[Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Thu Aug 13 20:51:07 PDT 2020
Henry, my aim was just to introduce Annalisa and whoever to
the scientific way that the terms "conscious awareness" and
"consciousness" are used in CHAT. I say "scientific" in the
sense that in CHAT we have a system of concepts and
associated word meanings which have, if you like,
conventional meanings. There is nothing wrong with
"automatic and controlled processing" and "ballistic
processing" but so far as I am aware these terms were not in
Vygotsky's vocabulary. I could be wrong of course and I am
sure I will be rapidly corrected if this is the case.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!Smhly0SjdcgGREcg-6xH-8n9H3YEj1J9lzNgh3sh3V04jFUm38R6Cc-p_IYblRn4Ixz7_Q$ >
Home Page <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Smhly0SjdcgGREcg-6xH-8n9H3YEj1J9lzNgh3sh3V04jFUm38R6Cc-p_IYblRlV1SuySw$ >
On 14/08/2020 1:36 pm, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
> Andy,
> I think of what you described as automatic and controlled
> processing. Automatic processing (also called ballistic)
> requires little or no attentional resources. Controlled
> processes, on the other hand, take up a lot of attention.
> When you’re learning something, it can easily overload
> attentional capacity. One aspect of learning or
> scaffolding the learning of another is to know the right
> combination of controlled and automatic processing. I
> think this relates to Vygotsky’s Zoped. You quoted Hegel a
> while back about mathematical thinking that captures this
> distinction very well.
> Henry
>
>
>
>> On Aug 13, 2020, at 7:37 PM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 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!Smhly0SjdcgGREcg-6xH-8n9H3YEj1J9lzNgh3sh3V04jFUm38R6Cc-p_IYblRmS2RgcNQ$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/l41nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RbTsEBrr1M-JQ2E0Cza-8aoA440vsBAtR7DQicuejOZvYN1AOyytgVid7plmKnYKHKx2jw$>)
>>>
>>> I believe that many people -- including many
>>> teachers -- would benefit from answers to this
>>> question, preferably multiple answers. With
>>> permission, I will nicely edit and add your response
>>> to this growing list of asked-and-answered
>>> questions: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/451nsz__;!!Mih3wA!Smhly0SjdcgGREcg-6xH-8n9H3YEj1J9lzNgh3sh3V04jFUm38R6Cc-p_IYblRnRlP2zgQ$
>>> <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!Smhly0SjdcgGREcg-6xH-8n9H3YEj1J9lzNgh3sh3V04jFUm38R6Cc-p_IYblRlbqL2JMw$
>>> <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/ac064039/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list