Interesting cross-polinating, Ed. I think the absolute
necessity of constant adjustment (in walking, for example)
is a design feature of human life (and not just human).
Perfect coordination can be striven for and approximated,
but not maintained for more than a short moment or the
result is loss of consciousness/death of sensation, maybe
something like Freudian death wish.
mike
On 2/12/07, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> Dewey remarks in Human Nature (178-179) that
> consciousness might be thought of "as a kind of
> disease, since we have no consciousness of bodily
> or mental organs as long as they work at ease in
> perfect health." [As a somewhat aside: he goes
> on, "The idea of disease is, however, aside from
> the point, unless we are pessimistic enough to
> regard every slip in total adjustment of a person
> to his surroundings as something abnormal-a point
> of view which ... would identify well-being with
> perfect automatism. The truth is that in every
> waking moment, the complete balance of the
> organism and its environment is constantly
> interfered with and is constantly restored."]
>
> Would one, for example in Swedish, use "knowing
> together with" to translate this or does it just
> become incoherent?
>
> Ed Wall
>
> >Just a note from The North
> >
> >consciousness in Swedish is MED-VETANDE (knowing
> >together WITH) i.e. impossible for one -
> >possible for two (Feuerbach in T&L)
> >
> >Leif
> >
> >
> >2007-02-12 kl. 06.09 skrev Mike Cole:
> >
> >>co-co-co-coriko-cu!
> >>mike
> >>
> >>On 2/11/07, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>But "recognition" (in the relevant usages) comes from "cognate" -
> co-born,
> >>>i.e., of the same kin.
> >>>Andy
> >>>At 10:32 PM 11/02/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>>Did you know that the root word both for the English KNOWLEDGE and
> Slavic
> >>>>"ZNANYE", Latin "GNOSIS" is the same Sanskrit "jna"? (remark
> >>>>CO-GNITION!!= SO-ZNANYE)
> >>>>Here is an interesting etymological view:
> >>>>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=know&searchmode=none
> >>>><http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=know&searchmode=none>
> >>>>Ana
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike Cole wrote:
> >>>>>OK, here is the message on this topic. It has not appeared on the
> >>>archive
> >>>>>where I looked for it. I
> >>>>>am trying to figure out why. Thanks to Ed Wall for pointing me to it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There is a cluster of messages from David, Vera, Ana and Martin and
> ??
> >>>here
> >>>>>that seems to me
> >>>>>especially important and potentially generative.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Referring to the note I sent earlier with the analysis of the Russian
> >>>who
> >>>>>also knew Sanskrit, I questioned
> >>>>>the issue of so- as a prefix in Russian. ditto o-
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And when we combine the two prefixes ( so-znanie/ o-so-znanie) what
> is
> >>>being
> >>>>>created. Peter? MGU Aspiranti?
> >>>>>Anna S? ???
> >>>>>
> >>>>>znanie =knowledge
> >>>>>so-znanie ~ co knowledge ????
> >>>>>o-so-znanie ~~ about-co-knowledge, concerning-co-knowledge???????
> >>>>>
> >>>>>mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>>>From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> >>>>>Date: Feb 9, 2007 6:36 PM
> >>>>>Subject: Re: [xmca] Harried instructor seeks words of wisdom
> >>>>>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Vera,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I would certainly be interested in hearing more about the
> distinctions
> >>>>>you're making between responsiveness, awareness and consciousness.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>To add to the (my) confusion, digging through my notes I've come
> across
> >>>the
> >>>>>following note by translator Norris Minick in Thinking & Speech (p.
> 388,
> >>>n.
> >>>>>12):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"By the phrase 'conscious awareness' we gloss the Russian osaznanie,
> >>>which V
> >>>>>carefully and consistently uses and distinguishes from the term
> soznanie
> >>>or
> >>>>>'consciousness.' Vygotsky clarifies the difference between the two at
> >>>>>several points in the textŠ the earlier translation of this volume
> >>>(ŠThought
> >>>>>and languageŠ) rendered both terms as 'consciousness,' introducing a
> >>>>>confusion not to be found in the original Russian text."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The links to neuroscience are very interesting. If I understand it
> >>>>>correctly, Vygotsky's psychology was the study of consciousness and
> >>>>>physiology (the material basis of consciousness). The division of
> labor
> >>>that
> >>>>>developed between Vygotsky and Luria speaks to this, I think. Modern
> >>>>>neuroscience too often wants to treat consciousness as an
> epiphenomenon,
> >>>but
> >>>>>Vygotsky clearly viewed it as having a purpose: it has evolved
> because
> >>>it
> >>>>>serves an important function. After my last message I recalled
> >>>Vygotsky's
> >>>>>insistence that consciousness appears when action meets an obstacle.
> I'm
> >>>>>pretty confident he says this as early as Educational Psychology, and
> as
> >>> >>late as T&S, but I can't track down specific citations at this
> moment.
> >>>And
> >>>>>this links to David's comments about volition. Consciousness occurs
> when
> >>>our
> >>>>>prereflective action is blocked, and we must deliberate, look around,
> >>>and
> >>>>>consider alternatives. A two-way link to volition: Cs arises from
> >>>practical
> >>>>>activity, and serves to reorganize that activity. Cs gives us the
> will
> >>>to do
> >>>>>what is hard to do, what needs to be done, what at first grasp seems
> >>>>>impossible to do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And while I'm cutting and pasting from my notes, this is from the
> last
> >>>pages
> >>>>>of Educational Psychology:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Man has set himself the goal of becoming master of his own feelings,
> of
> >>>>>lifting the instincts to the heights of consciousness and making them
> >>>>>transparent, of stretching the thread of will into what is concealed
> and
> >>>>>into the underground, and to thereby lift himself up to a new stage,
> to
> >>>>>create a 'higher' sociociological type, a, so to speak, super-man."
> 351
> >>>>>
> >>>>>None of this gives my students a *definition* of consciousness. But
> >>>perhaps
> >>>>>one has to be satisfied with a *history* of it, a story that
> describes
> >>>how
> >>>>>it comes into being and then departs again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 2/9/07 11:24 AM, "Vera Steiner" <vygotsky@unm.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I sent my message on consciousness before reading Martin's "harried
> >>>>>>instructor seeks words of wisdom." It is a fine discussion, and my
> >>>>>>apologies for not referring to it in my somewhat differently focused
> >>>>>>comments.In my class last night, I tried to differentiate between
> >>>>>>responsiveness, awareness and consciousness, a hard task, but if
> anyone
> >>>>>>is interested, I would be willing to struggle with it some more in
> our
> >>>>>>discussions. Right now, I have to leave the house and the computer,
> >>>>>>Vera
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Martin Packer wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Trying to get the worms out of one can I seem to have opened
> another,
> >>>but
> >>>>>I
> >>>>>>>think David may have rescued me before I started to ask. Trying to
> >>>>>explain
> >>>>>>>why studying consciousness was important to Vygotsky, I started
> with
> >>>the
> >>>>>>>assertion that for him (and me too) consciousness is in our
> >>>interaction
> >>>>>with
> >>>>>>>the world. I suppose that all animals have consciousness, perhaps
> even
> >>>>>>>plants in some sense, since they respond to changes in the
> environment
> >>>>>(day
> >>>>>>>& night; the movement of the sun) and so must sense these in some
> way.
> >>>>>But
> >>>>>>>human consciousness is, one supposes, much more complex, and it
> >>>develops.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If consciousness is in our interactions, not in our heads, that is
> >>>>>helpful
> >>>>>>>when we are trying to avoid dualistic thinking. And, yes, Vygotsky
> >>>was
> >>>>>>>trying to give a materialistic account of consciousness, which at
> >>>first
> >>>>>>>seems pretty contradictory.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Psychology today generally doesn1t consider consciousness: in one
> >>>class
> >>>>>one
> >>>>>>>might study memory, in another perception, in a third language, and
> so
> >>>>>on.
> >>>>>>>> From Vygotsky1s point of view this has divided up something
> unitary
> >>>-
> >>>>>after
> >>>>>>>all, in my conscious existence I am thinking at one moment,
> >>>remembering
> >>>>>>>something the next, then imagining something, talking, ... and even
> >>>this
> >>>>>>>account divides consciousness up too much. So the proper study of
> >>>>>>>consciousness is the study of all these functions in their
> >>>>>>>interrelationship. It is, I said, only to keep things simple that
> >>>>>Vygotsky
> >>>>>>>focuses mainly on thinking and talking in the book we are reading.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I said some more. I said it in (bad) Spanish and now I can1t
> remember
> >>>it
> >>>>>in
> >>>>>>>English!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>And they said, okay, very good, but what was Vygotsky1s definition
> of
> >>>>>>>'consciousness1? Give us a definition of consciousness, and keep it
> >>>>>concise
> >>>>>>>and formal. They said this with a (collective) smile, so I know
> they
> >>>>>weren1t
> >>>>>>>expecting a dictionary definition, even before reading David1s
> >>>message.
> >>>>>But
> >>>>>>>I wasn1t able to give a (good) answer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>David, for me, too, consciousness is not cognition. I completely
> agree
> >>>>>with
> >>>>>>>you that volition is crucial for Vygotsky. (For example, I think
> >>>>>Vygotsky1s
> >>>>>>>position on scientific concepts is misunderstood when people say
> that
> >>> >>such
> >>>>>>>concepts enable self-control; V is clear that it1s the other way
> >>>round:
> >>>>>>>self-control, mastery of one1s own psychological functions, makes
> such
> >>>>>>>concepts possible.) But I1m not entirely comfortable *equating*
> >>>>>>>consciousness with volition. I guess for a first shot I1d say that
> >>>>>volition
> >>>>>>>is a relation between consciousness and functions that lack
> >>>>>consciousness.
> >>>>>>>One thing I like about this formulation is that it includes the
> >>>>>possibility
> >>>>>>>that consciousness is social, intersubjective, and that
> self-control
> >>>has
> >>>>>its
> >>>>>>>roots in control-by-others. And I do believe that this was
> Vygotsky1s
> >>>>>>>position (in-itself; for-others; for-itself). But - having put it
> this
> >>>>>way -
> >>>>>>>one has to distinguish carefully between consciousness and
> >>>>>>>self-consciousness, no?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Enough for one day. I1m off for enchiladas. More words of wisdom
> from
> >>>>>XMCA1s
> >>>>>>>collective consciousness will be much appreciated!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Martin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>p.s I think Osimbologia may be a Nahuatl word. ;) I saw a
> wonderful
> >>>>>>>Spanish-Nahuatl dictionary the other day. Any takers?
> >>>>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>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
> >>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>//
> >>>>
>
> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>/Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Ph.D./
> >>>>/151 W. Tulpehocken St./
> >>>>
> >>>>/Philadelphia//, PA 19144///
> >>>>
> >>>>/(h) 215-843-2909/
> >>>>
> >>>>/ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>/
> >>>>
> >>>>/http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane <
> >>>http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Eanamshane>/
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory
> -
> >>>Resisting Neoconservatism Today
> >>>http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/16022007.htm
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 10:36:50 PST