[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Consciousness: Ilyenkov Epistemology Quiz



Isn't the relationship between individual and social consciousness an example of the chicken-egg dialectic? ;)

And didn't LSV resolve it through his account of the developmental process?

Bruce

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Gabosch" <stevegabosch@me.com>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness: Ilyenkov Epistemology Quiz


I think you're right, Andy.   Social consciousness can't exist without  
individuals.  I don't see how it could.  But just to be sure, I asked  
EI, as you suggested.

"The ideal is nothing else than a concatenation of the general forms  
of human activity realized by individuals ..." (Ilyenkov, Dialectical  
Logic, Chapter 8, toward the end)

Sounds about right to me ...

- Steve




On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:

> But Steve, in making this very point you counterpose individual and  
> social consciousness. And tell me (or maybe you can ask Ilyenkov!),  
> how does social consciousness exist without individual consciousness?
>
> (There are answers to this question which go to suppositions about  
> forms of life which may have existed a million years ago, but I'm  
> talking about real people today.)
>
> And whenever did I deny that individual consciousness is derivative  
> of social consciousness anyway?
>
> Andy
>
> Steve Gabosch wrote:
>> OK, I'm following your responses and points.  Thanks.
>> So, Andy, to try to narrow this down:  are you purposely bundling  
>> together individual and social consciousness into this single term  
>> "consciousness"?
>> The reason I ask is that Ilyenkov works very hard in the essay  
>> Martin is reading, The Concept of the Ideal, to distinguish  
>> individual consciousness and will from social consciousness.   
>> Moreover, he argues for a very specific relationship between the  
>> two - that individual consciousness is derived from social  
>> consciousness, and not the other way around.
>> Just as Marx said that social being determines social  
>> consciousness, Ilyenkov argues that social consciousness determines  
>> individual consciousness.
>> In Ilyenkov's view, social consciousness is what humans are given,  
>> or confronted with - not individual consciousness.  I looked for  
>> some supporting quotes and wound up with a creative post you'll see  
>> in the Humans are Signs/Ideal thread.  See quotes 4 - 7.
>> - Steve
>> On Sep 26, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>> True Steve, I can find: "experience is what is given to us ..."  
>>> and "the objective world given to us in consciousness ..." but the  
>>> only definition of "consciousness" around this area is its  
>>> contrast with matter. I tried to clarify this in this discussion  
>>> by saying that (as Martin has corrected understood) "What is given  
>>> us is Cs" i.e., immediately, from the material world or anywhere  
>>> else. As Hegel says though, "there is nothing in Heaven, Earth or  
>>> anywhere else which is not both immediate and mediated." So to say  
>>> that Cs is what is given "immediately" does not deny that it is  
>>> mediated.
>>>
>>> Your suggestion to define Cs as "psychic activity of animals and  
>>> humans" only shifts the problem to "psychic" - what is psychic?  
>>> and throws in a far-from-basic assumption about what is going on  
>>> inside my pussy cat's head. I am given my own consciousness, but  
>>> figuring out what and if my cat is thinking is a problem of future  
>>> scientific investigation, and hardly suitable for a definition: an  
>>> outcome not a starting point.
>>>
>>> You say that I "conflate different things." Yes, I put forward the  
>>> category without first listing the things which count as "forms of  
>>> Cs." I think this is the right way to go, from whole to parts.
>>>
>>> A definition of Cs was what Mike asked for. I don't think it  
>>> suffices to make a list of things and say "Cs is all these  
>>> things, ... and maybe some I forgot to mention," not for a  
>>> fundamental definition. It would be better to say "Let's not  
>>> define Cs."
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>>> Andy,
>>>> Thanks for looking over those statements by Ilyenkov.  What  
>>>> passage by Ilyenkov causes you to believe he says that  
>>>> **consciousness** is what is given to humans?  He says material  
>>>> reality, social being and social consciousness are what are  
>>>> given.  He very carefully never uses a catch-all, misleading term  
>>>> like "consciousness."  Well, that's my reading of him.
>>>> Here is my problem with the phrase: "what is given to us is  
>>>> consciousness".
>>>> The term "consciousness," as it is used in this phrase,  
>>>> conflates, obscures and confuses.  It conflates fundamentally  
>>>> different kinds of consciousness and experience (sensation,  
>>>> individual consciousness, social consciousness, social being -  
>>>> not to mention dementia, animal psychic activity, sleep, etc.  
>>>> etc.)  It obscures the material basis of these forms of  
>>>> consciousness.  And it confuses their relationships with each  
>>>> other.
>>>> It might help to ask: what **is** given to humans? (at birth, and  
>>>> thenceforth ...)
>>>> Here is the beginning of an answer, helped a bit by Ilyenkov.   
>>>> From birth the human is confronted by reality on multiple levels:  
>>>> material reality (their body, objects, gravity), sensation  
>>>> (hunger, hearing), social being (a system of social and material  
>>>> relations), and social consciousness (ideality, historical  
>>>> culture).   Soon, another kind of reality emerges: individual  
>>>> human consciousness.  These processes and realities, in their  
>>>> simultaneously material and ideal forms, reappear every moment of  
>>>> a human's life.
>>>> The phrase "what is given to us is consciousness" seems to  
>>>> obscure far more than it reveals.  What benefits are obtained  
>>>> from making such a one-sided statement that excludes referencing  
>>>> the material foundations and relations underlying this  
>>>> "consciousness"?
>>>> I want to emphasize that neither Lenin nor Ilyenkov ever made  
>>>> such a claim.  (In my humble reading, anyway).  You may be able  
>>>> to get Hegel's solidarity with that phrase, but the classical  
>>>> dialectical materialists argued quite the opposite.
>>>> As for a general definition of the term "consciousness", given  
>>>> the scope of phenomena that would have to be included, I might  
>>>> venture something like "the psychic activity of animals and  
>>>> humans."
>>>> Sometime when the time is right we might revisit the dialectics  
>>>> of nature discussion (including problems with the Stalinized  
>>>> "diamat" version).  There are some significant issues there.
>>>> Best,
>>>> - Steve
>>>> On Sep 25, 2009, at 9:43 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>> OK, Steve I've read through your quiz, and evaluated each claim  
>>>>> attributed to Ilyenkov by asking myself: "Is there are a context  
>>>>> in which I would agree with this?"
>>>>>
>>>>> The only one where I have reservations is the "dialectics of  
>>>>> nature" one:
>>>>>
>>>>> 28. These laws [dialectics] are understood as the objective laws  
>>>>> of development of the material world, of both the natural and  
>>>>> socio-historical world, of objective reality in general.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I remain of the view that this claim is unclear and has, over  
>>>>> the 120 years since Engels' Dialectics of Nature was published  
>>>>> in the 1920s, been the source of a lot of confusion and also  
>>>>> reasons to not think. In general I am always wary of claims that  
>>>>> have the form: "human society is like this because nature is  
>>>>> like this," such as social Darwinism. It basically adds up to  
>>>>> "God made man in His own image."
>>>>>
>>>>> There is an element of truth in the claim, but only by making a  
>>>>> drastic reduction to the meaning of "dialectics" which is  
>>>>> already verging on meaninglessness anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I do NOT want to change the subject to dianat!! I want to  
>>>>> keep focussed on:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. How do we define consciousness?
>>>>> 2. What's wrong with my suggestion (21/9/2009) based on the  
>>>>> categorical distinction referred to in the early questions in  
>>>>> your quiz, which Ilyenkov obviously agrees with:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Consciousness is what is given to us; matter is what exists  
>>>>> outside and independently of consciousness."
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>>>>> Ain't no answer sheet!  LOL  This "quiz" is nothing more than  
>>>>>> comparing Ilyenkov's actual answers to one's own views.
>>>>>> I've simplified this thing.  It did need streamlining.  There  
>>>>>> are now 25 Ilyenkov propositions.
>>>>>> If my editing is accurate, Ilyenkov's points are preserved in  
>>>>>> each numbered sentence below.  I kept the numbers from the  
>>>>>> previous version.
>>>>>> Martin's very helpful reading of these passages confirms and  
>>>>>> clarifies my interpretations.  Thank you, Martin.  I've added  
>>>>>> headlines (in my words) to clarify Ilyenkov's key themes.  As  
>>>>>> can be seen, I've also used some of Martin's nicely worded  
>>>>>> summaries for this task (and could have used more - I'm kind of  
>>>>>> duplicating what he did).
>>>>>> Some of these statements by Ilyenkov seem to me to be in  
>>>>>> conflict with some of the points you have been recently making,  
>>>>>> Andy.  See what you think.
>>>>>> This is an 'open book' quiz, by the way - you are welcome to  
>>>>>> consult any texts ... :-))
>>>>>> from **Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Positivism**,  
>>>>>> Chapter One, by EV Ilyenkov, 1979, New Park, material below  
>>>>>> edited by Steve Gabosch, Sept 2009, downloaded from http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/positi.htm
>>>>>> Ilyenkov is addressing the epistemological question:  What is  
>>>>>> the relationship between consciousness and the world itself?
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> A.  << No middle path is possible.>>
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 1. … there is no middle here … [no] middle path …
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> B.  << Consciousness is derived from, produced from, and  
>>>>>> secondary to matter.>>
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 3.  These concepts [that is, the two general concepts which  
>>>>>> must be clearly differentiated] are matter and consciousness.
>>>>>> 4.  [By consciousness we are referring to the] psyche, the  
>>>>>> ideal, spirit, soul, will, etc. etc.
>>>>>> 6. ‘Consciousness’ [in its most general sense] can only be  
>>>>>> defined by clearly contrasting it with ‘matter’ [in its most  
>>>>>> general sense.]
>>>>>> 7.  [Moreover, consciousness can only be contrasted with  
>>>>>> matter] as something that is secondary, produced and derived.
>>>>>> 9.  … [Matter] can only be defined through its opposite, and  
>>>>>> only if one of the opposites is fixed as primary, and the other  
>>>>>> arises from it.
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> C.  <<For materialists, matter is the basis of epistemology.   
>>>>>> For idealists, the basis is consciousness.>>
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 12.  Lenin's position … [is as follows]:  for materialism …  
>>>>>> matter – the objective reality given to us in sensation … is  
>>>>>> the basis of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) …
>>>>>> 13.  … for idealism of any type, the basis of epistemology is  
>>>>>> consciousness ...
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> D.  <<Just as social being, (that is, material and economic  
>>>>>> relations) precedes and exists independently of social  
>>>>>> consciousness, social consciousness (as does matter) precedes  
>>>>>> and exists independently of individual consciousness.>>  <<Btw,  
>>>>>> Martin has an interesting objection to Ilyenkov's claim that  
>>>>>> 'primary' things exist independently of 'secondary' things  
>>>>>> insofar as humans are concerned.>>
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 15.  [Social consciousness is sometimes described as] …  
>>>>>> 'collectively-organised' … experience …
>>>>>> 16.   … the relationship of matter to consciousness is  
>>>>>> complicated by the fact that social consciousness … from the  
>>>>>> very beginning precedes individual consciousness as something  
>>>>>> already given, and existing before, outside, and independent of  
>>>>>> individual consciousness.
>>>>>> 17.  Just as matter does.
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> E.  <<Individual consciousness is formed to a greater degree by  
>>>>>> social consciousness than it is by the material world.  At the  
>>>>>> same time, as explained by Marx, social consciousness is  
>>>>>> derived from social being, the system of material and economic  
>>>>>> relations between people.>>
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 20.  ... social consciousness ... forms ... [the individual’s]  
>>>>>> consciousness to a much greater degree than the 'material  
>>>>>> world' [does].
>>>>>> 22.  But social consciousness, according to Marx, is not  
>>>>>> 'primary', but secondary, derived from social being, i.e. the  
>>>>>> system of material and economic relations between people.
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> F.  Martin summarized the next sentences very nicely as  
>>>>>> follows: "<We are *given* the world in sensation. But it is in  
>>>>>> thought that the world is *cognised.*>"
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 24.  It is … not true that the world is cognised in our  
>>>>>> sensations.
>>>>>> 25.  In sensations the external world is only given to us, just  
>>>>>> as it is given to a dog.
>>>>>> 26.  ... [The external world] is cognised not in sensations,  
>>>>>> but in the activity of thought ...
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> G. <<Lenin explained that dialectical logic is the science of  
>>>>>> discovering the universal laws of human and natural  
>>>>>> development.  These are the objective laws of development of  
>>>>>> the material world, which includes the natural world, the socio- 
>>>>>> historical world, and objective reality in general.  These laws  
>>>>>> are reflected in the historical consciousness of humanity.>>
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 27.  [Dialectical] Logic is defined by Lenin … as the science  
>>>>>> of those universal laws … to which the development of the  
>>>>>> entire aggregate knowledge of mankind is objectively  
>>>>>> subordinated.
>>>>>> 28.  These laws are understood [by dialectical materialism] as  
>>>>>> the objective laws of development of the material world, of  
>>>>>> both the natural and socio-historical world, of objective  
>>>>>> reality in general.
>>>>>> 29.  ... [These laws] are reflected in the consciousness of  
>>>>>> mankind and verified by thousands of years of human practice.
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> H.  <<Martin: "<Thought arises in material activity, even in  
>>>>>> animals. In humans it takes a more advanced form, in which  
>>>>>> activity is adjusted to signs.>"  I continue:  However, if one  
>>>>>> proceeds from the perspective of individual experience, the  
>>>>>> sign will be taken as the starting point in the theory of  
>>>>>> knowledge, which will lead to idealist-leaning errors.">>
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 35.  Thought arises within and during the process of material  
>>>>>> action as one of its features, one of its aspects, and only  
>>>>>> later is divided into a special activity (isolated in space and  
>>>>>> time), finding [the] 'sign' form only in man.
>>>>>> 36.  A completely different picture arises when, proceeding  
>>>>>> from individual experience, it is precisely the verbally formed  
>>>>>> world which is taken as the starting point in the theory of  
>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>> 37.  It is all the more easy to yield to such an illusion,  
>>>>>> since in individual experience, words (and signs in general)  
>>>>>> are in actual fact just as much given to sensual contemplation  
>>>>>> as are the sun, rivers and mountains, statues and paintings,  
>>>>>> etc. etc.
>>>>>> 38.  Here are the roots of idealism in its 'sign-symbolic'  
>>>>>> variation.
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> I.  Martin again: "<It is a mistake to try to understand human  
>>>>>> knowledge in terms of individual consciousness or experience.  
>>>>>> But it is also a mistake to try to understand knowledge in  
>>>>>> terms of *social* consciousness.>"
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> 39.  If one proceeds from individual experience, making it the  
>>>>>> point of departure and basis of the theory of knowledge, then  
>>>>>> idealism is inevitable.
>>>>>> 40.  But it is also inevitable if one relies on 'collective  
>>>>>> experience', if the latter is interpreted as something  
>>>>>> independent of being, as something existing independently, as  
>>>>>> something primary.
>>>>>> ************
>>>>>> <end of 'quiz'>
>>>>>> ************
>>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>>> I can't understand your quiz, Steve. Could you perhaps make us  
>>>>>>> a shorter version with answers at the end of the post?
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have something fun, entertaining and educational for  
>>>>>>>> everyone on xmca!
>>>>>>>> It just so happens that I took a close look at the Ilyenkov  
>>>>>>>> passages following Andy's quotes, did a little tinkering with  
>>>>>>>> the text, and came up with something fun: the Ilyenkov  
>>>>>>>> Epistemology Quiz, which anyone can take right on their own  
>>>>>>>> personal computer!
>>>>>>>> Ilyenkov asks some fundamental questions regarding  
>>>>>>>> epistemology: "Where is the clear-cut dividing line between   
>>>>>>>> …  philosophical idealism and … philosophical materialism? …  
>>>>>>>> which of these two points of departure is determining the  
>>>>>>>> direction of all your thought, regardless of the subject of  
>>>>>>>> your reflection … ?  Here … is the question: take your  
>>>>>>>> thought, your consciousness of the world, and the world  
>>>>>>>> itself ... what is the relationship between them?"
>>>>>>>> This can also be called: The How Much Do You Agree With  
>>>>>>>> Ilyenkov on Consciousness? Test ...
>>>>>>>> (Hmm.  Somehow, it doesn't seem likely that this will become  
>>>>>>>> the rage on Facebook ... does it? ... LOL ...)
>>>>>>>> Taking this "quiz" is very simple. It is comprised of 40  
>>>>>>>> propositional statements by Ilyenkov, which I edited for  
>>>>>>>> clarity, about the relationship of consciousness and  
>>>>>>>> materiality, from the first chapter of his short book  
>>>>>>>> "Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of  
>>>>>>>> Positivism" (1979, New Park).  To take the quiz, simply list  
>>>>>>>> the propositions that you agree with, and those you don't  
>>>>>>>> agree with, count them all up, and give Ilyenkov a score.
>>>>>>>> Read critically like this, sentence by sentence, Ilyenkov is  
>>>>>>>> surprisingly clear.  But one still has to think pretty hard  
>>>>>>>> about what he is saying.  Hopefully, people will find it  
>>>>>>>> worthwhile to do so.
>>>>>>>> Here is a little explanation of the editing I did to create  
>>>>>>>> this (this is the fine print part - can be skipped).  What I  
>>>>>>>> have done is edit 15 of Ilyenkov's paragraphs (starting where  
>>>>>>>> Andy's quotes began) into what wound up becoming 40  
>>>>>>>> propositional statements.  They read quite coherently.  This  
>>>>>>>> material makes for a decent introduction to both Ilyenkov and  
>>>>>>>> dialectical materialism.  I eliminated his references to the  
>>>>>>>> Machists to keep things focused on his propositional  
>>>>>>>> statements about epistemological issues, and took out various  
>>>>>>>> other (for this purpose) secondary passages for the same  
>>>>>>>> reason.  This makes him a little easier to grasp - he has a  
>>>>>>>> tendency to make a lot of side points as he goes.  Also, I  
>>>>>>>> did some sentence rearranging to help clarify the specific  
>>>>>>>> proposition that is being made.  There are a couple sentences  
>>>>>>>> which could be interpreted in different ways if they are not  
>>>>>>>> read very closely, so I included my interpretations below  
>>>>>>>> them.  And I spelled out one or two important implications  
>>>>>>>> that Ilyenkov makes but does not explicitly state.  (He makes  
>>>>>>>> these points in many other places in his writings, so they  
>>>>>>>> are supportable.)
>>>>>>>> Everyone will see what I did - I am trying to be completely  
>>>>>>>> transparent.  If I have misinterpreted or muddled Ilyenkov in  
>>>>>>>> any way, please let me know!
>>>>>>>> I would be very interesting to compare notes on what  
>>>>>>>> propositions, formulations, ideas etc. people agree and  
>>>>>>>> disagree on.  Some may disagree quite sharply on some points,  
>>>>>>>> and others may find themselves surprisingly in agreement with  
>>>>>>>> Ilyenkov on some issues but didn't know it.  Some might find  
>>>>>>>> this stimulating ideawise.  Others who are bored by  
>>>>>>>> philosophical discourse might save this for later if they  
>>>>>>>> need something to put them to sleep tonight!  LOL This little  
>>>>>>>> quiz might even help clarify aspects of this interesting  
>>>>>>>> discussion on consciousness.  Fun for the whole family!  :-))
>>>>>>>> Andy, after carefully reading your posts about the how  
>>>>>>>> "consciousness is what is given to us" and "the idea of  
>>>>>>>> matter is derived from consciousness" - as well as other  
>>>>>>>> things you have said from time to time - it will be very  
>>>>>>>> interesting to see how you "score" Ilyenkov's positions on  
>>>>>>>> epistemology.  I would actually be quite interested in  
>>>>>>>> everyone's thoughts ...
>>>>>>>> **********************
>>>>>>>> The Internet Ilyenkov Epistemology Quiz also known as  The  
>>>>>>>> How Much Do You Agree With Ilyenkov on Consciousness? Test
>>>>>>>> from **Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of  
>>>>>>>> Positivism** by EV Ilyenkov, edited by Steve Gabosch, Sept 2009
>>>>>>>> downloaded from http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/positi.htm
>>>>>>>> ***********************
>>>>>>>> a. Where is the clear-cut dividing line between  …   
>>>>>>>> philosophical idealism and … philosophical materialism? …
>>>>>>>> b.  … which of these two points of departure is determining  
>>>>>>>> the direction of all your thought, regardless of the subject  
>>>>>>>> of your reflection … ?
>>>>>>>> c.  Here … is the question: take your thought, your  
>>>>>>>> consciousness of the world, and the world itself ... what is  
>>>>>>>> the relationship between them?
>>>>>>>> 1. … there is no middle here … [no] middle path …
>>>>>>>> 2.  In philosophy the 'party of the golden mean' is the  
>>>>>>>> 'party of the brainless', [that is, those that attempt the  
>>>>>>>> middle path are destined to fail if they] ... try to unite  
>>>>>>>> materialism with idealism in an eclectic way, by means of  
>>>>>>>> smoothing out the basic contradictions, and by means of  
>>>>>>>> muddling the most general ... and clear concepts.
>>>>>>>> 3.  These concepts [the two general concepts which must be  
>>>>>>>> clearly differentiated] are matter and consciousness.
>>>>>>>> 4.  [By consciousness we are referring to the] psyche, the  
>>>>>>>> ideal, spirit, soul, will, etc. etc.
>>>>>>>> 5.  'Consciousness' – let us take this term as Lenin did – is  
>>>>>>>> the most general concept which can only be defined by clearly  
>>>>>>>> contrasting it with the most general concept of 'matter', as  
>>>>>>>> something secondary, produced and derived.
>>>>>>>> 6. [[sg interpretation: ‘Consciousness’ [in its most general  
>>>>>>>> sense] can only be defined by clearly contrasting it with  
>>>>>>>> ‘matter’ [in its most general sense.]]]
>>>>>>>> 7. [[sg interpretation: …moreover … [consciousness can only  
>>>>>>>> be contrasted with matter] as something that is secondary,  
>>>>>>>> produced and derived.]]
>>>>>>>> 8.   Dialectics consists in not being able to define matter  
>>>>>>>> as such …
>>>>>>>> 9.  … it [matter] can only be defined through its opposite,  
>>>>>>>> and only if one of the opposites is fixed as primary, and the  
>>>>>>>> other arises from it.
>>>>>>>> 10.  [[sg interpretation: Dialectics can only define things  
>>>>>>>> through their opposites, and furthermore can only do so if  
>>>>>>>> one of these opposites is fixed as primary and the other as  
>>>>>>>> arising from it.]]
>>>>>>>> 11.  [[sg interpretation of an implication made above: In  
>>>>>>>> dialectical materialism, the material is primary; and  
>>>>>>>> consciousness, its opposite, arises from it.]]
>>>>>>>> 12.  Lenin's position … [is as follows]:  for materialism …  
>>>>>>>> matter – the objective reality given to us in sensation … is  
>>>>>>>> the basis of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) …
>>>>>>>> 13.  … for idealism of any type, the basis of epistemology is  
>>>>>>>> consciousness ...
>>>>>>>> 14.  [Consciousness for the idealist can take a multitude of  
>>>>>>>> forms and can appear] under one or another of its pseudonyms  
>>>>>>>> (be it the 'psychical', 'conscious' or 'unconscious', be it  
>>>>>>>> the 'system of forms of collectively-organised experience' or  
>>>>>>>> 'objective spirit', the individual or collective psyche,  
>>>>>>>> individual or social consciousness).]
>>>>>>>> 15.  [Social consciousness is sometimes described as] …  
>>>>>>>> 'collectively-organised' … experience …
>>>>>>>> 16.   … the relationship of matter to consciousness is  
>>>>>>>> complicated by the fact that social consciousness … from the  
>>>>>>>> very beginning precedes individual consciousness as something  
>>>>>>>> already given, and existing before, outside, and independent  
>>>>>>>> of individual consciousness.
>>>>>>>> 17.  Just as matter does.
>>>>>>>> 18.  [[sg interpretation:  Just as social consciousness does,  
>>>>>>>> matter, from the very beginning, precedes individual  
>>>>>>>> consciousness as something already given.]]
>>>>>>>> 19.  [There is] …  even more [to it] than that.
>>>>>>>> 20.  This social consciousness – forms ... [the individual’s]  
>>>>>>>> consciousness to a much greater degree than [does] the  
>>>>>>>> 'material world'.
>>>>>>>> 21.  [Social consciousness] of course, in its individualised  
>>>>>>>> form, [takes] … the form of the consciousness of one's  
>>>>>>>> closest teachers, and after that, of the entire circle of  
>>>>>>>> people who appear in the field of vision of a person …
>>>>>>>> 22.  But social consciousness, according to Marx, is not  
>>>>>>>> 'primary', but secondary, derived from social being, i.e. the  
>>>>>>>> system of material and economic relations between people.
>>>>>>>> 23.  [[sg interpretation:  According to Marx, social  
>>>>>>>> consciousness, which is secondary, is derived from social  
>>>>>>>> being, which is the system of material and economic relations  
>>>>>>>> between people.]]
>>>>>>>> 24.  It is … not true that the world is cognised in our  
>>>>>>>> sensations.
>>>>>>>> 25.  In sensations the external world is only given to us,  
>>>>>>>> just as it is given to a dog.
>>>>>>>> 26.  ... [The external world] is cognised not in sensations,  
>>>>>>>> but in the activity of thought ...
>>>>>>>> 27.  [Dialectical] Logic is defined by Lenin … as the science  
>>>>>>>> of those universal laws … to which the development of the  
>>>>>>>> entire aggregate knowledge of mankind is objectively  
>>>>>>>> subordinated.
>>>>>>>> 28.  These laws are understood [by dialectical materialism]  
>>>>>>>> as the objective laws of development of the material world,  
>>>>>>>> of both the natural and socio-historical world, of objective  
>>>>>>>> reality in general.
>>>>>>>> 29.  ... [These laws] are reflected in the consciousness of  
>>>>>>>> mankind and verified by thousands of years of human practice.
>>>>>>>> d.  What is … 'thought'?
>>>>>>>> 30. … [A materialist] line of thought [about what thought is]  
>>>>>>>> proceeds from Spinoza. He understands thinking to be an  
>>>>>>>> inherent capability, characteristic not of all bodies, but  
>>>>>>>> only of thinking material bodies.
>>>>>>>> 31.  With the help of this capability, a body can construct  
>>>>>>>> its activities in the spatially determined world, in  
>>>>>>>> conformity with the 'form and disposition' of all other  
>>>>>>>> bodies external to it, both 'thinking' and 'non-thinking'.
>>>>>>>> 32.  Spinoza therefore includes thinking among the categories  
>>>>>>>> of the attributes of substance, such as extension.
>>>>>>>> 33.  In this form ... [thinking] is, according to Spinoza,  
>>>>>>>> characteristic also of animals.
>>>>>>>> 34.  For him [Spinoza] even an animal possesses a soul, and  
>>>>>>>> this view distinguishes Spinoza from Descartes, who  
>>>>>>>> considered that an animal is simply an 'automaton', a very  
>>>>>>>> complex 'machine'.
>>>>>>>> 35.  Thought arises within and during the process of material  
>>>>>>>> action as one of its features, one of its aspects, and only  
>>>>>>>> later is divided into a special activity (isolated in space  
>>>>>>>> and time), finding [the] 'sign' form only in man.
>>>>>>>> 36.  A completely different picture arises when, proceeding  
>>>>>>>> from individual experience, it is precisely the verbally  
>>>>>>>> formed world which is taken as the starting point in the  
>>>>>>>> theory of knowledge.
>>>>>>>> 37.  It is all the more easy to yield to such an illusion,  
>>>>>>>> since in individual experience, words (and signs in general)  
>>>>>>>> are in actual fact just as much given to sensual  
>>>>>>>> contemplation as are the sun, rivers and mountains, statues  
>>>>>>>> and paintings, etc. etc.
>>>>>>>> 38.  Here are the roots of idealism in its 'sign-symbolic'  
>>>>>>>> variation.
>>>>>>>> 39.  If one proceeds from individual experience, making it  
>>>>>>>> the point of departure and basis of the theory of knowledge,  
>>>>>>>> then idealism is inevitable.
>>>>>>>> 40.  But it is also inevitable if one relies on 'collective  
>>>>>>>> experience', if the latter is interpreted as something  
>>>>>>>> independent of being, as something existing independently, as  
>>>>>>>> something primary.
>>>>>>>> <Ilyenkov moves on to other questions at this point in the  
>>>>>>>> text.>
>>>>>>>> <End of quiz.>
>>>>>>>> So how did you score Ilyenkov?
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> - Steve_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________
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