Re: [xmca] Vygotsky's historicism

Steve--

You write in part: One thing that makes the Hegel/Marx/Vygotsky etc.
intellectual lineage so different from the plain materialist/idealist
mainstream is it recognizes the biological, but flatly denies the
psychological existence of this boundary

I would like to contest the biological/(cultural!!)/psychological boundary.
The loooooooooooooooong
coevolution of phylogeny and culture really argue against a clear boundary
between the psychological and the biological.

No?
mike

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> All well said Steve.
> I too have difficulty with how to consistently use scientific, dialectical
> concepts while living with the fact of socially dominant Cartesian concepts.
> The idea of millions of private mental worlds located inside people's heads,
> made up of thought-objects called abstract ideals counterposed to an
> objective reality of things is not just "wrong" and something we should
> oppose, but also a social fact (i.e., most believe believe in this and act
> accordingly) which we have to describe, analyse and transform.
>
> Andy
>
> At 05:37 PM 7/04/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > Andy, your comments on three very central theoretical but very
> > difficult concept pairs, ideal/material, subjective/objective, and
> > abstract/concrete are interesting, and thought-provoking as always.
> > Your point about what people generally take to be "ideal," and also,
> > may I add, "subjective" and "abstract," is a good one, and triggers a
> > little comment here from me.
> >
> > Ilyenkov emphasizes this point in his essay The Concept of the Ideal:
> > plain, everyday (he says vulgar) versions of materialism AND idealism
> > both agree that there is a universal boundary between what is "inside"
> > and "outside" the individual human head. I find that to be a very
> > helpful insight. It helps me to see how many contentious, winner-take-
> > all-style debates between these plain versions of materialism and
> > idealism over questions like what causes what (e.g. when does being
> > determine consciousness and vice versa), how do the natural and the
> > supernatural (if such exists) are at the same time NOT about the
> > existence of this universal boundary, which is taken for granted. One
> > thing that makes the Hegel/Marx/Vygotsky etc. intellectual lineage so
> > different from the plain materialist/idealist mainstream is it
> > recognizes the biological, but flatly denies the psychological
> > existence of this boundary, relating and locating the ideal and
> > material, subjective and objective, and abstract and concrete very
> > differently, stretching the meanings of these concepts well past what
> > they normally refer to. I find it takes concentration and
> > deliberation to think this way, constantly having to reapply it anew
> > and figure it out all over again as I go. In everyday usage
> > especially I find it hard to not use these words in the "vulgar" way
> > to refer to one side or the other of this plainspeak Ultimate Divide.
> > I find myself contrasting, for example, an ideal job with a real one,
> > talking about one opinion being more "subjective" while another more
> > "objective," speaking of "abstract" thoughts versus "concrete"
> > actions, etc. I think that a close look at these kinds of everyday
> > uses reveals a straightforward, mechanical reference to that Ultimate
> > Divide, the one DesCartes codified so well. It is almost as though
> > our grammar, number system, logic and vocabulary - nearly every
> > everyday tool we have to think with - are collectively based on a
> > coordinate system that zeroes out at that Ultimate Divide, referencing
> > to that place where our "head" ends and the "world" begins, to that
> > great dividing line that figures in so ubiquitously in so many modern
> > cultures and ideologies. To flip that reference system entirely over
> > and make our starting point something radically different - our
> > interpenetrating social relationships - and the zig-zaggy historical
> > development of those relationships - in short, activity - is an
> > enormous paradigm shift, and one that seems to take constant, rigorous
> > theoretical focus in order to to speak clearly in terms of. In trying
> > to be rigorous, in making the point you make below that it is the
> > existence of the ideal that distinguishes an artifact from raw nature,
> > I might say that the "ideal" is *necessarily always* material, as in
> > inseparable from it, not just something that can "also be" material.
> > But I am always walking on eggshells a little when I try to speak at
> > that level. I enjoy trying, and do so here on xmca from time to time,
> > but by no means do I always get it right.
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> >
> > On Apr 6, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think part of the difficulty with getting people to accept that
> > > unity of material and ideal is that people generally take ideal to
> > > be almost synonymous with "subjective" or "in consciousness" whereas
> > > "material" simply means "outside of and independent of
> > > consciousness". For us, however, "ideal" can also be material,
> > > distinguishing what is artifact from what is nature.
> > >
> >
> > On Apr 6, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > 1. The contrast of ideal to material is simply a mistaken one. It
> > > does not help at all.
> > > <snip>
> > > 3. The abstract/concrete relation is a different contrast again, a
> > > very important one but a different issue altogether from the problem
> > > of the ideal.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, mobile 0409 358 651
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Apr 7 19:42 PDT 2008