Re: [xmca] fetishism

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

Mmm, I haven't been called an idealist for 27 years, Steve, and I'm a 
bit reluctant to pursue this on list. But I will risk a brief explanation.
It is important that in reflecting on what I said (which was not a 
metaphor) you do not objectify yourself and the problem, as you do by 
using "we" and "our."  And yes, I am using "consciousness" in the sense 
in which Marx used it: "My consciousness is my relation to my 
environment," and Marx also expressed this thought in the first person 
singular. But you can't put objective reality and consciousness in the 
scales and weigh them up against each other. You can express an opinion 
about something, but you shouldn't confuse your opinion about objective 
reality with objective reality itself.
Steve Gabosch wrote:
> That is a helpful metaphor, Andy.  You are suggesting that 
> consciousness is our "only" window to objective reality.
> If what you mean by "consciousness" (and "activity") is every aspect 
> of a living biological organism, then this statement is inarguable - 
> but uninformative with regard to the relationship of human social 
> consciousness to objective reality.  This is an example where 
> classical activity theory is not very helpful, any more than chemistry 
> would be.
> If what you mean by this metaphor is that our only window into 
> objective reality is our social consciousness, then you are taking a 
> position that makes it difficult to explain relationships such as 
> between biological perceptions and social conceptions, and in general, 
> how humans act and develop in a material world.
> Vygotsky's solution, as one can see in his critique of Piaget, was to 
> view objective reality as a necessary and fundamental dimension in the 
> development of historical and individual human consciousness.
> Your metaphor, if your intention is to respond to Vygotsky's 
> viewpoint, seems to seek to leave the role of objective reality as an 
> **independent** dimension unaccounted for and relatively unimportant, 
> reducing the sources of human consciousness to "only" forms of social 
> consciousness, to only what humans "know" about what they do.
> - Steve
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
> > Steve, if you have access to objective reality that does not entail 
> > any activity on your part and does not wind up in your consciousness, 
> > then that's fine, but you don't know about it. Granted objective 
> > reality may be more important to you than *my* consciousness and *my* 
> > activity, but your consciousness is the only window you have on 
> > objective reality.
> > Andy
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: 
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
MIA: http://www.marxists.org

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