Hi,
A quick thought while I am reading the exchanges on consciousness. I
think consciousness is matter (brain cells) which become organized as a
consequence of activity, and once organized (never fully, finally, until
the moment of death) they facilitate (and that,too is an activity)
certain kinds and speeds of activity. My consciousness of the act of
writing is multi-layered, it runs ahead of the text while it also
monitors what is written, these are activities that are facilitated by
the consequences of previous, repeated, experience I now write in
English, my monitoring a text written in Hungarian is slower, I have less
current practice and thus the conscious focus required to write in my
mother tongue is differently organized, it may require a shifting back
and forth between planning and monitoring rather than the simultaneous
activities called forth if the task is in English.
The example is to serve us to think developmentally of matter, of
differently structured matter, rather than dichotomously.
Thanks for the stimulating exchanges,
Vera
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness
THis is indeed a tricky question which inevitably generates seemingly
contradictory positions. Please recall the context. Mike raised the
problem of multiple definitions of "consciousness" among us - we who
share a lot of agreement on these questions. I responded that I didn't
think we *should* tie Cs down to a single, well-defined meaning. Then
realizing that it was unsatisfactory, to leave us in such an open-ended,
undefined position, I thought about it, and realized that what unified
all these multiplicity of legitimate definitions and concepts of Cs was
Cs as a philosophical category.
Descartes introduced us to the philosophical catgory of Cs, but he did
not at all solve the problem of the scientific study of consciouness.
Only Vygotsky solved this, but quite specifically he built on Hegel and
Marx.
If I ask you to accept that the dollar you think is in your pocket and
the dollar which is actually in your pocket (or not) are categorically
different, this is asking you to state the bleeding obvious, and does
not give you a program for the scientific study of consciousness. But
nor can a program for the scientific study of consciousness forget or
turn its back on this categorical difference between Cs and matter.
The big step that Hegel took in fact was to lay to the side the whole
issue of an absolute difference between thought and thing, between
subject and object, and to look instead at the movement of
(subject/object), with the whole idea of objectified thoughts and
internalised artifacts.
So here we have these two (as you say) completely *opposite* proposals
about how to proceed, and I am advocating *both* of them. But we can't
go all the way with Hegel. Hegel basically elided the mind/matter
distinction and this proved to be very productive. But it couldn't be
maintained, could it? Feuerbach called his bluff, and Marx agreed.
On science: I am saying that science is one of a number of possible ways
of apprehending the world (quoting Marx in the Grundrisse). It is good
for certain tasks up to a certain point. And what Kuhn means by
"ontological assumptions" is not necessarily really ontological. Natural
science does assume the existence of a material world, outside of,
independent of, and prior to consciousness. This ontology got a bump c.
1905, but it was soon restored. But natural science is not the only way.
I don't think psychology can proceed on the same set of ontological
assumptions. If we make "Activity" a fundamental category, we depart
from natural science. And I don't believe we can proceed by acting as if
we can study the psyche on the basis of the same metaphysical
assumptions as natural science. We are part of it; we cannot objectify
the object of study.
Enough,
Andy
Martin Packer wrote:
Andy,
I am familiar with what seems to be your general line of argument. It
runs, indeed, through the philosophers you have highlighted: Descartes,
Kant, and Husserl (whose 'Cartesian mediations' was both a criticism of
Kant for being too mystical and an affirmation of the continuity of his
project with Descartes). But I am surprised that you would follow this
line for, in my reading at least, Marx and Vygotsky took a different
line, prompted in my view by Hegel's critique of Kant.
But first, it seems to me there is a central contradiction in what you
have written, and I take this to mean that perhaps I'm not correctly
identifying your position, since you seem to affirming and denying the
same point. You write critically of natural science:
"Natural science is based on the assumption that outside of
consciousness there is a natural world, which exists independently of
consciousness and prior to consciousness"
But when you cited Lenin you explained: "Consciousness is what is given
to us; matter is what exists outside and independently of
consciousness."
Perhaps your point is that science is not *critical* of this central
assumption, which was indeed what Kant and Husserl argued? (I think
this is actually an inaccurate claim: Kuhn's work showed us that
scientists constantly question their ontological assumptions, and also
made the important point that these assumptions are embedded in the
shared, social practices of a scientific paradigm, not in the thoughts
of individual scientists.)
Where should I begin with a response to this D-K-H line? Perhaps here:
you write: "The reality is: you open your eyes, you see things, and
*then* you question whether what really exists out there (matter)
corresponds to what you think exists out there (consciousness)."
...for this is precisely the move that Descartes, Kant and Husserl
made. They each engaged in a reflective attitude of doubt, questioning
the correspondence of (inner) thought and (external) matter, and even
the existence of the latter. The problem is that this epistemological
scepticism (Is my knowledge valid?) is *always* a sign of an underlying
ontological dualism (My thoughts are inner; matter is outer). If one
starts there, it does indeed seem that only a God's eye view would be
able to resolve the problem. And with this dualism it seems that each
individual can form only mental representations of a reality that they
can never in fact be sure they know. Precisely the representational
model of human beings that cognitive science has accepted, at least
until recently.
But there is a different line of thinking about human being, knowledge
and consciousness. I first learned of it from studying Heidegger, but
it has been explored by Merleau-Ponty, Garfinkel, and as I read them,
Marx and Vygotsky. It is a line that gives priority to practical
activity rather than reflective thinking. (You can see why I am puzzled
that you would follow the former line, and why, for example, you would
write that post Heisenberg, "not concsciousness but *activity* had to
step in to provide a rational foundation for even natural science."
That seems to imply that for you consciousness and activity are
distinct.)
The central thrust of Heidegger's Being and Time was that the typical
and traditional philosophical move is mistaken and unnatural. People in
their everyday activity do *not* "question what really exists out
there." If I am digging in my garden, see a strange object and have a
question about it, I don't reflect on the adequacy of my thought
categories, I get down on my knees to take a closer look at the object.
I poke it, I pick it up. Heidegger distinguished three modes of
engagement (Tony mentioned them recently). These philosophers operated
in what Heidegger called the present-at-hand mode, in which practical
activity is completely suspended. But the more fundamental mode is the
ready-to-hand, in which we are engaged in practical activity with
artifacts, and there is no separation between subject and object, mind
and matter. For Heidegger, *this* is consciousness. In this mode, Cs is
not separate from matter.
I find it particularly helpful to think in terms of children's
development, because infants have a practical engagement in the world
without the capacity for reflective thought.
There is obviously much more I could and should say to develop the
point I'm trying to make. But if I send this message now it might reach
you before night falls.
cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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