It-s-worse
>>
>>                     I like to mention it because it
>>                     contributes to illustrate your point,
>>                     shading light on powerful
>>                     micro-mechanisms.
>>
>>                     Anne-Nelly
>>
>>                     Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
>>
>>                     Institut de psychologie et éducation
>>                     Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines
>>
>>                     Université de Neuchâtel
>>
>>                     Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement:
>>                     Espace Louis-Agassiz 1)
>>
>>                     CH- 2000 Neuchâtel (Suisse)
>>
>>                     http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont
>>
>>                     A peine sorti de presse:
>>                     https://www.socialinfo.ch/les-livres/38-agir-et-penser-avec-anne-nelly-perret-clermont.html
>>
>>                     *De :
>>                     *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                     on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>                     <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>>                     <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
>>                     *Répondre à : *"eXtended Mind,
>>                     Culture, Activity"
>>                     <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                     *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019
>>                     à 09:45
>>                     *À : *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>                     Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                     *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer
>>                     <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>>                     <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
>>                     *Objet : *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>>                     Greg,
>>
>>                     Thanks, we are on the same page. But
>>                     you write: «most climate change
>>                     deniers are such because they feel
>>                     that this is the ethically good and
>>                     right position for humanity». I agree
>>                     on the difficulties, but I would like
>>                     to emphasize that being on the right
>>                     or the wrong side in issues of
>>                     climate change in today’s Global
>>                     societies is a matter of having
>>                     fallen pray to self-interested
>>                     manipulation by others, or of being
>>                     yourself one engaged in manipulating
>>                     others for your own.
>>
>>                     When you pick up a scientific article
>>                     (very unlikely if you are a denier)
>>                     or a press article, and read that the
>>                     Earth is warming due to human
>>                     civilization, and then think, “nah,
>>                     bullshit”, you most likely are
>>                     inclined to infer that way cause
>>                     that’s a cultural pattern of thinking
>>                     characteristic of a group or
>>                     community you belong to. There are
>>                     out there many psychology studies
>>                     showing the extent to which
>>                     “opinions” on climate science vary
>>                     not with respect to how much one
>>                     knows or understand, but rather with
>>                     respect to your religious and
>>                     political affiliation (see, for
>>                     example,
>>                     https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547
>>                     ).
>>
>>                     My point being that, when you deny
>>                     climate change today, you engage in a
>>                     practice that has a very definite
>>                     historical origin and motive, namely
>>                     the coordinated, systematic actions
>>                     of a given set of fossil fuel
>>                     corporations that, to this date,
>>                     continue lobbying to advance their
>>                     own interests, permeating through
>>                     many spheres of civic life, including
>>                     education:
>>
>>                     https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
>>
>>                     http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Greenpeace_Dealing-in-Doubt-1.pdf?53ea6e
>>
>>                     We know that the motives of these
>>                     corporations never were the “feel
>>                     that this is the ethically good and
>>                     right position for humanity”. Or do we?
>>
>>                     Again, educating about (climate)
>>                     **justice** and accountability may be
>>                     crucial to the “critical” approach
>>                     that has been mentioned in prior
>>                     e-mails.
>>
>>                     I too would love seeing Jen V.
>>                     chiming in on these matters.
>>
>>                     Alfredo
>>
>>                     *From:
>>                     *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                     on behalf of Greg Thompson
>>                     <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>>                     <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>>                     *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>                     Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                     *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at
>>                     04:15
>>                     *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>                     Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                     <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                     *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur
>>                     <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>>                     <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
>>                     *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>>                     Alfredo and Artin, Yes and yes.
>>
>>                     Alfredo, yes, I wasn't suggesting
>>                     doing without them, but simply that
>>                     something more is needed perhaps an
>>                     "ethical dimension" is needed
>>                     (recognizing that such a thing is
>>                     truly a hard fought accomplishment -
>>                     right/wrong and good/evil seems so
>>                     obvious from where we stand, but
>>                     others will see differently; most
>>                     climate change deniers are such
>>                     because they feel that this is the
>>                     ethically good and right position for
>>                     humanity not because they see it as
>>                     an evil and ethically wrong position).
>>
>>                     Artin, I wonder if Dr. Vadeboncoeur
>>                     might be willing to chime in?? Sounds
>>                     like a fascinating and important take
>>                     on the issue. Or maybe you could
>>                     point us to a reading?
>>
>>                     (and by coincidence, I had the
>>                     delight of dealing with Dr.
>>                     Vadebonceour's work in my data
>>                     analysis class this week via LeCompte
>>                     and Scheunsel's extensive use of her
>>                     work to describe data analysis
>>                     principles - my students found her
>>                     work to be super interesting and very
>>                     helpful for thinking about data
>>                     analysis).
>>
>>                     Cheers,
>>
>>                     greg
>>
>>                     On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:19 AM
>>                     Goncu, Artin <goncu@uic.edu
>>                     <mailto:goncu@uic.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>                         The varying meanings and
>>                         potential abuses of the
>>                         connection between imagination
>>                         and trust appear to be activity
>>                         specific. This can be seen even
>>                         in the same activity, i.e., trust
>>                         and imagination may be abused. 
>>                         For example, I took pains for
>>                         many years to illustrate that
>>                         children’s construction of
>>                         intersubjectivity in social
>>                         imaginative play requires trust
>>                         in one another. Children make the
>>                         proleptic assumption that their
>>                         potential partners are sincere,
>>                         know something about the topics
>>                         proposed for imaginative play,
>>                         and will participate in the
>>                         negotiations of assumed joint
>>                         imaginative pasts and anticipated
>>                         futures. However, this may not
>>                         always be the case. As Schousboe
>>                         showed, children may abuse play
>>                         to institute their own abusive
>>                         agendas as evidenced in her
>>                         example of two five year old
>>                         girls pretending that actual
>>                         urine in a bottle was soda pop
>>                          trying to make a three year old
>>                         girl to drink it. This clearly
>>                         supports exploring how we
>>                         can/should inquire what Alfredo
>>                         calls the third dimension. More
>>                         to the point, how do we teach
>>                         right from wrong in shared
>>                         imagination? Vadeboncoeur has
>>                         been addressing the moral
>>                         dimensions of imagination in her
>>                         recent work.
>>
>>                         Artin
>>
>>                         Artin Goncu, Ph.D
>>
>>                         Professor, Emeritus
>>
>>                         University of Illinois at Chicago
>>
>>                         www.artingoncu.com/
>>                         <http://www.artingoncu.com/>
>>
>>                         *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                         <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>                         [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                         <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>]
>>                         *On Behalf Of *Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>                         *Sent:* Saturday, September 28,
>>                         2019 9:35 AM
>>                         *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>                         Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                         <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                         *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and
>>                         Science
>>
>>                         Yes, Greg, I agree there is all
>>                         grounds and rights to question
>>                         trust and imagination, but I am
>>                         less inclined to think that we
>>                         can do without them both. So, if
>>                         there is a difference between
>>                         imaginative propaganda aimed at
>>                         confusing the public, and
>>                         imaginative education that grows
>>                         from hope and will for the common
>>                         good, then perhaps we need a
>>                         third element that discerns good
>>                         from evil? Right from wrong? That
>>                         may why, in order for people to
>>                         actually engage in
>>                         transformational action, what
>>                         they need the most is not just to
>>                         understand Climate Change, but
>>                         most importantly, Climate
>>                         Justice. Don’t you think?
>>
>>                         Alfredo
>>
>>                         *From:
>>                         *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                         <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                         on behalf of Greg Thompson
>>                         <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>>                         <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>>                         *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind,
>>                         Culture, Activity"
>>                         <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                         <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                         *Date: *Saturday, 28 September
>>                         2019 at 16:05
>>                         *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>                         Activity"
>>                         <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                         <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                         *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and
>>                         Science
>>
>>                         Note that there is a great deal
>>                         of trust and imagination going on
>>                         right now in the US. We have the
>>                         most imaginative president we’ve
>>                         had in years. He can imagine his
>>                         way to bigly approval ratings and
>>                         a massive inaugural turnout. He
>>                         imagines that trying to get dirt
>>                         on an opponent is a “beautiful
>>                         conversation”. And if you watch
>>                         the media these days, he has a
>>                         cadre of others who are doing
>>                         additional imagining for him as
>>                         well - they are imagining what
>>                         the DNC is trying to do to ouster
>>                         this president, they are
>>                         imagining what Joe Biden might
>>                         really have been up to with that
>>                         prosecutor. And what makes
>>                         matters worst is that there is a
>>                         rather large contingent of people
>>                         in the US who trust this cadre of
>>                         imaginative propagandists and who
>>                         trust Trump and believe that they
>>                         are the only ones who have the
>>                         real truth.
>>
>>                         So I guess I’m suggesting there
>>                         might be reason to question
>>                         imagination and trust (and this
>>                         all was heightened for me by a
>>                         dip into the imaginative and
>>                         trust-filled land of conservative
>>                         talk radio yesterday - but you
>>                         can find the same message from
>>                         anyone who is a Trump truster -
>>                         including a number of politicians
>>                         who are playing the same game of
>>                         avoiding the facts (no one on
>>                         those talk shows actually
>>                         repeated any of the damning words
>>                         from Trumps phone call) while
>>                         constructing an alternative
>>                         narrative that listeners trust).
>>
>>                         Sadly,
>>
>>                         Greg
>>
>>                         On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:17 AM
>>                         Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>                         <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>>                         <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>>                             Henry, all,
>>
>>                             Further resonating with Beth
>>                             et al’s letter, and with what
>>                             Henry and Andy just wrote, I
>>                             too think the point at which
>>                             trust and imagination meet is
>>                             key.
>>
>>                             A couple of days ago, I
>>                             watched, together with my two
>>                             daughters (10 and 4 years old
>>                             respectively) segments of the
>>                             /Right to a Future /event
>>                             organized by The Intercept
>>                             https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/greta-thunberg-naomi-klein-climate-change-livestream/,
>>                             where young and not-so-young
>>                             activists and journalists
>>                             discussed visions of 2029 if
>>                             we, today, would lead radical
>>                             change. It was a great chance
>>                             to engage in some
>>                             conversation with my children
>>                             about these issues, specially
>>                             with my older one; about hope
>>                             and about the importance of
>>                             fighting for justice.
>>
>>                             At some point in a follow-up
>>                             conversation that we had in
>>                             bed, right before sleep, we
>>                             spoke about the good things
>>                             that we still have with
>>                             respect to nature and
>>                             community, and I–perhaps not
>>                             having considered my
>>                             daughter’s limited awareness
>>                             of the reach of the
>>                             crisis–emphasized that it was
>>                             important to value and enjoy
>>                             those things we have in the
>>                             present, when there is
>>                             uncertainty as to the
>>                             conditions that there will be
>>                             in the near future. My
>>                             daughter, very concerned,
>>                             turned to me and, with what I
>>                             felt was a mix of fair and
>>                             skepticism, said: “but dad,
>>                             are not people fixing the
>>                             problem already so that
>>                             everything will go well?”
>>
>>                             It truly broke my heart. I
>>                             reassured her that we are
>>                             working as hard as we can,
>>                             but invited her not to stop
>>                             reminding everyone that we
>>                             cannot afford stop fighting.
>>
>>                             My daughter clearly exhibited
>>                             her (rightful) habit of trust
>>                             that adults address problems,
>>                             that they’ll take care of us,
>>                             that things will end well, or
>>                             at least, that they’ll try
>>                             their best. In terms of
>>                             purely formal scientific
>>                             testing, it turns out that my
>>                             daughter’s hypothesis could
>>                             easily be rejected, as it is
>>                             rather the case that my
>>                             parent’s generation did very
>>                             little to address problems
>>                             they were “aware” of (another
>>                             discussion is what it is
>>                             meant by “awareness” in cases
>>                             such as being aware of the
>>                             effects of fossil fuels and
>>                             still accelerating their
>>                             exploitation). Yet, it would
>>                             totally be against the
>>                             interest of science and
>>                             society that my daughter
>>                             loses that trust. For if she
>>                             does, then I fear she will be
>>                             incapable of imagining a
>>                             thriving future to demand and
>>                             fight for. I fear she will
>>                             lose a firm ground for
>>                             agency. Which teaches me that
>>                             the pedagogy that can help in
>>                             this context of crisis is one
>>                             in which basic trust in the
>>                             good faith and orientation
>>                             towards the common good of
>>                             expertise is restored, and
>>                             that the only way to restore
>>                             it is by indeed acting
>>                             accordingly, reclaiming and
>>                             occupying the agency and
>>                             responsibility of making sure
>>                             that younger and older can
>>                             continue creatively imagining
>>                             a future in which things will
>>                             go well at the end.
>>
>>                             Alfredo
>>
>>                             *From:
>>                             *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                             <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                             on behalf of Andy Blunden
>>                             <andyb@marxists.org
>>                             <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>                             *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind,
>>                             Culture, Activity"
>>                             <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                             <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                             *Date: *Saturday, 28
>>                             September 2019 at 04:38
>>                             *To:
>>                             *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                             <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
>>                             <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>                             <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>                             *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Trust and
>>                             Science
>>
>>                             Science is based on trust,
>>                             isn't it, Henry. Only a
>>                             handful of people have
>>                             actually measured climate
>>                             change, and then probably
>>                             only one factor. If we have a
>>                             picture of climate change at
>>                             all, for scientists and
>>                             non-scientists alike, it is
>>                             only because we /trust/ the
>>                             institutions of science
>>                             sufficiently. And yet,
>>                             everyone on this list knows
>>                             how wrong these institutions
>>                             can be when it comes to the
>>                             area of our own expertise. So
>>                             "blind trust" is not enough,
>>                             one needs "critical trust" so
>>                             to speak, in order to know
>>                             anything scientifically. Very
>>                             demanding.
>>
>>                             Important as trust is, I am
>>                             inclined to think trust and
>>                             its absence are symptoms of
>>                             even more fundamental
>>                             societal characteristics,
>>                             because it is never just a
>>                             question of *how much* trust
>>                             there is in a society, but
>>                             *who* people trust. It seems
>>                             that nowadays people  are
>>                             very erratic about *who *they
>>                             trust about *what *and who
>>                             they do not trust.
>>
>>                             Probably the agreement you
>>                             saw between Huw and me was
>>                             probably pretty shaky, but we
>>                             have a commonality in our
>>                             trusted sources, we have
>>                             worked together in the past
>>                             and share basic respect for
>>                             each other and for science.
>>                             Workable agreement. I despair
>>                             over what I see happening in
>>                             the UK now, where MPs
>>                             genuinely fear for their
>>                             lives because of the level of
>>                             hatred and division in the
>>                             community, which is beginning
>>                             to be even worse than what
>>                             Trump has created in the US.
>>                             A total breakdown in trust
>>                             *alongside* tragically
>>                             misplaced trust in a couple
>>                             of utterly cynical criminals!
>>                             The divisions are just as
>>                             sharp here in Oz too, but it
>>                             has not go to that
>>                             frightening level of menace
>>                             it has reached in the UK and US.
>>
>>                             Greta Thunberg talks of a
>>                             plural, collective "we" in
>>                             opposition to a singular
>>                             personal "you." She
>>                             brilliantly, in my opinion,
>>                             turns this black-and-white
>>                             condition of the world around
>>                             in a manner which just could
>>                             turn it into its negation.
>>                             Her use of language at the UN
>>                             is reminiscent of Churchill's
>>                             "we fill fight them on the
>>                             beaches ..." speech and
>>                             Martin Luther King's "I have
>>                             a dream" speech. There's
>>                             something for you linguists
>>                             to get your teeth into!
>>
>>                             Andy
>>
>>                             ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                             *Andy Blunden*
>>                             Hegel for Social Movements
>>                             <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>>                             Home Page
>>                             <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>>                             On 28/09/2019 2:42 am, HENRY
>>                             SHONERD wrote:
>>
>>                                 Andy and Huw,
>>
>>                                 This is a perfect example
>>                                 of what I was talking
>>                                 about in the discussion
>>                                 of your article on
>>                                 Academia: Two
>>                                 philosophers having a
>>                                 dialog about the same
>>                                 pholosophical object, a
>>                                 dialog manifesting an
>>                                 experience of common
>>                                 understanding. In the
>>                                 same way that two
>>                                 mathematicians might
>>                                 agree on a mathematical
>>                                 proof. I have to believe
>>                                 that you are not bull
>>                                 shitting, that you really
>>                                 have understood each
>>                                 other via your language.
>>                                 So, of course this is of
>>                                 interest to a linguist,
>>                                 even though he/I don’t
>>                                 really get the “proof”. I
>>                                 may not understand the
>>                                 arguments you are making,
>>                                 but I can imagine, based
>>                                 on slogging through
>>                                 thinking as a lingist,
>>                                 what it’s like to get it.
>>
>>                                 I think this relates to
>>                                 the problem in the world
>>                                 of a lack of trust in
>>                                 scientific expertise, in
>>                                 expertise in general.
>>                                 Where concpetual thinking
>>                                 reigns. So many climate
>>                                 deniers. So many
>>                                 Brexiters. But can you
>>                                 blame them entirely?
>>                                 Probably it would be
>>                                 better to say that trust
>>                                 isn’t enough. The problem
>>                                 is a lack of connection
>>                                 between trust and the
>>                                 creative imagination.
>>                                 It’s what Beth Fernholt
>>                                 and her pals have sent to
>>                                 the New Yorker.
>>
>>                                 Henry
>>
>>                                     On Sep 27, 2019, at
>>                                     6:40 AM, Andy Blunden
>>                                     <andyb@marxists.org
>>                                     <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>                                     wrote:
>>
>>                                     Thanks, Huw.
>>
>>                                     The
>>                                     interconnectedness of
>>                                     the "four concepts,"
>>                                     I agree, they imply
>>                                     each other, but
>>                                     nonetheless, they
>>                                     remain distinct
>>                                     insights. Just
>>                                     because you get one,
>>                                     you don't necessarily
>>                                     get the others.
>>
>>                                     Hegel uses the
>>                                     expression "true
>>                                     concept" only rarely.
>>                                     Generally, he simply
>>                                     uses the word
>>                                     "concept," and uses a
>>                                     variety of other
>>                                     terms like "mere
>>                                     conception" or
>>                                     "representation" or
>>                                     "category" to
>>                                     indicate something
>>                                     short of a concept,
>>                                     properly so called,
>>                                     but there is no
>>                                     strict categorisation
>>                                     for Hegel. Hegel is
>>                                     not talking about
>>                                     Psychology, let alone
>>                                     child psychology.
>>                                     Like with Vygotsky,
>>                                     all thought-forms (or
>>                                     forms of activity)
>>                                     are just phases (or
>>                                     stages) in the
>>                                     development of a
>>                                     concept. Reading your
>>                                     message, I think I am
>>                                     using the term "true
>>                                     concept" in much the
>>                                     same way you are.
>>
>>                                     (This is not relevant
>>                                     to my article, but I
>>                                     distinguish "true
>>                                     concept" from "actual
>>                                     concept." All the
>>                                     various forms of
>>                                     "complexive thinking"
>>                                     fall short, so to
>>                                     speak, of "true
>>                                     concepts," and
>>                                     further development
>>                                     takes an abstract
>>                                     concept, such as
>>                                     learnt in lecture 101
>>                                     of a topic, to an
>>                                     "actual concept". But
>>                                     that is not relevant
>>                                     here. Hegel barely
>>                                     touches on these issues.)
>>
>>                                     I don't agree with
>>                                     your specific
>>                                     categories, but yes,
>>                                     for Vygotsky,
>>                                     chapters 4, 5 and 6
>>                                     are all talking about
>>                                     concepts in a
>>                                     developmental sense.
>>                                     There are about 10
>>                                     distinct stages for
>>                                     Vygotsky. And they
>>                                     are not equivalent to
>>                                     any series of stages
>>                                     identified by Hegel.
>>                                     Vgotsky's "stages"
>>                                     were drawn from a
>>                                     specific experiment
>>                                     with children;
>>                                     Hegel's Logic is cast
>>                                     somewhat differently
>>                                     (the Logic is not a
>>                                     series of stages) and
>>                                     has a domain much
>>                                     larger than Psychology.
>>
>>                                     The experienced
>>                                     doctor does not use
>>                                     what I would call
>>                                     "formal concepts" in
>>                                     her work, which are
>>                                     what I would call the
>>                                     concepts they learnt
>>                                     in Diagnostics 101
>>                                     when they were a
>>                                     student. After 20
>>                                     years of experience,
>>                                     these formal concepts
>>                                     have accrued
>>                                     practical life
>>                                     experience, and
>>                                     remain true concepts,
>>                                     but are no longer
>>                                     "formal." Of course,
>>                                     the student was not
>>                                     taught pseudoconcepts
>>                                     in Diagnostics 101.
>>                                     But all this is
>>                                     nothing to do with
>>                                     the article in question.
>>
>>                                     Hegel and Vygotsky
>>                                     are talking about
>>                                     different things, but
>>                                     even in terms of the
>>                                     subject matter, but
>>                                     especially in terms
>>                                     of the conceptual
>>                                     form, there is more
>>                                     Hegel in "Thinking
>>                                     and Speech" than
>>                                     initially meets the eye.
>>
>>                                     Andy
>>
>>                                     ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                                     *Andy Blunden*
>>                                     Hegel for Social
>>                                     Movements
>>                                     <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>>                                     Home Page
>>                                     <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>>                                     On 27/09/2019 4:32
>>                                     pm, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>                                         The "four
>>                                         concepts", for
>>                                         me, are four
>>                                         aspects of one
>>                                         understanding --
>>                                         they imply each
>>                                         other.
>>
>>                                         Quoting this passage:
>>
>>
>>                                         "The ‘abstract
>>                                         generality’
>>                                         referred to above
>>                                         by Hegel,
>>                                         Vygotsky aptly
>>                                         called a
>>                                         ‘pseudoconcept’ -
>>                                         a form of
>>                                         abstract
>>                                         generalization,
>>                                         uniting objects
>>                                         by shared common
>>                                         features, which
>>                                         resembles
>>                                         conceptual
>>                                         thinking because,
>>                                         within a limited
>>                                         domain
>>                                         ofexperience,
>>                                         they subsume the
>>                                         same objects and
>>                                         situations as the
>>                                         true concept
>>                                         indicated by the
>>                                         same word.
>>                                         The pseudoconcept
>>                                         is not the
>>                                         exclusive
>>                                         achievement of
>>                                         the child. In our
>>                                         everyday lives,
>>                                         our thinking
>>                                         frequently occurs
>>                                         in
>>                                         pseudoconcepts.
>>                                         From the
>>                                         perspective of
>>                                         dialectical
>>                                         logic, the
>>                                         concepts that we
>>                                         find in our
>>                                         living speech are
>>                                         not concepts in
>>                                         the true sense of
>>                                         the word. They
>>                                         are actually
>>                                         general
>>                                         representations
>>                                         of things. There
>>                                         is no doubt,
>>                                         however, that
>>                                         these
>>                                         representations
>>                                         are a
>>                                         transitional
>>                                         stage between
>>                                         complexes or
>>                                         pseudoconcepts
>>                                         and true
>>                                         concepts.
>>                                         (Vygotsky,
>>                                         1934/1987, p. 155)"
>>
>>                                         My impression
>>                                         from your text,
>>                                         Andy, is that you
>>                                         are misreading
>>                                         Vygotsky's
>>                                         "Thinking and
>>                                         Speech". Implicit
>>                                         LSV's whole text
>>                                         of vol. 1 is an
>>                                         appreciation for
>>                                         different kinds
>>                                         of conception (3
>>                                         levels: pseudo,
>>                                         formal, and
>>                                         dialectical), but
>>                                         the terminology
>>                                         of "concept" is
>>                                         only applied to
>>                                         the formal
>>                                         concept, i.e.
>>                                         where Vygotsky
>>                                         writes "concept"
>>                                         one can read
>>                                         "formal concept".
>>
>>                                         In vol. 1,
>>                                         the analysis of
>>                                         the trajectory of
>>                                         the thought of
>>                                         the child is
>>                                         towards a growing
>>                                         achievement of
>>                                         employing formal
>>                                         concepts. These
>>                                         formal concepts
>>                                         are only called
>>                                         "true concepts"
>>                                         (not to be
>>                                         confused with
>>                                         Hegel's true
>>                                         concept) in
>>                                         relation to the
>>                                         pseudo (fake or
>>                                         untrue) formal
>>                                         concepts. The
>>                                         pseudo concepts
>>                                         pertain to a form
>>                                         of cognition that
>>                                         is considered by
>>                                         Vygotsky (quite
>>                                         sensibly) to
>>                                         precede the
>>                                         concepts of
>>                                         formal logic.
>>                                         This is quite
>>                                         obvious to any
>>                                         thorough-going
>>                                         psychological
>>                                         reading of the text.
>>
>>                                         However, within
>>                                         the frame of
>>                                         analysis of the
>>                                         text there is
>>                                         another form of
>>                                         conception which
>>                                         is Vygotsky's
>>                                         approach towards
>>                                         a dialectical
>>                                         understanding.
>>                                         None of
>>                                         Vygotsky's
>>                                         utterances about
>>                                         dialectics (in
>>                                         this volume)
>>                                         should be
>>                                         conflated with
>>                                         the "true
>>                                         concept" which he
>>                                         is using as a
>>                                         short-hand for
>>                                         the "true formal
>>                                         concept",
>>                                         similarly none of
>>                                         Vygotsky's
>>                                         utterances about
>>                                         "pseudo concepts"
>>                                         should be
>>                                         confused with
>>                                         formal concepts.
>>
>>                                         I hope that helps,
>>
>>                                         Huw
>>
>>                                         On Sat, 21 Sep
>>                                         2019 at 06:37,
>>                                         Andy Blunden
>>                                         <andyb@marxists.org
>>                                         <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>                                         wrote:
>>
>>                                             I'd dearly
>>                                             like to get
>>                                             some
>>                                             discussion
>>                                             going on this:
>>
>>                                                 It will
>>                                                 be shown
>>                                                 that at
>>                                                 least
>>                                                 four
>>                                                 foundational
>>                                                 concepts
>>                                                 of
>>                                                 Cultural
>>                                                 Historical
>>                                                 Activity
>>                                                 Theory
>>                                                 were
>>                                                 previously
>>                                                 formulated
>>                                                 by Hegel,
>>                                                 viz., (1)
>>                                                 the unit
>>                                                 of
>>                                                 analysis
>>                                                 as a key
>>                                                 concept
>>                                                 for
>>                                                 analytic-synthetic
>>                                                 cognition,
>>                                                 (2) the
>>                                                 centrality
>>                                                 of
>>                                                 artifact-mediated
>>                                                 actions,
>>                                                 (3) the
>>                                                 definitive
>>                                                 distinction
>>                                                 between
>>                                                 goal and
>>                                                 motive in
>>                                                 activities,
>>                                                 and (4)
>>                                                 the
>>                                                 distinction
>>                                                 between a
>>                                                 true
>>                                                 concept
>>                                                 and a
>>                                                 pseudoconcept.
>>
>>                                             https://www.academia.edu/s/7d70db6eb3/the-hegelian-sources-of-cultural-historical-activity-theory
>>
>>                                             Andy
>>
>>                                             -- 
>>
>>                                             ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                                             *Andy Blunden*
>>                                             Hegel for
>>                                             Social
>>                                             Movements
>>                                             <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>>                                             Home Page
>>                                             <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>>                         -- 
>>
>>                         Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>>                         Assistant Professor
>>
>>                         Department of Anthropology
>>
>>                         880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>>                         Brigham Young University
>>
>>                         Provo, UT 84602
>>
>>                         WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>>                         <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>>                         http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>                     -- 
>>
>>                     Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>>                     Assistant Professor
>>
>>                     Department of Anthropology
>>
>>                     880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>>                     Brigham Young University
>>
>>                     Provo, UT 84602
>>
>>                     WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>>                     <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>>                     http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>
>>         Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>>         Assistant Professor
>>
>>         Department of Anthropology
>>
>>         880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>>         Brigham Young University
>>
>>         Provo, UT 84602
>>
>>         WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>>         <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>>         http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>>     Assistant Professor
>>
>>     Department of Anthropology
>>
>>     880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>>     Brigham Young University
>>
>>     Provo, UT 84602
>>
>>     WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>>     <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>>     http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu 
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20191001/6c89135c/attachment.html 


More information about the xmca-l mailing list