[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science

Tue Oct 1 10:14:15 PDT 2019

 Andy,1. Later in reading other posts , I got what I should have gotten from Greg's response to your message. That post and many other posts from him in the past makes us understand what he thinks of Marx. I can guess Alfredo also learnt from him how close they've been towards each other in unanimity and away from putative disagreement. 
2. This bold type gives me nothing of an obligatory return to MORALITY as Marx stated. On the contrary , they give me stronger clues as to the impermissibility of putting any and every concept under the aegis of MORALITY. Yes , in every community and in every era there are "appropriate values" which the societal folk take as their norms of conduct and inherent principles but not weighed against some external ever trustworthy criteria "fake universals" as Moral Codes. 
3. And this to the same Tone :
Marx :“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been
modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political
science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of
society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality,
instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical
experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the
development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation
of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, *that the social consciousness of past ages,
**despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays**, **moves within certain common forms, or general
ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms**.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no
wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. 

All I said amounts to Morality not being a Marxian Doctrinaire as astoundingly expressed in the previous post. 
The other time you brought up Lenin's piece (to the demand of our Turk colleague) as displaying Our Morality=Our Commitment to eradicate exploitation. How can we subsume Eradication of Exploitation (and many other appropriate specific  temporally and spatially/locally-laden values under the general term Morality? And this ends our contention!
Regards Haydi

    On Tuesday, October 1, 2019, 03:42:15 PM GMT+3:30, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:  

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
 Home Page  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> 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> 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: 

   -  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.  
   -  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. 
   -  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> on behalf of Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
 Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44
 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <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> 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> on behalf of Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
 Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45
 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <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> 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> on behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
 Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28
 To: "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" <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
 Home Page 

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> 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> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet  Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>
 Répondre à : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Date : dimanche, 29 septembre 2019 à 09:45
 À : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Cc : Vadeboncoeur Jennifer <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> on behalf of Greg Thompson  <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
 Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Date: Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 04:15
 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Cc: Jennifer Vadeboncoeur <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> 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/

From: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>
 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> on behalf of Greg Thompson  <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
 Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 16:05
 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <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> 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> on behalf of Andy Blunden  <andyb@marxists.org>
 Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
 Date: Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 04:38
 To: "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" <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
 Home Page

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> wrote:

Thanks, Huw. 

Theinterconnectedness 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
 Home Page

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> 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
 Home Page

-- 

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://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://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://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://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://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson      

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20191001/4328569c/attachment-0001.html 