[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo Finnish Insufficiences
I have a problem. I accept that Vygotsky's search for a unit of analysis is teleological: it works backwards from a problem rather than forwards from particular elements. I accept that for this reason it has a clear relationship to what Andy calls "defining a whole field".
What I do not accept is that the field is really reducible to the units of analysis, microcosmically, that we can really, as Blake says, perceive the universe in a grain of sand. That is not just romantic science (that is, science which dares to question Cartesian rationalism and dualism); it is romantic mysticism.
So for example capitalism is not the sum total of commodities. A mind is not a skull stuffed with word meanings. And nature is not just a bunch of spaces. Yes, in each case the unit contains the essence of the whole. But in no case is whole equal to the sum of its parts. A body is not simply cells, but also plasma, and electrical impulses, and structures that go well beyond the cellular level. Yes, the unit of analysis contains the problem. But the unit of analysis is not itself the solution to the problem.
Not only is the whole not equal to the sum of its parts, I think that the unit of analysis is not equal to itself; that is, it must develop. That means that the unit of analysis has to be an open system, and not a closed one; there must be some means by which things which are not part of the unit can become part of the unit. I think that the commodity and the meaning-laden word pass this test: the commodity absorbs labor, and the meaningful word absorbs sense. But I also think that "activity" does not.
That's part of my objection to Leontiev, I'm afraid. Leontiev DOES say that an activity is reducible to its component actions, without remainder, and an action similarly fungible into operations. That's why I think the accusation that his explanatory principle is the same as his unit of analysis (Kozulin) is true.
I realize that this brings me very close to Nikolai Veresov. Nikolai objected to my interpreting "microcosm" as "unit of analysis" (as in "The meaning-laden word is a microcosm of human consciousness"), and pointed out that a macrocosm is not made up of microcosms. I now think his objection was correct. The "meaningful word" is not really a unit of analysis for consciousness in general (and that is why Vygotsky offers, for example, perizhvanie for young children). It is only the "and" in "Thinking and Speech".
David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
--- On Mon, 12/26/11, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo Finnish Insufficiences
To: "Culture ActivityeXtended Mind" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Monday, December 26, 2011, 3:55 AM
David, I am going to restrict myself to just one of the numerous issues you raise, and that is the general question as to whether there can be a universal, interdisciplinary unit of analysis. Obviously there cannot be such a universal unit of analysis because that would imply a "science of everything" and at least at this stage in the development of the human species that is ruled out.
What is raised by this question is the relation between a science and a field of phenomena. A field of science (e.g. world politics, economics, psychology, ...) can be loosely defined as all those phenomena sharing some given attribute in common, but this is not the way of Romantic science or of dialectics. The aim of a holistic sacience is to conceive and define a whole field of science as a Gestalt. This results in phenomena which would initially be seen to be part of the field, to be excluded, whilst what was at first seen as extraneous, being included. But the science is defined then by being all those phenomena constituted by the Gestalt. The Gestalt for its part must then (for the dialectician) be conceived of by means of a unit of analysis, which (as you correctly observe) expresses just one, the simplest possible, problem and its solution. The contradiction is that an entire field of phenomena then comes to be conceived under a limited unit of
analysis. But that field is not (cannot be) conceived in advance. To do so inevitably leads to an empty abstraction. Thus we have units of analysis that turn out to be keys to entire sciences. The key then when confronted with a vast array of problem is to penetrate to that one problem which is the key to it all, and crack that one.
I have been collecting units of analysis. Hegel had hundreds of them in his Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. Modern writers generally make their name for their insights into just one field of phenomena which virtually carries their name as a result, so in their cases it is enough to mention the name of the writer and the unit. So ...
* For Hegel, Being was the unit of analysis for Logic, a concept was
the unit of a formation of consicousness, Space was a unit of
analysis for Nature, a Soul was the unit of analysis for Spirit
(ie human life), private property was the unit of analysis for
Right - which includes the whole of world history, international
law. &c.
* For Marx the commodity relation was the unit for bourgeois society
(ie the economy in the broadest sense, but not family or political
life)
* For Thomas Kuhn a solved problem was a unit of scientific achievement.
* For Frege, the unit is the smallest expression to which pragmatic
force can be attached
* For Wittgenstein, the unit is the smallest expression whose
utterance makes a move in a language game
* For Robert Brandom, the unit is the proposition,
* A cell, is the basic unit of a biological organism,
There are others, such as Vygotsky and Bakhtin/Voloshinov but let's leave them for the moment...
So in a way, the unit of analysis is primary. Given the unit, the solution to some very finite problem, one has thereby an entire science and the definition of the field of phenomena *flows from that*.
Hope that helps.
About the rest I cannot comment.,
Andy
David Kellogg wrote:
> I gather that what we are doing is discussing the review of Andy's book in the latest MCA.
> I'm not really sure why we are doing this, because it doesn't actually seem immediately and obviously related to the topic of Leontiev and Stalinism, it was not chosen by vote, and it is also rather scandalously long and more than usually poorly written.
> On p. 374, Nissen says that CHAT is in search of a kind of universal unit of analysis. I was not aware that this was considered possible, much less that it was considered a central point in CHAT. Nissen strongly implies that Andy's book really does claim the "collaborative project" as a kind of God particle, a universal, interdisciplinary unit of analysis. Is this true?
> Vygotsky never implied that there was any universal, interdisciplinary unit of analysis to be had. Quite the contrary. He explicitly puts forward very different units of analysis for different problems. For example, he argues that perizhvanie is the U of A for the emotional life of the child, and that word meaning is for the problem of Thinking and Speech. Molecules and molecular movement are for understanding quite specific problems in hydrology, not for discussing water generally. If Andy really does disagree with this, I'd like to know about why, but I rather suspect he does not.
> On p. 375, Nissen writes:
> "What is immanence? A colleague whom I much respect declared recently that Blunden is so much of a newcomer to CHAT that he shouldn't be taken seriously at all."
> I cannot understand how the answer answers the question. Can someone explain this?
> "More specifically he (Andy) exhibits Hegel so meticulously that at some points the relevance escapes me, whereas Marx is rendered in such a simplifying way that it at once stirred my nostalgia for pre-post-modern Marxism and my urge to let us, finally, get beyond it--as Marxists, that is! Speaking of legacy..."
> No, let's not speak of legacy. I can't understand a word of this. Will somebody please translate?
> "Frankly, it seems Blunden has not worked enough on this to make it worth the while for us to go into it any further, so let's just leave it there."
> I rather he would have left it there, but unfortunately, the review goes on for another eight (!) equally incoherent pages. I gather that a special exception to the normal 2000 word limit was made for this review, and I would really like to hear why, particularly since Andy is so very proud of the high rejection rate of the journal!
> I must put in a good word for the p. 375 footnote though:
> "For a price of 99 pounds, one would expect some careful editing to be done, an at least not quite so many typos."
> Well put. But I think the same thing holds true for my MCA subscription.
> David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> --- On *Sun, 12/25/11, Andy Blunden /<ablunden@mira.net>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo
> Finnish Insufficiences
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Sunday, December 25, 2011, 6:23 PM
>
> Good point, Arturo.
>
> One of the most difficult things to work out is what Hegel is talking
> about, the subject matter of his writing. The concept of Recognition
> arises not in the Philosophy of Right (which is surely just about
> modern
> communities) but in the Subjective Spirit, and here the topic is
> quite
> ambiguous. It is about human beings emerging from what Hegel took
> to be
> a state of nature towards the modern state. But what sense do we
> give to
> "emerging"? Hegel did not believe in the evolution of species. He
> believed that only history changed; nothing new ever happened in
> nature.
> So he saw human beings as intelligent animals who only came into
> themselves as they built languages, customs, forms of production,
> "raised" children, and so on. But the immediate section before the
> Subjective Spirit is the Philosophy of Nature, about animals, the
> immediate section following Subjective Spirit is about private
> property.
> So Subjective Spirit is about how human animals (organically exactly
> what they are now) became modern citizens. But it reads less as a
> theory
> of history than as a theory of human anatomy and physiology. The
> section
> on recognition comes in the section on self-consciousness, prior
> to the
> section on language. It is about history as much as it is about
> biology.
> Hegel is making a logical exposition of how human beings must be.
> Anyway, recognition not only "predates" the modern state, it
> "predates"
> even language, for Hegel. The struggle to the death for recognition
> makes abundant sense so long as one situates it in the struggle of a
> social movement or emergent nation, not as the struggle of an
> individual. But how far do we take such a reading of the subjective
> spirit. Given that the Zusatze for the Subjective Spirit were not
> translated into English till 1971 and since 1830 only two books in
> English have been written on the Subjective Spirit, there is a lot of
> puzzles to untangle yet.
>
> Andy
>
> Arturo Escandon wrote:
> > I think Greg is referring to the quest for recognition and its
> link to identity. When the commonwealth is born, there are more
> clear loci of recognition. At least one can argue that the state
> helps selecting and reproducing identities that are treated as
> official. See segments of Hegel's Philosophy of Right on person
> and subject.
> >
> > How does chat deal with ascertaining the positioning of the
> subject for that is the locus of power and control.
> >
> > Best
> > Arturo
> > Sent from my iPod
> >
> > On 26 Dec 2011, at 07:33, mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > >> Greg -- mediation through culture begins only after emergence
> of the state?
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On Dec 25, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Victor Friedlander
> <victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> On 25 December 2011 10:10, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >>>> I don't know Markell, but I read Williams as what I call
> billiard table
> >>>> recognition. As you correctly say, individuals in the modern
> state get
> >>>> recognition first of all through Right, and then on top of
> all that
> >>>> through participation in a whole variety of mediating projects.
> >>>> Mediation is the alpha and omega of Hegel and I don't see a
> single
> >>>> glimmer of understanding of this in the writers I mentioned.
> Why? They
> >>>> express the spirit of their age, in which individuals bang
> around like
> >>>> billiard balls on a level playing field. They want to do away
> with
> >>>> religion, but all they have to replace it with is individualism.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a lot of be said for Mead and his rendering of the
> master-slave
> >>>> narrative, but I think he remained unclear, and his subjects
> seem to be
> >>>> able to generate the means of mediation from within
> themselves. OK up to
> >>>> a point, but as Hegel says ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, what is overlooked is that the subjects of Hegel's
> narratives are
> >>>> not first of all individuals, but are social subjects, and only
> >>>> derivatively from that, persons.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >>>> Greg Thompson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >>>>> Yes, Andy, your quote from Hegel makes clear that Hegel is
> tracing out
> >>>>> subjective spirit as it emerges through recognition in
> phylogenetic
> >>>>> history. But this is not to say that the process of
> recognition is all
> >>>>> said and done once human social life has developed past this
> state.
> >>>>> What does follow from this historical transformation, imho,
> is that
> >>>>> recognition will take on a new quality with the emergence of
> civil
> >>>>> society and the State - recognition becomes mediated in a
> whole new
> >>>>> way; recognition becomes mediated through culture. This is
> not your
> >>>>> father's recognition. It is not about struggle and battle,
> but it is
> >>>>> about gaining rich individuality through the complex
> macrosocial array
> >>>>> of identities that are on offer in society (and which are
> realized
> >>>>> with respect to the complex metapragmatics of exhibiting and,
> >>>>> critically, being recognized as having had exhibited, the
> signs and
> >>>>> symbols of having had been such and such type of person in a
> given
> >>>>> moment). To put it in a slightly different idiom, identity
> is like a
> >>>>> right - it exists consequentially only through the
> recognition of
> >>>>> others (writ large, i.e. recognition via thirdness (Peirce)
> or, if you
> >>>>> prefer, a generalized other (Mead), in short, through
> recognition
> >>>>> through culture). And just as property creates possibilities for
> >>>>> agentive action, e.g. raising cattle or raising capital, so
> too do
> >>>>> various identities create possibilities for agentive action
> (something
> >>>>> that the con-man is well aware of, but which most of the
> rest of us
> >>>>> seem too stuck in our "own" skin to realize).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also happen to think that this importance of culture to
> mediation
> >>>>> comes through in both Markell's and Williams' readings of Hegel,
> >>>>> although I think it is more clearly articulated in the
> former than in
> >>>>> the latter (though I do have some issues with both). And I
> will need
> >>>>> to go back through my notes and through your writings on
> Williams,
> >>>>> Andy, to see where I think that you've got Williams wrong
> (but I'm not
> >>>>> about to make a similar claim about your reading of Hegel -
> you're way
> >>>>> out of my league in that regard!).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But that will have to wait as there are more pressing
> matters right
> >>>>> now (presents to wrap and cookies to eat and notes to leave!).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And a very merry Christmas to you Andy.
> >>>>> And to all a good night.
> >>>>> -greg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> p.s., to mike I'm not sure at all how to connect this to
> Leontiev.
> >>>>> Have much work to do in that connection... Motivation maybe?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> To let Hegel speak for himself. In The Subjective Spirit,
> after the
> >>>>>> "master-servant" narrative, he says:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "To prevent any possible misunderstandings with regard to the
> >>>>>> standpoint just outlined, we must here remark that the
> fight for
> >>>>>> recognition pushed to the extreme here indicated can only
> occur in
> >>>>>> the natural state, where men exist only as single, separate
> >>>>>> individuals; but it is absent in civil society and the
> State because
> >>>>>> here the recognition for which the combatants fight already
> exists.
> >>>>>> For although the State may originate in violence, it does
> not rest
> >>>>>> on it" (1830/1971 ��432n).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy Blunden wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have written/spoken eslewhere and at length on R R
> Williams (as well
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>> Robert Brandom, Axel Honneth and others) and I regard
> their postmodern
> >>>>>>> interpretation of recognition-without-culture. I regard it
> as the main
> >>>>>>> barrier to an understanding of CHAT or Hegel of our times.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Functionalism is interesting in the way you mentioned, in
> that it
> >>>>>>> prefigured more contemporary currents which also do away with any
> >>>>>>> centre of
> >>>>>>> power but cast power as flowing through "capillaries" - a
> more radical
> >>>>>>> conception of power-wthout-a-centre actually.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for providing a link back to the
> Leontiev/functionalism
> >>>>>>>> discussion, Andy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The links appear to go right through your home hegelian
> territory and
> >>>>>>>> link us up
> >>>>>>>> to current discussions of "recognition." They also link
> up with ideas
> >>>>>>>> linked to
> >>>>>>>> Zygmund Bauman's "Liquid Modernity." And to the many
> other people whose
> >>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>> I know too little of.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> With respect to functionalism, casting national
> aspersions aside :-))
> >>>>>>>> , it never occurred to me during my years getting trained
> to be a
> >>>>>>>> learning
> >>>>>>>> theorist in the
> >>>>>>>> Skinnerian tradition, to consider the question of "where
> does the
> >>>>>>>> function come from" or "who is exerting power here?" We
> starved the
> >>>>>>>> rats
> >>>>>>>> and they ran or died. Or coerced sophomores using grades
> as "part of
> >>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>> education."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then I went to Moscow. Where the caste of characters
> under discussion
> >>>>>>>> were my hosts. Like I said. I am a slow learner on all these
> >>>>>>>> complicated
> >>>>>>>> matters. At the rate I am going I am never going to
> figure it all out!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In my view, Mike, there were some basic questions asked and
> >>>>>>>> answered by A N Leontyev in launching the enquiry we know as
> >>>>>>>> "Activity Theory" are uneliminable, that is, he took a
> step which
> >>>>>>>> has to be valued and continued. But it was a step at an
> extremely
> >>>>>>>> fundamental level. It absolutely left open
> Stalinist-functionalist
> >>>>>>>> directions and well as emancipatory directions. Personally, I
> >>>>>>>> think the impact of the "planned economy" and the
> "leadership"
> >>>>>>>> which understood "the laws of history" and the state which
> >>>>>>>> represented a "higher stage of society" and so on, left a
> mark on
> >>>>>>>> the whole current. But its basics, its fundamentals
> remain intact.
> >>>>>>>> It only remains to agree on what those were.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> By-the-by, the home of "functionalism" is the USA.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> By-the-by again, in the early 80s I was a member of a
> Trotskyist
> >>>>>>>> party which put Ilyenkov on a pedastal, and published new
> >>>>>>>> translations of his work in English, which also came very
> close to
> >>>>>>>> endorsing Lamarkism. It debated it, but the Party
> perished before
> >>>>>>>> the debate was resolved.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am being very slow here. How does this discussion
> resolve
> >>>>>>>> or help me to
> >>>>>>>> think more clearly about the issues in the subject
> line? the
> >>>>>>>> issues over
> >>>>>>>> different interpretations of Leontiev, their relation to
> >>>>>>>> functionalism,
> >>>>>>>> stalinism, fascism, etc?
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Greg Thompson
> >>>>>>>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.**com
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Larry,
> >>>>>>>> IMHO, you're hitting the heart of the matter with
> >>>>>>>> recognition and
> >>>>>>>> agency - self-assertion vs. self-emptying seems a
> nice way
> >>>>>>>> to think
> >>>>>>>> about the central problematic (and I agree with your
> >>>>>>>> preference for
> >>>>>>>> the latter). If you are interested in developing
> a more more
> >>>>>>>> self-emptying Kyoto-like notion of recognition,
> I've got a
> >>>>>>>> couple of
> >>>>>>>> suggestions (and I'm sure I've made these
> suggestions in a
> >>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> context before, so apologies for redundancy).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> First, I'd strongly encourage a read of Robert
> Williams'
> >>>>>>>> Ethics of
> >>>>>>>> Recognition. In Williams' read of Hegel, you find an
> >>>>>>>> articulation of
> >>>>>>>> recognition that is much more like the Kyoto
> understanding of
> >>>>>>>> recognition and which is against the crass
> version you get
> >>>>>>>> from the
> >>>>>>>> existentialists where recognition always about a
> fight or
> >>>>>>>> struggle for
> >>>>>>>> recognition. As evidence of the cultural tendency
> toward
> >>>>>>>> self-assertion, it is very telling that one small
> >>>>>>>> paragraph in Hegel's
> >>>>>>>> oeuvre would get picked up as the thing that most
> people
> >>>>>>>> for most of
> >>>>>>>> the 20th century would equate with Hegel's notion of
> >>>>>>>> "recognition."
> >>>>>>>> But that approach is shortsighted and Williams really
> >>>>>>>> nails this
> >>>>>>>> point. (although I am persuaded by Willaims'
> >>>>>>>> interpretation, I don't
> >>>>>>>> have any skin in the game of whether or not this
> is a more
> >>>>>>>> or less
> >>>>>>>> "authentic" interpretation of Hegel - I just
> happen to
> >>>>>>>> believe that
> >>>>>>>> the position Williams articulates is far more
> productive
> >>>>>>>> than the
> >>>>>>>> struggle-for-recognition model that has been on
> offer from
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> existentialists).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Second, to provide some further support for this
> claim,
> >>>>>>>> I'd also
> >>>>>>>> suggest checking out Johann Georg Hamann, who is
> said to
> >>>>>>>> have been a
> >>>>>>>> significant influence on Hegel (but don't read Isaiah
> >>>>>>>> Berlin's stuff
> >>>>>>>> on Hamann, he misses the point). Hamann didn't really
> >>>>>>>> publish much. He
> >>>>>>>> was most noted for his letters to his friend,
> Immanuel
> >>>>>>>> Kant and in
> >>>>>>>> which he repeatedly tells Kant that he's got it
> all wrong
> >>>>>>>> (and does it
> >>>>>>>> in a style that makes the point through medium as
> well as,
> >>>>>>>> if not more
> >>>>>>>> than, message - a point which itself speaks to
> one of his
> >>>>>>>> central
> >>>>>>>> points about the importance of poetics). In these
> letters,
> >>>>>>>> Hamann has
> >>>>>>>> a wonderful sense of the intractability of human
> life, and
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> fundamental wrong-headedness of the desire for
> sovereign
> >>>>>>>> agency. I'd
> >>>>>>>> be happy to share more if there is any interest.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot there is a third author of
> interest in
> >>>>>>>> this regard,
> >>>>>>>> Patchen Markell's Bound by Recognition gives a
> compelling
> >>>>>>>> portrait of
> >>>>>>>> what he calls "the impropriety of action" - the
> sense in
> >>>>>>>> which our
> >>>>>>>> actions are not our property alone. Markell's
> book argues
> >>>>>>>> that tragedy
> >>>>>>>> (and its twin, comedy) derives from this very human
> >>>>>>>> problem. Also
> >>>>>>>> great stuff.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All three of these readings I suggest as a way of
> pointing
> >>>>>>>> out that
> >>>>>>>> within Western traditions there is a trope that
> is closer to
> >>>>>>>> self-emptying than self-asserting. Unfortunately it
> >>>>>>>> doesn't articulate
> >>>>>>>> as well with Enlightenment perspectives because it is
> >>>>>>>> often, as with
> >>>>>>>> Hamann, articulated through Christianity. This
> presents
> >>>>>>>> something of a
> >>>>>>>> marketing problem since the Enlightenment put
> Christianity
> >>>>>>>> as a thing
> >>>>>>>> of the past and as the kind of believing that
> small minded
> >>>>>>>> people do
> >>>>>>>> (the kind that tote guns and don't believe in
> evolution),
> >>>>>>>> and thus a
> >>>>>>>> not very appealing thing for most Westerner's
> "natural" (i.e.
> >>>>>>>> "cultural") inclination to self-assertion. So I
> think that
> >>>>>>>> as a matter
> >>>>>>>> of packaging, Buddhism, with its stripped down
> religious
> >>>>>>>> ideology,
> >>>>>>>> probably has more appeal to most post-Enlightenment
> >>>>>>>> Western thinkers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And I wanted to add that I feel like your posts are
> >>>>>>>> speaking directly
> >>>>>>>> to me and maybe we can carry on this conversation
> in more
> >>>>>>>> detail
> >>>>>>>> somewhere down the road (in a different thread, I
> >>>>>>>> suspect). So many
> >>>>>>>> thanks for your words (even if they weren't
> "intended" for
> >>>>>>>> me - a
> >>>>>>>> fortuitous impropriety to be sure!).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anyway, hope all is well,
> >>>>>>>> greg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Larry Purss
> >>>>>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I'm enjoying this line [circle?
> spiral?] of
> >>>>>>>> inquiry.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David, you wrote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The mind is a highly parsimonious thing; it
> is very
> >>>>>>>> tiring to believe one
> >>>>>>>> thing and say another. Vygotsky's genetic law
> predicts
> >>>>>>>> that eventually it
> >>>>>>>> is the former that shall cede to the latter.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I want to go out on a speculative limb that
> tries to
> >>>>>>>> weave together some
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> Wittgenstein's notions that are
> also
> >>>>>>>> expressed in John
> >>>>>>>> Shotter's
> >>>>>>>> exploration of conversation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The question of the relation and distinction
> between
> >>>>>>>> "taking a position"
> >>>>>>>> and "developing dispositions" In David's
> quote above
> >>>>>>>> "believing" one
> >>>>>>>> thing
> >>>>>>>> [a position] and "saying"
> [practicing
> >>>>>>>> another] will
> >>>>>>>> over time eventually
> >>>>>>>> lead to the practice winning out over the belief.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Their are a group of scholars in Japan
> referred to as
> >>>>>>>> "the kyoto school"
> >>>>>>>> who are engaged in the project of having an
> indepth
> >>>>>>>> conversation between
> >>>>>>>> Buddhism and German Continental philosophy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A central difference the authors of the Kyoto
> school
> >>>>>>>> are articulating is
> >>>>>>>> different notions [and values] of
> "intersubjectivity"
> >>>>>>>> as epressed in the
> >>>>>>>> contrasting concepts
> >>>>>>>> "self-assertion" and "self-emptying".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They suggest many Western notions of
> intersubjectivity
> >>>>>>>> and recognition
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> in pursuit of recognizing our
> assertoric
> >>>>>>>> stance or
> >>>>>>>> position towards
> >>>>>>>> words,
> >>>>>>>> self, other, & world. This
> assertive
> >>>>>>>> position can be
> >>>>>>>> expressed in
> >>>>>>>> emancipatory notions of "finding one's VOICE" and
> >>>>>>>> overcoming being
> >>>>>>>> "silenced". Anger and conflict leading to
> overcoming
> >>>>>>>> resistance from
> >>>>>>>> within classes, races, genders. Through
> recognition
> >>>>>>>> [being seen and
> >>>>>>>> listened to develops the capacity to move from a
> >>>>>>>> silenced "voice" to an
> >>>>>>>> assertive "voice"] one stands up and speaks
> back to
> >>>>>>>> the dominating
> >>>>>>>> constraints and the shame and humiliation that
> >>>>>>>> silences voices.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As Shotter [in Christine's quotes above
> shows] the
> >>>>>>>> assertoric position of
> >>>>>>>> challenging dominant structures and power can
> be seen
> >>>>>>>> as expressing a
> >>>>>>>> particular "attitude" or "style" or "posture".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This style or attitude valorizes "the assertoric
> >>>>>>>> stance" in the world"
> >>>>>>>> which develops into an enduring "disposition"
> if we
> >>>>>>>> keep "saying" this
> >>>>>>>> form
> >>>>>>>> of recognition and emancipation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However, the Kyoto School, in deep
> conversation with
> >>>>>>>> this assertoric
> >>>>>>>> "position" and "disposition" suggests or gestures
> >>>>>>>> toward an "alternative"
> >>>>>>>> [not truer, more real, but an alternative]
> >>>>>>>> They suggest Buddhist practice and "saying"
> can guide
> >>>>>>>> or mediate another
> >>>>>>>> in*formation of "self" that they express in the
> >>>>>>>> concept of "self-emptying
> >>>>>>>> This is NOT a passive or resigned form of
> agency but
> >>>>>>>> rather an active
> >>>>>>>> intentional positioning of self that attempts to
> >>>>>>>> foreground the
> >>>>>>>> "fallibility" and "uncertainty" of ALL
> positioning and
> >>>>>>>> assertoric
> >>>>>>>> stances.
> >>>>>>>> This is a deeply
> intersubjective practice
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> valuing
> >>>>>>>> "emergence" and
> >>>>>>>> "openning spaces" in which to INVITE the other to
> >>>>>>>> exist by the practice
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> mving our self from center
> stage. Finding
> >>>>>>>> one's
> >>>>>>>> "voice" from this
> >>>>>>>> position
> >>>>>>>> of ACTIVE INTENTIONAL
> self-emptying [and
> >>>>>>>> creating the
> >>>>>>>> openning space for
> >>>>>>>> the other's "voice" to emerge] is a very
> different
> >>>>>>>> "attitude" or "stance"
> >>>>>>>> or "posture" to take leading to a very different
> >>>>>>>> "disposition" from
> >>>>>>>> within
> >>>>>>>> a very different form of
> "saying" and
> >>>>>>>> "practice".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I "read" scholars such as Wittgenstein, Shotter,
> >>>>>>>> Gadamer, Buber, Levinas,
> >>>>>>>> as exploring this alternative in*formation of
> "self"
> >>>>>>>> that is less
> >>>>>>>> assertoric in finding one's "voice" and
> moving towards
> >>>>>>>> a posture of
> >>>>>>>> self-emptying that embraces FALLIBILITY,
> UNCERTAINTY,
> >>>>>>>> AMBIVALENCE, NOT
> >>>>>>>> KNOWING, at the heart of this particular way of
> >>>>>>>> becoming human.
> >>>>>>>> I do believe this is an historically guided
> >>>>>>>> perspective that embraces
> >>>>>>>> multiple perspectives and multiple practices.
> >>>>>>>> Intersubjectivity and dialogical hermeneutical
> >>>>>>>> perspectives and the
> >>>>>>>> multiple formations this conversation can take
> >>>>>>>> [expressing alternative
> >>>>>>>> moral committments] is the concept at the
> center of
> >>>>>>>> this possible
> >>>>>>>> inquiry.
> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how "possible" it
> is for
> >>>>>>>> persons in North
> >>>>>>>> America to
> >>>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>>> such alternative moral compasses as
> >>>>>>>> explored
> >>>>>>>> by the
> >>>>>>>> Kyoto School. [it may
> >>>>>>>> be beyond our horizon of understanding to
> envision as
> >>>>>>>> a possibility].
> >>>>>>>> It is also difficult to grasp Wittgenstein's
> attempt
> >>>>>>>> to "see through"
> >>>>>>>> theoretical positions as a practice and
> disposition.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Self-asserion is often viewed as the only path to
> >>>>>>>> intentional stances and
> >>>>>>>> postures in finding one's voice to participate in
> >>>>>>>> GENERATIVE
> >>>>>>>> conversations. Is there merit in engaging with
> >>>>>>>> another tradition
> >>>>>>>> exploring
> >>>>>>>> agentic ACTORS actively practising
> >>>>>>>> "self-emptying"
> >>>>>>>> motivated by the deep
> >>>>>>>> disposition and committment to generative
> dialogical
> >>>>>>>> ways of practice.??
> >>>>>>>> As I said in my opening remarks, this is
> going "out on
> >>>>>>>> a limb". Is
> >>>>>>>> conflict
> >>>>>>>> and anger the ONLY motivators
> that can be
> >>>>>>>> harnessed to
> >>>>>>>> transform the
> >>>>>>>> world??
> >>>>>>>> I'm also aware that my position as a "white
> male" with
> >>>>>>>> a secure job may
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> calling me to take a naive
> "utopian"
> >>>>>>>> perspective.
> >>>>>>>> At the minimum I want to suggest that it is
> these types
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> "conversations"
> >>>>>>>> across "traditions" such as the
> Kyoto
> >>>>>>>> School
> >>>>>>>> scholars
> >>>>>>>> are engaged in
> >>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>> invite us into a world
> conversation which
> >>>>>>>> puts into
> >>>>>>>> play the monolithic
> >>>>>>>> bias towards the assertoric stance in the world.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm preparing for "challenges" to this
> alternative
> >>>>>>>> "attitude" but am
> >>>>>>>> putting it out there in a spirit of the
> holiday season
> >>>>>>>> to think outside
> >>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>> Western notions of
> "self-assertion" and
> >>>>>>>> finding one's
> >>>>>>>> voice.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Larry
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:04 AM, David Kellogg <
> >>>>>>>> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:vaughndogblack@yahoo.**com<vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ivan:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At the beginning of the Philosophical
> >>>>>>>> Investigations, Wittgenstein
> >>>>>>>> quotes
> >>>>>>>> Augustine, who describes the
> >>>>>>>> indescribable
> >>>>>>>> experience of learning a
> >>>>>>>> first
> >>>>>>>> language in Latin, and
> remarks that his
> >>>>>>>> model of
> >>>>>>>> language (a big bag of
> >>>>>>>> names) is OK, but only for a very restricted
> >>>>>>>> application; there are many
> >>>>>>>> things we call language for which it is not
> >>>>>>>> appropriate. And thence to
> >>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>> famous discussion of
> complexes, in the
> >>>>>>>> form of
> >>>>>>>> games and language games.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think what I said was that Wittgenstein's
> >>>>>>>> account of language is
> >>>>>>>> pragmatic in a linguistic sense.
> Pragmatics is
> >>>>>>>> about the use of
> >>>>>>>> language,
> >>>>>>>> as opposed to its usage
> (which is more
> >>>>>>>> or less
> >>>>>>>> what Augustine is
> >>>>>>>> describing, language as a dictionary
> written in
> >>>>>>>> some form of mentalese,
> >>>>>>>> where every language is necessarily a foreign
> >>>>>>>> language).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And I think what Wittgenstein says about
> language
> >>>>>>>> applies to every
> >>>>>>>> account
> >>>>>>>> of language, even his own;
> it is
> >>>>>>>> appropriate, but
> >>>>>>>> ony for a very
> >>>>>>>> restricted
> >>>>>>>> application. In that way it
> is like a
> >>>>>>>> metaphor (as
> >>>>>>>> we see in the
> >>>>>>>> language
> >>>>>>>> games section, and the tool box
> >>>>>>>> section,
> >>>>>>>> it really
> >>>>>>>> IS a metaphor). So I
> >>>>>>>> think we need to ask the question where
> it stops
> >>>>>>>> being appropriate.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As Andy points out, it doesn't describe
> conceptual
> >>>>>>>> thinking very well.
> >>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>> that is not because the
> pragmatic
> >>>>>>>> account of
> >>>>>>>> language is a subset of
> >>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>> larger conceptual account;
> I think that
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> relationship is quite the
> >>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>> way around: scientific
> concepts are a
> >>>>>>>> rarefied,
> >>>>>>>> specialized subset of
> >>>>>>>> semantic meaning, and of course semantic
> meaning
> >>>>>>>> took many centuries of
> >>>>>>>> billions of daily interactions to be
> precipitated
> >>>>>>>> from everyday
> >>>>>>>> pragmatics.
> >>>>>>>> Now it seems to me that on
> this scale
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> things,
> >>>>>>>> the cultural individual
> >>>>>>>> really is quite unchanging and hidebound,
> rather
> >>>>>>>> like a bottle. We
> >>>>>>>> rejoice
> >>>>>>>> that Western women do not
> bind their
> >>>>>>>> feet--and
> >>>>>>>> instead mutilate their
> >>>>>>>> chests with silicon implants. We rejoice
> in not
> >>>>>>>> stoning women for
> >>>>>>>> adultery
> >>>>>>>> and congratulate ourselves
> on no longer
> >>>>>>>> insisting
> >>>>>>>> on the male ownership
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> sexuality that this
> entails, but we so
> >>>>>>>> stigmatize
> >>>>>>>> child sexual abuse
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> children's lives, and not
> simply their
> >>>>>>>> putative
> >>>>>>>> purity, are now at risk
> >>>>>>>> from pedophiles, and nobody reflects that
> what is
> >>>>>>>> really threatened
> >>>>>>>> here is
> >>>>>>>> the parental ownership of
> sexual access
> >>>>>>>> to their
> >>>>>>>> children.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This morning's New York Times, just for
> example,
> >>>>>>>> has a thoroughly silly
> >>>>>>>> article on North Korea by one Nicolas
> Kristof. We
> >>>>>>>> are told that
> >>>>>>>> apartments in Pyeongyang are all equipped
> with
> >>>>>>>> telescreens that
> >>>>>>>> make propaganda announcements of, e.g., the
> >>>>>>>> leaders' golf scores. We
> >>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>> similar telescreen in our
> apartment in
> >>>>>>>> Seoul,
> >>>>>>>> which announces municipal
> >>>>>>>> elections and tells where to find the
> local leader
> >>>>>>>> of the anti-communist
> >>>>>>>> militia. The difference is that when we
> do it is
> >>>>>>>> feels normal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kristof certainly does not feel
> hidebound; he is
> >>>>>>>> quite comfortable in
> >>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>> own skin. Nevertheless, he
> tells a
> >>>>>>>> wildly
> >>>>>>>> brainwashed account of the
> >>>>>>>> way in
> >>>>>>>> which North Korea developed
> nuclear
> >>>>>>>> weapons. He
> >>>>>>>> correctly remembers
> >>>>>>>> that in
> >>>>>>>> 1994 an agreement was
> negotiated to
> >>>>>>>> build nuclear
> >>>>>>>> power plants in North
> >>>>>>>> Korea (he carefully omits to say that
> these would
> >>>>>>>> be non-weaponizable
> >>>>>>>> and built by South Korean companies). Now,
> >>>>>>>> according to Kristof, the
> >>>>>>>> Clinton administration only did this
> because they
> >>>>>>>> fooishly assumed that
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> regime would collapse
> before the
> >>>>>>>> reactors were
> >>>>>>>> actually built! Wisely,
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> Bush administration caught
> the North
> >>>>>>>> Koreans
> >>>>>>>> "cheating", and tore up the
> >>>>>>>> agreement.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What really happened, as anybody with a
> memory
> >>>>>>>> longer than the Bush
> >>>>>>>> adminstration will tell you, was that the
> North
> >>>>>>>> Koreans asked for, and
> >>>>>>>> got,
> >>>>>>>> a codicil that would supply
> them with
> >>>>>>>> fuel oil for
> >>>>>>>> energy as a stopgap
> >>>>>>>> measure (if you look at the widely circulated
> >>>>>>>> satellite picture of North
> >>>>>>>> Korea at night you will see why they
> insisted on
> >>>>>>>> this). The Clinton
> >>>>>>>> Administration always boasted that the
> fuel oil
> >>>>>>>> they supplied was
> >>>>>>>> unusably
> >>>>>>>> poor, but that was not
> enough for the
> >>>>>>>> Bush
> >>>>>>>> adminstration. They simply
> >>>>>>>> reneged on the agreement. But the North
> did not
> >>>>>>>> renege: they had
> >>>>>>>> promised
> >>>>>>>> they would develop nuclear
> weapons if
> >>>>>>>> the deal
> >>>>>>>> fell through, and that is
> >>>>>>>> what they did.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why does Kristof tell this transparent lie?
> >>>>>>>> Doesn't it go against the
> >>>>>>>> usual NYT ethos of telling the truth about
> >>>>>>>> checkable and trivial
> >>>>>>>> matters so
> >>>>>>>> as to be able to deceive
> with the
> >>>>>>>> necessary
> >>>>>>>> authority when it comes to
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> essentials? I think, alas,
> Mr. Kristof
> >>>>>>>> simply
> >>>>>>>> cannot control himself any
> >>>>>>>> more (see his WILDLY improbable tale about a
> >>>>>>>> husband executing his own
> >>>>>>>> wife
> >>>>>>>> for writing a highly
> implausible letter
> >>>>>>>> to Kim
> >>>>>>>> Jeong-il himself). The
> >>>>>>>> leather mask has become a face.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And I think that is probably what
> happened to poor
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev as well. The
> >>>>>>>> mind is a highly parsimonious thing; it
> is very
> >>>>>>>> tiring to believe one
> >>>>>>>> thing
> >>>>>>>> and say another. Vygotsky's
> genetic law
> >>>>>>>> predicts
> >>>>>>>> that eventually it is
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> former that shall cede to
> the latter.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is that sense in which what Mike says
> is true:
> >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's psychology,
> >>>>>>>> as a scientific system, describes the
> development
> >>>>>>>> of institutionalized
> >>>>>>>> lying just as accurately as it describes the
> >>>>>>>> development of higher
> >>>>>>>> concepts. What I wanted to say was that his
> >>>>>>>> earlier sense that ideas are
> >>>>>>>> always embodied, and some bodies are
> gifted with
> >>>>>>>> an extraordinary
> >>>>>>>> foresight, is also true. I think Vygotsky
> knew
> >>>>>>>> that he would die, but he
> >>>>>>>> also knew that his ideas, so long as they
> were
> >>>>>>>> true ones, would live.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- On Wed, 12/21/11, Ivan Rosero
> >>>>>>>> <irosero@ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=irosero@ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:irosero@ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=irosero@ucsd.edu>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: Ivan Rosero <irosero@ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=irosero@ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:irosero@ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=irosero@ucsd.edu>>>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev:
> >>>>>>>> functionalism and Anglo
> >>>>>>>> Finnish
> >>>>>>>> Insufficiences
> >>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
> >>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2011, 6:50 PM
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David, if you agree with the summary
> Larry has
> >>>>>>>> presented, I remain
> >>>>>>>> confused
> >>>>>>>> by your analogy. I read
> Larry's
> >>>>>>>> presentation of
> >>>>>>>> Kitching/Pleasant as
> >>>>>>>> saying that action cobbles together
> further sense
> >>>>>>>> within already-given
> >>>>>>>> sense that is simultaneously
> ideal-material, and
> >>>>>>>> therefore subject to
> >>>>>>>> culturally and historically specific
> constraints
> >>>>>>>> and possibilities. But
> >>>>>>>> surely, this includes the bottle and the
> person
> >>>>>>>> too, both as moving
> >>>>>>>> entities (the bottle, unless highly
> heated, a much
> >>>>>>>> more slowly moving
> >>>>>>>> entity). I am not invested in any particular
> >>>>>>>> reading of Leontiev, but
> >>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>> analogy as presented
> suggests a kind of
> >>>>>>>> essential
> >>>>>>>> fixity to the person
> >>>>>>>> which I want to believe you don't really
> mean.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To be fair, your emphasis is on the wine
> in the
> >>>>>>>> bottle. But, in this
> >>>>>>>> case,
> >>>>>>>> a slowly moving bottle is
> rather less
> >>>>>>>> interesting
> >>>>>>>> than a human being,
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> a rather less historically
> complex
> >>>>>>>> relationship to
> >>>>>>>> the liquid it gives
> >>>>>>>> shape to.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Does what Andy refer to help here? What
> kind of
> >>>>>>>> concept-complex (is it
> >>>>>>>> enough to call it Stalinism?) helps to
> explain the
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev at issue
> >>>>>>>> here?
> >>>>>>>> Or, if the critique was
> there from
> >>>>>>>> early
> >>>>>>>> on, what
> >>>>>>>> kind of
> >>>>>>>> concept-complex
> >>>>>>>> would help to explain his
> writings'
> >>>>>>>> wide
> >>>>>>>> acceptance?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Or, do we forgo all this and just grab
> Leontiev,
> >>>>>>>> as you say, "on a good
> >>>>>>>> day"?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ivan
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM, David
> Kellogg <
> >>>>>>>> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:vaughndogblack@yahoo.**com
> <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mike wrote that as he grows
> older, he
> >>>>>>>> becomes less attached to his
> >>>>>>>> position (expressed in his editorial
> >>>>>>>> commentary to Luria's
> >>>>>>>> autobiography,
> >>>>>>>> "The Making of Mind")
> that ideas
> >>>>>>>> really are
> >>>>>>>> highly embodied things.
> >>>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>>> says that as he grows
> older, he
> >>>>>>>> becomes more
> >>>>>>>> and more attached to
> >>>>>>>> Luria's
> >>>>>>>> position that only
> ideas matter.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But as I grow older, I become more
> and more
> >>>>>>>> attached to Mike's
> >>>>>>>> original
> >>>>>>>> position that
> individuals really
> >>>>>>>> matter. Wine
> >>>>>>>> has no shape of its
> >>>>>>>> own; it
> >>>>>>>> really depends on what
> bottle we
> >>>>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>> it in,
> >>>>>>>> and the form of ideas
> >>>>>>>> depends
> >>>>>>>> very much on the
> character of the
> >>>>>>>> individuals
> >>>>>>>> wo carry them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On paper, the theoretical positions of
> >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev are not
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> far apart. So when Mike
> asks what
> >>>>>>>> presents
> >>>>>>>> Vygotsky's ideas from being
> >>>>>>>> pressed into service by the Stalinist
> state, I
> >>>>>>>> think the answer has
> >>>>>>>> to be
> >>>>>>>> referred to the
> individual who
> >>>>>>>> carried this
> >>>>>>>> idea after all.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think it is not accidental that one was
> >>>>>>>> amenable and the other was
> >>>>>>>> not,
> >>>>>>>> that one's ideas were
> deformed and
> >>>>>>>> degenerated, and the others still
> >>>>>>>> amaze
> >>>>>>>> by their
> freshness and
> >>>>>>>> color. Nor is it
> >>>>>>>> accidental that one lived and
> >>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>> died.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But of course death is simply the
> moment when
> >>>>>>>> our thinking and spoken
> >>>>>>>> speech must come to an end, and our
> written
> >>>>>>>> speech, like a hermit
> >>>>>>>> crab,
> >>>>>>>> must find a new home in
> the minds
> >>>>>>>> and mouths
> >>>>>>>> of others. And by that
> >>>>>>>> measure, it was Vygotsky who lived
> on, yea,
> >>>>>>>> even in the mind and the
> >>>>>>>> mouth
> >>>>>>>> of
> Leontiev. Well,
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev on a good day!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> PS; I think I am (once again) with
> Larry. I
> >>>>>>>> think that if we read
> >>>>>>>> (late)
> >>>>>>>> Wittgenstein as a
> linguistic (not a
> >>>>>>>> philosophical) pragmatist, that
> >>>>>>>> is,
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> someone who
> believes
> >>>>>>>> that meaning in language
> >>>>>>>> comes from sense in
> >>>>>>>> activity,
> >>>>>>>> Wittgenstein is
> >>>>>>>> perfectly consistent with what
> >>>>>>>> Marx writes in the
> >>>>>>>> German
> >>>>>>>> Ideology (that language is
> >>>>>>>> practical
> >>>>>>>> consciousness, real for myself
> >>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>> real for
> others).
> >>>>>>>> Wittgenstein is
> >>>>>>>> Vygotsky-compatible in other ways,
> >>>>>>>> too,
> >>>>>>>> e.g. his argument about
> >>>>>>>> preconceptual
> >>>>>>>> "families" and his argument
> >>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> tool like
> nature of
> >>>>>>>> signs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> dk
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- On Wed, 12/21/11, mike cole
> >>>>>>>> <lchcmike@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting
> Leontiev:
> >>>>>>>> functionalism and Anglo
> >>>>>>>> Finnish
> >>>>>>>> Insufficiences
> >>>>>>>> To: "Larry Purss"
> <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>,
> "Morten
> >>>>>>>> Nissen" <Morten.Nissen@psy.ku.dk
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Morten.Nissen@psy.ku.dk>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:Morten.Nissen@psy.ku
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Morten.Nissen@psy.ku>.**dk<Morten.Nissen@psy.ku.dk
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Morten.Nissen@psy.ku.dk>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2011,
> 2:12 PM
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Very helpful, Larry. Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As I read the Leontiev materials what
> was at
> >>>>>>>> issue in 1949 is whether
> >>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>> is any
> "third space" of
> >>>>>>>> the self in the "unity
> >>>>>>>> of consciousness and
> >>>>>>>> activity." I take Stalinism
> >>>>>>>> in these materials to refer to the
> way that
> >>>>>>>> idealism is joined with
> >>>>>>>> belief
> >>>>>>>> in some sort of
> >>>>>>>> "autonomous" realm of thought.
> >>>>>>>> Zinchenko's work on
> >>>>>>>> micromovements of the eye and perceptual
> >>>>>>>> action seem to me now
> >>>>>>>> significant
> >>>>>>>> in exactly this
> >>>>>>>> respect:
> >>>>>>>> they point to a rapid
> >>>>>>>> simulation process
> >>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> not
> mechanically
> >>>>>>>> connected to externalized
> >>>>>>>> action (as one example). If
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>> know the
> future of
> >>>>>>>> history and what is good
> >>>>>>>> for everyone, all such
> >>>>>>>> processes risk deviation from "the
> true path."
> >>>>>>>> The motives of the
> >>>>>>>> "healthy"
> >>>>>>>> individual
> are supposed
> >>>>>>>> to coincide with those
> >>>>>>>> of the "collective" (as
> >>>>>>>> represented by the general secretary
> of the
> >>>>>>>> central committee of the
> >>>>>>>> communist party). Functionalism as
> command and
> >>>>>>>> control statism.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If we accept THIS version of CHAT,
> seems to me
> >>>>>>>> that Phillip is
> >>>>>>>> corrrect -
> >>>>>>>> Use the ideas for
> something called
> >>>>>>>> communism,
> >>>>>>>> fascism, ANY form of
> >>>>>>>> collective social project.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David says this is Leontiev's (AT)
> problem,
> >>>>>>>> not Vygotsky's (CH)
> >>>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>> Larry points
> >>>>>>>> to Wittgensteinian marxism that
> appears to
> >>>>>>>> provide a way to select
> >>>>>>>> wheat
> >>>>>>>> from chaff (or discover
> a different
> >>>>>>>> level of
> >>>>>>>> chaff!).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My guess is that German, Russian, and
> other
> >>>>>>>> thinkers have already
> >>>>>>>> carried
> >>>>>>>> this conversation
> pretty far....
> >>>>>>>> Morten's
> >>>>>>>> citation of German work
> >>>>>>>> points
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> this
> conclusion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But how are we poor non_Russian,
> non_German
> >>>>>>>> reading unfortunates
> >>>>>>>> wandering
> >>>>>>>> in the
> woods to find
> >>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>> way?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:08 PM,
> Larry Purss
> >>>>>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Andy,
> >>>>>>>> Christine, Mike
> >>>>>>>> I have been hibernating on Mayne
> Island, a
> >>>>>>>> small Island between
> >>>>>>>> Vancouver
> >>>>>>>> and
> Vancouver and
> >>>>>>>> Vancouver Island.
> >>>>>>>> [school break for the holidays]
> >>>>>>>> No
> >>>>>>>> internet except at
> the small
> >>>>>>>> library]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I was interested in this comment from
> >>>>>>>> Morten Nissen on Andy's book
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Blunden, as it were, attacks it
> from the
> >>>>>>>> �gopposite�h side: the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> functionalism
> >>>>>>>> of Leontiev�fs
> >>>>>>>> way of relating subject with
> >>>>>>>> society. This has to do
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>> objects and
> >>>>>>>> motives appear to coincide in
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev�fs idealized
> >>>>>>>> image of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> true society,
> >>>>>>>> that is, the society of
> >>>>>>>> original communism and that of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> Soviet
> Union.
> >>>>>>>> Andy, it is this notion of
> "coinciding"
> >>>>>>>> that I have difficulty with
> >>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>> reading
> about
> >>>>>>>> Activity Theory.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev's statements such as
> "Education
> >>>>>>>> is the decisive force which
> >>>>>>>> forms
> >>>>>>>> man
> >>>>>>>> intellectually. This intellectual
> >>>>>>>> development MUST CORRESPOND TO
> >>>>>>>> THE
> >>>>>>>> AIMS
> AND THE NEEDS
> >>>>>>>> OF THE ENTIRE SOCIETY.
> >>>>>>>> It must fully agree with
> >>>>>>>> REAL
> >>>>>>>> human
> needs"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm been browsing through an
> edited book
> >>>>>>>> by Gavin Kitching and
> >>>>>>>> Nigel
> >>>>>>>> Pleasant titled
> "Marx and
> >>>>>>>> Wittgenstein:
> >>>>>>>> Knowledge, Morality,
> >>>>>>>> Politics."
> >>>>>>>> These authors take an
> >>>>>>>> interesting
> >>>>>>>> perspective on materialism &
> >>>>>>>> idealism
> >>>>>>>> that gives idealism
> its place
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> our human
> >>>>>>>> being [in contrast to
> >>>>>>>> how I
> >>>>>>>> read
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev}
> >>>>>>>> These authors are exploring a
> >>>>>>>> Wittgensteinian Marxism that examines
> >>>>>>>> Marx's
> >>>>>>>> notion that
> >>>>>>>> "The tradition of all the dead
> >>>>>>>> generations weighs like a
> >>>>>>>> nightmare on the brain of the
> living" A
> >>>>>>>> Wittgensteinian Marxist
> >>>>>>>> reading
> >>>>>>>> [from the authors
> perspective]
> >>>>>>>> would make
> >>>>>>>> 3 points.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1] Tradition and circumstances
> cannot be
> >>>>>>>> understood in ABSTRACTION
> >>>>>>>> FROM
> >>>>>>>> the traditions and
> >>>>>>>> understandings that
> >>>>>>>> people have of these
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> circumstances.
> >>>>>>>> 2] WHATEVER
> >>>>>>>> such varied understandings
> >>>>>>>> may consist (class, culture,
> >>>>>>>> gender etc) nonetheless some KINDS of
> >>>>>>>> actions by historical subjects
> >>>>>>>> [agents, actors] will prove
> impossible IF
> >>>>>>>> these actions are entered
> >>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> disregard to
> >>>>>>>> the traditions and
> >>>>>>>> circumstances directly GIVEN,
> >>>>>>>> ENCOUNTERED
> >>>>>>>> and
> transmitted
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> the past
> >>>>>>>> 3] A principle WAY in which the
> TRADITIONS
> >>>>>>>> OF THE DEAD GENERATIONS
> >>>>>>>> weighs
> >>>>>>>> like a
> nightmare on
> >>>>>>>> the brain of the
> >>>>>>>> living is that ANTECEDENT
> >>>>>>>> historical
> >>>>>>>> circumstances often
> >>>>>>>> make it IMPOSSIBLE TO
> >>>>>>>> THINK AND FEEL (and
> >>>>>>>> therefore
> >>>>>>>> act)in certain ways.
> >>>>>>>> Historically created
> >>>>>>>> material culture restricts
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> enables
> the making
> >>>>>>>> of PARTICULAR KINDS of
> >>>>>>>> history. People do not
> >>>>>>>> try to
> >>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> things and
> >>>>>>>> then for "material reasons"
> >>>>>>>> find they cannot do things. (
> >>>>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>> make history
> >>>>>>>> as THEY PLEASE ) Such
> >>>>>>>> traditions and circumstances
> >>>>>>>> DEEPLY
> >>>>>>>> FORM
> >>>>>>>> what it is
> >>>>>>>> that present generations can
> >>>>>>>> DESIRE TO DO. and CONCEIVE
> >>>>>>>> OF.
> >>>>>>>> (as
> >>>>>>>> well as what
> >>>>>>>> actions they can conceive of
> >>>>>>>> as being
> >>>>>>>> possible/impossible,
> >>>>>>>> feasible/unfeasible)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is human action in and on the
> world
> >>>>>>>> that inextricably LINKS
> >>>>>>>> THOUGHT
> >>>>>>>> (and language) TO
> MATERIAL
> >>>>>>>> REALITY.
> >>>>>>>> Historical traditions and
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> circumstances
> >>>>>>>> are the
> >>>>>>>> outcomes of previous generations
> >>>>>>>> actions [intended &
> >>>>>>>> unintended]
> >>>>>>>> which place
> >>>>>>>> constraints on present
> >>>>>>>> generations. Constraints on what
> >>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> can
> think, feel,
> >>>>>>>> desire (and how they act)
> >>>>>>>> By keeping these 3 points in mind the
> >>>>>>>> authors suggest we can avoid
> >>>>>>>> falling
> >>>>>>>> into the DEEP
> >>>>>>>> CONFUSIONS which have always
> >>>>>>>> attended the
> >>>>>>>> material/ideal
> >>>>>>>> distinction.
> >>>>>>>> The most DIRECT and
> comprehensible way to
> >>>>>>>> SEE THROUGH this
> >>>>>>>> material/ideal
> >>>>>>>> distinction is to
> >>>>>>>> see that all action is
> >>>>>>>> simultaneously mental &
> >>>>>>>> physical,
> >>>>>>>> material &
> >>>>>>>> ideal. Neither material or
> >>>>>>>> ideal is an "epiphenomena" of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> other.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In my reading of Leontiev in the
> chapter
> >>>>>>>> from the book posted I
> >>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>> the nuances
> >>>>>>>> recognizing the depths of the
> >>>>>>>> "ideal" within Marx's
> >>>>>>>> theory.
> >>>>>>>> This edited book,
> by putting
> >>>>>>>> Marx into
> >>>>>>>> explicit conversation is
> >>>>>>>> elaborating a Wittgensteinian
> Marxism or a
> >>>>>>>> Marxist Wittgenstein.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Larry
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:39 PM,
> mike cole
> >>>>>>>> <lchcmike@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Below are two
> quotations
> >>>>>>>> from Morten
> >>>>>>>> Nissen's review of Andy
> >>>>>>>> Blunden's
> >>>>>>>> book
> >>>>>>>> on activity theory. Full
> review in
> >>>>>>>> current issue of MCA.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> After presenting the quotation, a
> >>>>>>>> comment.
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>> -------------------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Morten Nissen on Leontiev,
> >>>>>>>> functionalism, and Stalinism
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> �c.behind this terminological
> trouble
> >>>>>>>> lies a deep theoretical
> >>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev�fs
> >>>>>>>> social theory. This problem
> >>>>>>>> was identified in the German
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> Scandinavian
> >>>>>>>> reception (Axel & Nissen,
> >>>>>>>> 1993; Holzkamp, 1979;
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Osterkamp,
> >>>>>>>> 1976) but
> >>>>>>>> almost
> >>>>>>>> completely ignored in
> >>>>>>>> the Anglo-Finnish (with
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Miettinen,
> >>>>>>>> 2005, and
> >>>>>>>> Kaptelinin, 2005, as the
> >>>>>>>> noble exceptions to the
> >>>>>>>> rule)�\and
> >>>>>>>> Blunden, as it
> were,
> >>>>>>>> attacks
> >>>>>>>> it from
> >>>>>>>> the �gopposite�h side: the
> >>>>>>>> functionalism
> >>>>>>>> of Leontiev�fs way of
> relating subject
> >>>>>>>> with society. This has to do
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>> objects and motives appear to
> coincide
> >>>>>>>> in Leontiev�fs idealized
> >>>>>>>> image
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> true society, that is, the
> society of
> >>>>>>>> original communism and that
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> Soviet Union.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From the perspective of this
> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> functionalist utopia, a
> psychology
> >>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>> become relevant
> only in the
> >>>>>>>> face of
> >>>>>>>> the undeveloped and the
> >>>>>>>> deviant:
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> fact,
> >>>>>>>> according to Leontiev (1978),
> >>>>>>>> children and disturbed provide
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> tasks of
> psychology in the
> >>>>>>>> institutions of the Soviet
> Union. To
> >>>>>>>> paraphrase:
> >>>>>>>> The child who puts down her
> book still
> >>>>>>>> has not grasped the harmony
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> society�fs
> needs with the
> >>>>>>>> desire to
> >>>>>>>> learn that she *must*
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> develop�\she has not yet
> developed
> >>>>>>>> those �ghigher cultural needs.�h
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bourgeois
> >>>>>>>> society
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> another matter, where sense
> >>>>>>>> and meaning are divided in
> >>>>>>>> principle, but this
> matter�\that of
> >>>>>>>> ideology and social
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> critique�\Leontiev
> >>>>>>>> sets aside and
> >>>>>>>> forgets. An elaborate
> >>>>>>>> critique of Leontiev�fs
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> functionalism
> >>>>>>>> was given
> >>>>>>>> already in 1980 (Haug,
> >>>>>>>> Nemitz,& Waldhubel, 1980),
> and the
> >>>>>>>> background was explained by
> Osterkamp
> >>>>>>>> (1976) in her groundbreaking
> >>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> theory
> >>>>>>>> of motivation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------**--
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Comment.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When I first read these
> passages as
> >>>>>>>> part of the attempted "swap of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ideas"
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> Morten and I tried to organize
> >>>>>>>> around
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> our reviews of Andy's book in
> Outlines
> >>>>>>>> and MCA, I commented how
> >>>>>>>> sad it
> >>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>> that the
> >>>>>>>> elaborate critique that goes
> >>>>>>>> back to
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1980 is not in English and fully
> >>>>>>>> engaged by both European and
> >>>>>>>> "Ango-Finns"
> >>>>>>>> (although how poor Viktor
> got into
> >>>>>>>> that category
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I do not know!).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Seems like real interchange
> around
> >>>>>>>> these issues is long overdue.
> >>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>> given
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> progress of the last couple of
> >>>>>>>> years, I'll not be
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> holding my breath!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --------------------------
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But thinking about the issues
> as well
> >>>>>>>> as my limited language (and
> >>>>>>>> other)
> >>>>>>>> capacities
> >>>>>>>> allow.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>> ______________________________**
> >>>>>>>> ____________
> >>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**
> >>>>>>>> listinfo/xmca <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ______________________________**
> >>>>>>>> ____________
> >>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> >>>>>>>> Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
> >>>>>>>> Department of Communication
> >>>>>>>> University of California, San Diego
> >>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> >>>>>>>> ------------
> >>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> Joint Editor MCA:
> http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
> >>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
> >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
> >>>>>>>> Book:
> http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
> >>>>>>>> <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> >>>>>> ------------
> >>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>> Joint Editor MCA:
> http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
> >>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>> Book:
> http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>>> _____
> >>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>> --
> >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> >>>> ------------
> >>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>> Joint Editor MCA:
> http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
> >>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>> _____
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>>>
> >>>> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/#bkV14E118>
> >>>>
> >>>> >>> Despite my general approach that Historical Dialectics (Marxian
> >>> Social-Cultural theory) and Pragmatism mutually repair the
> lacuna in their
> >>> respective representations of human social and cultural
> practice, and a
> >>> very critical response to Leninism, Lenin's critique of American
> >>> Pragmatism, rough as it is, is right on target.
> >>>
> >>> [15]
> <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/#bkV14E118> *
> >>> >>>> Pragmatism�\*a subjective-idealist trend of bourgeois (mainly
> American)
> >>>> philosophy in the imperialist era. It arose in the seven
> ties. of the last
> >>>> century in the U.S.A. as a reflection of specific features of the
> >>>> development of American capitalism, replacing the hitherto
> prevailing
> >>>> religious philosophy. The main propositions of pragmatism
> were formulated
> >>>> by Charles Peirce. As an independent philosophical tendency
> it took shape
> >>>> at the turn of the century in the works of William James and
> Ferdinand
> >>>> Schiller and was further developed in the instrumentalism of
> John Dewey.
> >>>>
> >>>> The pragmatists consider that the central problem of
> philosophy is the
> >>>> attainment of true knowledge. However, they completely
> distort the very
> >>>> concept of truth; already Peirce looked on cognition as a purely
> >>>> psychological, subjective process of achieving religious
> belief. James
> >>>> substituted the concept of �gusefulness�h, of success or
> advantage, for the
> >>>> concept of truth, i.e., for the objectively true reflection
> of reality.
> >>>> From his point of view, all concepts, including religious
> ones, are true
> >>>> insofar as they are useful. Dewey went, even farther by
> declaring all
> >>>> scientific theories, all moral principles and social
> institutions, to be
> >>>> merely �ginstruments�h for the attainment of the personal
> aims of the
> >>>> individual. As the criterion of the �gtruth�h (usefulness) of
> knowledge,
> >>>> the pragmatists take experience, understood not as human
> social practice
> >>>> but as the constant stream of individual experiences, of the
> subjective
> >>>> phenomena of consciousness; they regard this experience as
> the solo
> >>>> reality, declaring the concepts of matter and mind
> �gobsolete�h. Like the
> >>>> Machists, the pragmatists claim to have created a �gthird
> line�h in
> >>>> philosophy; they try to place themselves above materialism
> and idealism,
> >>>> while in fact advocating one of the varieties of idealism. In
> contrast to
> >>>> materialist monism, the pragmatists put forward the standpoint of
> >>>> �gpluralism�h, according to which there is no internal
> connection, no
> >>>> conformity to law, in the universe; it is like a mosaic which
> each person
> >>>> builds in his own way, out of his own individual experiences.
> Hence,
> >>>> starting out from the needs of the given moment, pragmatism
> considers it
> >>>> possible to give different, even contradictory, explanations
> of one and the
> >>>> same phenomenon. Consistency is declared to be unnecessary;
> if it is to a
> >>>> man�fs advantage, he can be a determinist or an
> indeterminist, he can assert
> >>>> or deny the existence of God, and so on.
> >>>>
> >>>> By basing themselves on the subjective-idealist tradition of
> English
> >>>> philosophy from Berkeley and Hume to John Stuart Mill, by
> exploiting
> >>>> particular aspects of the theories of Kant, Mach and
> Avenarius, Nietzsche
> >>>> and Henri Bergson, the American pragmatists created one of
> the most
> >>>> reactionary philosophical trends of modern times, a
> convenient form for
> >>>> theoretically defending the interests of the imperialist
> bourgeoisie. It is
> >>>> for this reason that pragmatism spread so widely in the
> U.S.A., becoming
> >>>> almost the official American philosophy. There have been
> advocates of
> >>>> pragmatism at various times in Italy, Germany, France,
> Czechoslovakia and
> >>>> other countries. Lenin, V.I. (1908) MATERIALISM and
> EMPIRIO-CRITICISM: Critical
> >>>> Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy, Chapter 4. Parties in
> Philosophy
> >>>> and Philosophical Blockheads
> >>>>
> >>>> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Victor Friedlander
> >>> __________________________________________
> >>> _____
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>> >> __________________________________________
> >> _____
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> <http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> <http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
__________________________________________
_____
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