Re: [xmca] Consciousness

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

Apologies for my time zone, Martin, aggravated by lots of 
domestics this morning. Usually those in Europe and America 
are blissfully unaware of the roundness of the world, so 
believe me, I appreciate your frustration.

You know, I would never quote Engels or Lenin unless I had 
to. As it happens Lenin is completely right on this point, 
even if he did boringly spin it out to sledgehammer weight. 
It was not without reason that Ilyenkov devoted a whole book 
to defending MEC in the 1970s, and had great difficulty 
getting it published inside or outside of the USSR.

It is most important to recognize that what Lenin is talking 
about is consciousness as a *philosophical category*. Note 
that *matter* is simultaneously defined in the same way, and 
whatismore matter is defined as a category *derivative* of 
"consciousness"! How about that for philosophical 
materialism! Consciousness is what we are given immediately, 
and the idea of "matter" is derived from that, i.e., the 
conviction that something else exists. So we can't turn to 
Hegel for an answer to this question, because for Hegel *it 
is all thought*! "Being," for example, the starting point of 
the Encyclopedia, is a category of thought. Again, Hegel 
derives matter as a subcategory of Spirit, but only through 
the Matter/Form dialectic, not the Matter/Thought dichotomy.
Nonetheless, it is absolutely ruled out that you can derive 
a "science of matter" or a "science of consciousness" (i.e. 
natural science or psychology) from these philosophical 
categories. Hegel on the other hand, tried to derive natural 
science from the concept of space, and he was wrong in that. 
Likewise in 1908, a lot of scientists and Bolsheviks were 
concluding that "natural science had proved that matter does 
not exist," and a whole lot of other rubbish which was 
causing havoc inside the Bolshevik Party suffering at the 
time from a period or repression and reaction.

If you want a deconstructionist response to the question, 
then ask M. Derrida or M. Foucault exactly what exists 
"beyond the text" ... if anything.

Random points.

Lenin had not read Hegel or Kant in 1908, but he had been 
trained by Plekhanov who had read everything. Plekhanov was 
his teacher in philosophy. (BTW, Plekhanov was also one of 
LSV's teachers in philosophy I suspect)

You say that LSV's claim that "consciousness is material" 
contradicts the claim that matter as a philosophical 
category is "that which exists independently of 
consciousness." The only way that I can interpret your 
meaning here is that you insist on interpreting the 
conceptual claim in "substantialist" terms. If you want to 
insist on concepts as names for things, then obviously 
clarity can never be achieved here. See Davydov.

If I make a distinction been marble and statue, does that 
really prevent me from claiming that Michelangelo's David is 
marble? or a million such examples. A categorical 
distinction does not divide the universe into two groups of 
stuff or things.

You are now claiming that Cs is material. OK, so my thought 
of the dollar in my pocket has no categorical difference 
from the dollar that may actually be in my pocket? Consult 
your Kant. Lenin was perfectly aware of the symmetry between 
his claim and Kant's and says that the difference, however, 
is that the thing-in-itself is continuously passing into 
appearance, rather than there being an impenetrable barrier 
between appearance and thing-in-itself (not the categories 
of course, but the content). Arguing here exactly along 
Hegelian lines, though it is certainly possible to argue 
with Lenin's philosophy on this as well as other points in 
the book.

You say: "to write that material reality is what exists 
independently of Cs is really misleading." (NB, not 
"material reality, but matter - not the same at all) And OF 
COURSE we add that "Cs does not exist independent of 
material reality." This is Lenin, the philosophical 
materialist remember. But you kow, you can't argue this from 
God's eye view, looking down on human life from the heavens. 
Descartes had a point: how does he (Descartes) know that the 
material world exists? Only by means of consciousness. Now, 
you can start from a truth and argue your way into 
falsehood, but if you start from a falsehood - that you know 
(??) that the material world exists even without 
consciousness - then you cannot argue your way to truth.

Enough.

It is a difficult question, and one known to often lead to 
acrimony!!

Andy


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, 
Ilyenkov $20 ea

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca