[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Sep 29 08:39:21 PDT 2019
You make a powerful point, Alfredo, in reflecting on your
own past actions, and in appealing to us all to reflect on
our own past actions. Of course, you are right there, and my
idea was poorly worked out.
I have to agree with you that people do not adopt positions
and beliefs and engage in practices as the result of
specific, self-conscious *choices*. And that makes our
problem worse, doesn't it? If the point you got out of
Anne-Nelly's article was that people don't "think about"
these things, then you're probably right, but I don't think
that apples to one "side" and not the other.
Also, I must rush to say that I had no intention of
promoting a relativist point here. The destruction of the
conditions for life on Earth (to put it most strongly) does
not admit of relativism. I am just trying to point to what
people call the "tribal" nature of these problems. I am
quite partisan myself.
So we have a set of politicians in Australia, who recently
won an election, who proudly say that they think that when
designing the country's energy system, they should be
"neutral" as to how much emissions a technology produces, so
long as it produces cheap reliable energy. Do we think that
they believe themselves to be deliberately destroying the
basis of life on Earth? As Greta Thunberg said, "We refuse
to believe that, because that would make you evil" (or words
very much like that).
So, thank you for the corrections, Aflredo, but I think my
essential point is still intact. That is, in the main we are
dealing with partisanship which glues together whole suites
of beliefs and practices.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
On 30/09/2019 12:37 am, Alfredo Jornet Gil 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
> <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/97eb7743/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list