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

Thu Aug 13 18:37:06 PDT 2020

Annalisa, for Marxists, "consciousness" is a very broad term 
covering what mediates between physiology and behaviour, the 
totality of mental processes in an individual organism, 
whether sleeping or awake.

"Conscious awareness" on the other hand refers to knowing 
and attending to what you are doing at the time. A couple of 
classic examples will illustrate. When you're walking down 
the street you do not have conscious awareness of how yor 
foot is laying itself flat on the footpath, how your body is 
overbalancing slightly forwards and your other leg swinging 
slightly outward and bending as you bring it forward, etc. 
... but if for example you step over a kerb and having 
underestimated the depth of the step and momentarily losing 
you balance, your walking suddenly springs back into 
conscious awareness and you look down at the ground, and 
take conscious control of your balance, etc.
On the other hand, consider when a child is first learning 
to tie their own shoelaces; let's suppose they have been 
taught the rabbit ears method. The child says to herself 
"make the rabbit ears ... this one ...  that one ... cross 
over ... put through the hole ...  grab it .,. and PULL IT 
TIGHT! Yeh!" That is, she tied her laces with conscious 
awareness, according to how she was instructed, paying 
attention to every operation, using internal speech (more or 
less). But a couple of months later she now thinks about 
getting out the door in time to meet her friends while she 
is tying her laces and isn't even looking at what she's 
doing. She has achieved mastery.

OK?

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviQcZ_PAJg$ >
Home Page <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviQmlKG-rg$ >
On 14/08/2020 4:13 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
> 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!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviQjBA4Byg$ 
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/l41nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RbTsEBrr1M-JQ2E0Cza-8aoA440vsBAtR7DQicuejOZvYN1AOyytgVid7plmKnYKHKx2jw$>)
>
>     I believe that many people -- including many teachers
>     -- would benefit from answers to this question,
>     preferably multiple answers. With permission, I will
>     nicely edit and add your response to this growing list
>     of asked-and-answered questions: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/451nsz__;!!Mih3wA!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviSRpnmhuw$ 
>     <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.
>
>
> -- 
>
>
>   IAngelus 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!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviTJFjFD1g$  
> <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/20200814/7fbbb64c/attachment.html 