[Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

Thu Aug 13 11:13:29 PDT 2020

Hello conscious and venerable others,

Mike points out a very important point that conscious awareness cannot be a product of scientific concepts. "Conscious awareness" is a gummy term.

I am confused about the citation about chess. Is that Spinoza or Vygotsky?

It's V not S, right? What was the Spinoza text that caught Vygotsky's attention? David would you mind to cite it?

I am also curious what the Russian words used to create the English translation of "conscious awareness"? Can someone illuminate that for my awareness?

"Conscious awareness"  is sort of like saying "wet water,"

No, actually? it is like saying "watery water."

If we can say "conscious awareness" does that mean we say "unconscious awareness"?

What does that look like?

Can we say "conscious unawareness"?

I don't think so.

Awareness is awareness.

I can take a drop out of the sea, but I can't call it the sea, though if I put it back it's not the sea + drop.

It's just the sea, see?

However, you can't parse a drop of awareness.

If it were possible to take one awareness with another awareness, it's still awareness. If I take part of awareness from another awareness it's still awareness.

Awareness is not really something that can be divided into parts or added to into something "larger."

The trouble with the word "consiousness," is that it gets tangled with states of brain activity, being awake vs. asleep vs. deep sleep vs. catatonic vs. comatose, unconscious, etc.

"Consciousness" is a word like "space." We can divide space, but it is really an illusion. Everything is in space, so the small room vs the big room is just an illusion in terms of conceptual size. It's more of a perceptual relationship than something quantitative (say, if looking from the standpoint of space, space is just space). The walls of the rooms are in space too.

This is why awareness/consciousness cannot be mixed up with thinking processes.

Awareness is always present, but I sense the content of what is discussed here pertains to knowledge not awareness.

That's why I'm suspicious about the translation. Is this mistake in the translation? or did Vygotsky make this mistake?

Of course it seems a silly semantic argument, but the meaning of the words do substantially alter how we think about the concepts they convey, especially if we do not precisely understand the intention the the words were used by the speaker/writer.

There is a distinct (and special) relationship between perception and knowledge. We can't perceive anything without awareness. We also can't know anything without awareness. I maintain that this is what Spinoza references as "substance." He is right about that. It's that necessary white elephant.

To master something is to know it. To know it isn't always to master it. We could say Vygotsky attempts to isolate what is different about mastery compared to when mastery isn't evident.

If we could as-if parse awareness from cognition and set awareness aside, we could then look at the relationship between knowledge and cognition, in that knowledge can be measured in the individual based upon how well the individual's knowledge effectively maps to the world (or reality), while cognition on the other hand is the manifest biological interaction to build those maps. We know cognition is distributed, and that it includes society, tools, etc. It's not just happening in the chamber of the brain, that crafty and mysterious black, I mean grey box.

Like many philosophers and psychologists, I take it Vygotsky is discussing the ways in which perceptions and awareness of perceptions are organized subjectively.

If that "structure" is organized in such a way that it maps accurately to the environment, then one can assert there is objective knowledge of the environment, and the better this map "functions," the more mastery is evident.

When it is not mapping that effectively, I think we might call that in a positive sense "imagination" or in a negative sense, "delusion."

Humans do have a tendency for delusion as can be witnessed today. It's a very interesting experiment to see the battle of "everyday concepts" and "scientific concepts" in the news about the pandemic.

In this sense, on the matter of subjective organization of thinking, "primitive" people can have "higher" conceptual developments, as Levi-Strauss has shown us long ago. We might not recognize the value of that mastery because we might not share those thought-organizations of the natural environment that that culture possesses. Why would we share them?

It's a little like witnessing two foreigners speaking to one another and basing their intelligence on the way the phonetic profile of the language appeals or repels our aesthetic sensibilities for sound.

Vygotsky was a little guilty of this kind of "modern" chauvanism. (who isn't?)

I might ask, how much of this might have been self-censorship (or circumspection) within a Soviet society? To possibly barter his ideas better? Is there any evidence of Vygotsky doing that? (I'm inclined to say no, but would like to hear from others mor familier with his texts and relationships with others) Might you help me understand that part. I suppose it depends on how aware he was of this chauvanism?

Was there for example anything political about Vygotsky's relationship with Krupskaya? Was there anything political about the anthropology study with Luria?

Is it fair to say that Soviet thinking at the time was to ask "How to create a better human?" But for Vygotsky (and other learning scientists) it was "How to *scientifically* create a better human?" using what we know about mind and how it develops?

Is it me or can there be something Frankenstein-ish about the question, frankly (pun ha ha), if not arrogant. Who decides what is "better"?

If "scientific" is referencing an empirical method of analysis, based upon trial and error, OK, but does the individual have to know that it is scientific in order for it to be scientific?

I guess this is where the functional/structural argument loops about.

Why couldn't the reality of learning be both functional and structural.

My take is that what is in common about functions and structures are their patterns.

A pattern is the differential between the function and the structure.

Consider the music score (structure) and the musician playing the music (function).

The pattern is what is present in both. An added benefit is that its translation can evolve in time into other patterns (think Jazz).

I remember Vera saying that the phrase "scientific concept" is a little problematic. I know she didn't like "everyday concepts" either. My memory is not recalling what she thought was more appropriate at the moment.

I hope it isn't heretical to suggest that the pattern might a better unit for analysis than activity. (Gee is that my hair that has been singed??)

When considering conceptual development the pattern is effective because the it can translate between subjective experience and objective experience (biological, social, cultural, etc).

On another note: Has anyone considered Vygotsky through a feminist lens?

Also: Is it possible that there were so many women who he cited because women were more likely to be school teachers, as is the case today?

I am quite enjoying this thread. Thank you.

Kind regards,

Annalisa

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:23 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

  [EXTERNAL]

Hi Anthony

I understand that to mean that humans who have not achieved scientific/real concepts do not have conscious awareness.

What am I missing?
Mike

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:06 PM Anthony Barra <anthonymbarra@gmail.com<mailto:anthonymbarra@gmail.com>> wrote:
Good afternoon,

This is a question -- and an invitation:

First the question: What do you understand the passage below (at the bottom of this email) to mean?

Second, the invitation: How about sharing your thoughts in short video form? It's quite enjoyable (ask Andy; ask David; etc) -- and it's also helpful, not only to me but to anyone watching or listening. (Here is the question again, in video form: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/l41nsz__;!!Mih3wA!TFOVdJMqbDU7RBpAWu7OPKTkeKXa9sHDYdKgyFkPtovQVCN2S-WXyyWTPSf46YGVhrjj1g$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/l41nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RbTsEBrr1M-JQ2E0Cza-8aoA440vsBAtR7DQicuejOZvYN1AOyytgVid7plmKnYKHKx2jw$>)

I believe that many people -- including many teachers -- would benefit from answers to this question, preferably multiple answers. With permission, I will nicely edit and add your response to this growing list of asked-and-answered questions: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/451nsz__;!!Mih3wA!TFOVdJMqbDU7RBpAWu7OPKTkeKXa9sHDYdKgyFkPtovQVCN2S-WXyyWTPSf46YEPoafodQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/451nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RbTsEBrr1M-JQ2E0Cza-8aoA440vsBAtR7DQicuejOZvYN1AOyytgVid7plmKnayu3KfOQ$>  Thanks for considering it, and note that we don't care about perfectionism here; it's mostly for fun.

Here is the passage in question, from Thinking and Speech, Ch. 6, pp. 190-1:
"To perceive something in a different way means to acquire new potentials for acting with respect to it. At the chess board, to see differently is to play differently. By generalizing the process of activity itself, I acquire the potential for new relationships with it. To speak crudely, it is as if this process has been isolated from the general activity of consciousness. I am conscious of the fact that I remember. I make my own remembering the object of consciousness. An isolation arises here. In a certain sense, any generalization or abstraction isolates its object. This is why conscious awareness – understood as generalization – leads directly to mastery.

Thus, the foundation of conscious awareness is the generalization or abstraction of the mental processes, which leads to their mastery. Instruction has a decisive role in this process. Scientific concepts have a unique relationship to the object. This relationship is mediated through other concepts that themselves have an internal hierarchical system of interrelationships. It is apparently in this domain of the scientific concept that conscious awareness of concepts or the generalization and mastery of concepts emerges for the first time. And once a new structure of generalization has arisen in one sphere of thought, it can – like any structure – be transferred without training to all remaining domains of concepts and thought. Thus, conscious awareness enters through the gate opened up by the scientific concept."

What do you understand this passage to mean?

Thanks 😎

Anthony Barra

P.S. My first encounter with Thinking and Speech was very difficult, even with the help of talented classmates and a smart professor. Thankfully, three online videos from Nikolai Veresov, presented not as a definitive reading but as a general map of the book's terrain, were really so helpful and encouraging for me. If any videos I'm posting turn out to be similarly useful (as a number of people have told me), that's great. So thank you again to anyone interested in participating.

--

I[Angelus Novus]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus_Novus__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANlVawtVtw$>The Angel's View of History

It is only in a social context that subjectivism and objectivism, spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity cease to be antinomies, and thus cease to exist as such antinomies. The resolution of the theoretical contradictions is possible only through practical means, only through the practical energy of humans. (Marx, 1844).

Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!TFOVdJMqbDU7RBpAWu7OPKTkeKXa9sHDYdKgyFkPtovQVCN2S-WXyyWTPSf46YF7VhsFlg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANlZapN6Hg$>
Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANnwRjh-9A$>
Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu<http://lchc.ucsd.edu>.
Narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu<http://lchcautobio.ucsd.edu>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200813/9b510915/attachment.html 