Martin
I was composing a reply and thinking that it doesn't seem, for
example, that a particular conception of hammer would contain all its
uses. Perhaps what is confusing for me is 'use' is a little like
game (re Wittgenstein) and 'the concept' isn't. What happens if one
introduces 'the use' and 'conception' into the mix?
Ed
On Apr 28, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I suppose that arguably the concept of a hammer will include a bit
> of use.
> (Though it's interesting how many are declaring that they don't
> know what a
> concept is!) But does that mean that the use of a hammer will
> include a bit
> of concept?
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 4/28/08 2:36 PM, "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> Martin
>>
>> Now I'm confused. You say 'use a hammer' and then 'not use the
>> concept of a 'hammer."' I suspect I don't know what a 'concept' of a
>> hammer is, but wouldn't it include a bit of use?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
>>
>>> David, I'm confused. Are you saying it would be impossible for
>>> someone to
>>> use a hammer and not use the concept of "hammer"?
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/28/08 7:25 AM, "David Kellogg" <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't understand, Elinami. How is it possible to be a language
>>>> user and NOT
>>>> use concepts like "subject", "verb", "speaker", "grammar" etc.?
>>>> Even if you
>>>> say that concept use has to be conscious, isn't the self itself a
>>>> concept?
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Elinami Swai <swaiev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I cannot resist Andy, who are these tribal people?
>>>> Elinami.
>>>>
>>>> On 4/27/08, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>> Sasha,
>>>>> I just wanted to probe you little on this question of concept
>>>>> (Begriff) vs
>>>>> "abstract general" (or complex or "representation", etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that all of us, unless we have a psychiatric
>>>>> problem or brain
>>>>> damage or something serious, by the time we become adults operate
>>>>> with
>>>>> concepts. I notice that most theorists do not understand well
>>>>> what a concept
>>>>> is and even the average Nobel Prize Winner cannot distinguish
>>>>> clearly
>>>>> between an abstract general notion and a genuine concept. But
>>>>> nonetheless we
>>>>> all use genuine concepts. Difficulty in theoretically making this
>>>>> distinction explicit is a matter really of whether you have been
>>>>> exposed to
>>>>> Hegelian ideas or Marx, Vygotsky, or other philosophy which
>>>>> incorporates
>>>>> these insights. Tribal people for example, just as much as Logical
>>>>> Positivist philosophers, use concepts. Is that your understanding
>>>>> as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message
>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava
>>>>>> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:01:03 +0400
>>>>>> To: 'Martin Packer'
>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Mike Cole
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Life, psyche, consciousness.doc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Martin,
>>>>>> You write:
>>>>>> To my reading, Ilyenkov's concept of ideality, based on the
>>>>>> notion of the
>>>>>> thinking-body, is not the same as suggesting that artifacts
>>>>>> have a
>>>>> cultural
>>>>>> meaning. To me, this risks reintroducing a dualism between
>>>>>> matter and
>>>>>> meaning. It is a short step, to my view mistaken, to the belief
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> natural sciences study matter, while the social sciences study
>>>>>> meaning. It
>>>>>> also leads one to think that each artifact has a single meaning.
>>>>>> Sasha,
>>>>> when
>>>>>> you said that the child really understands "the meaning" of the
>>>>>> knife, I'm
>>>>>> sure you would agree that a child cannot grasp the complexity of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> relations that a single artifact like a knife has with society
>>>>>> as a whole.
>>>>>> Nor can a peasant understand the full complexity of the social
>>>>>> world in
>>>>>> which they are living, even though they have great practical
>>>>>> wisdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I entirely share your idea that “Ilyenkov's concept of ideality,
>>>>>> based on
>>>>>> the notion of the thinking-body, is not the same as suggesting
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> artifacts have a cultural meaning? The latter is something banal
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> doesn’t need the first. No one of semiotics will disagree with
>>>>>> the
>>>>> statement
>>>>>> that each artifact has some “cultural meaning? while all of them
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> hardly ever heard the very concept of “thinking body?and
>>>>>> evidently don’t
>>>>>> need in this notion.
>>>>>> As well we never declare something like the statement “that the
>>>>>> natural
>>>>>> sciences study matter, while the social sciences study meaning?
>>>>>> As for a child with a knife we do insist that to have a real
>>>>> understanding,
>>>>>> real idea of knife a child needs only to be taught by adult how
>>>>>> to use it
>>>>> in
>>>>>> historically developed cultural manner. The knife is a tool
>>>>>> which helps
>>>>>> humans to cut something and a child who practically grasps this
>>>>>> mode of
>>>>>> operation and adequately utilizes the knife has a valid idea of
>>>>>> knife. All
>>>>>> complexities “of the relations that a single artifact like a
>>>>>> knife has
>>>>> with
>>>>>> society as a whole?can add nothing to this plain fact. The
>>>>>> role of
>>>>> society
>>>>>> consists in elaborating the artifact and in teaching new
>>>>>> generations the
>>>>> way
>>>>>> to utilize it.
>>>>>> The knife is something basically simple. The absolute majority
>>>>>> of mankind,
>>>>>> those who use knifes in their everyday life needs and have only
>>>>>> practical
>>>>>> notion of knives. On the contrary something that pretends to be a
>>>>>> “scientific notion?of knife is something ridiculous and
>>>>>> scholastic.
>>>>>> In exactly the same way illiterate, but experienced peasant has
>>>>>> real,
>>>>>> practical notion say of melon, while a schoolboy with all his
>>>>>> “scientific
>>>>>> definitions?is far from real comprehension of it. He can
>>>>>> successfully eat
>>>>>> melon but he hardly can plant it. And here just as in previous
>>>>>> case “the
>>>>>> full complexity of the social world in which they are living?has
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>> to
>>>>>> do with the idea of melon.
>>>>>> Surely there are objects which can’t be grasped practically by a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> person. Thus for example an idea of agriculture as a socially and
>>>>>> historically developed system of relations which combines
>>>>>> individual
>>>>> forces
>>>>>> of people over the cooperative process of production and
>>>>>> distribution
>>>>> can’t be realized in abstract practical manner. Such attempts
>>>>> can be
>>>>> resulted in a
>>>>>> way similar to famous fable about three blind and an elephant.
>>>>>> The same we can say about such an object as atom or nuclear
>>>>>> particle. A
>>>>>> single person never deals practically with such objects. Only a
>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>> culture ?which is essentially a special type of cooperative
>>>>>> practice
>>>>>> ?lt;br>> can
>>>>>> grasp the notion of such objects.
>>>>>> Explaining all this I meet a great difficultness with the lack
>>>>>> of proper
>>>>>> English terminology (or, probably, my poor knowledge of
>>>>>> English). In
>>>>> German
>>>>>> and in Russian there is a clear distinction between two notions,
>>>>>> and two
>>>>>> terms: Begriff = pon’atie, and Vorstellung = predstavlenije.
>>>>>> The highest form in development of thinking is obviously pon’atie
>>>>> (Begriff).
>>>>>> And in the same time it is the universal form of thinking. While
>>>>>> predstavlenije (Vorstellung) is subordinated notion. The obscheje
>>>>> (general)
>>>>>> predstavlenije is understood in dialectical culture as a meaning
>>>>>> of word,
>>>>>> like something that enables us to distinguish among the known
>>>>>> and fixed in
>>>>>> the matter of language culture objects. But one can have
>>>>>> predsatavlenije
>>>>>> without having understanding of the essence of the object.
>>>>>> Thus the brilliant illustration of such divergence of two
>>>>>> forms of
>>>>> thinking
>>>>>> (Predstavlenija and Pon’atia) are so called “artificial notions?
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> Vygotsky-Sakharov’s experiments, as well as many similar
>>>>>> constructions
>>>>> from
>>>>>> psychological theory. The artificial notion is an empty notion,
>>>>>> which is
>>>>>> something that cannot be understood not because their utmost
>>>>>> complexity
>>>>> but
>>>>>> because their utmost vacancy. Logically as “artifcial notion?we
>>>>>> have an
>>>>>> evident example of general definition (obshchego
>>>>>> predstavlenija), not
>>>>>> understanding (ne pon’atie). So it corresponds not with
>>>>>> dialectic logic
>>>>> both
>>>>>> in its Hegel and Marxist form, but with formal logic, with logic
>>>>>> of John
>>>>>> Locke.
>>>>>> And this distinction is not something academically formal but
>>>>>> the core
>>>>>> distinction for dialectically thinking researcher. Thus Davydov
>>>>>> based all
>>>>>> his theory of developmental instruction just on this
>>>>>> distinction. (I’m
>>>>> going
>>>>>> to ask Peter Moxhay ?the translator of Davidov’s latest book -
>>>>>> how he
>>>>> cope
>>>>>> the problem with insufficiency of English terminology in this
>>>>>> case.)
>>>>>> As for the idea of “thinking body?it is equal to basically new
>>>>>> and in
>>>>> the
>>>>>> same time genuine Marxist and Spinozian idea of thinking as not
>>>>>> banal
>>>>>> manipulation with words and other conventional signs, but as a
>>>>>> special way
>>>>>> of acting of one (active or “thinking?body) according to the
>>>>>> shape of the
>>>>>> other body, taken in the moment of its live realization.
>>>>>> All this was fundamentally explored in Ilyenkov’s works and I
>>>>>> agree with
>>>>> you
>>>>>> that the joint rereading of this works would be extremely useful
>>>>>> for all
>>>>> of
>>>>>> us as a step to rethinking the traditional understanding of CHAT.
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sasha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> --
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
>>>>> andy.blunden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Apr 28 16:41 PDT 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 01 2008 - 17:14:14 PDT