I could not find anything like statement about consciousness as requiring
two people, Andy, in the text you marked.
Of course, if there were only one person there would be no species, so in
that sense the statement is banal. But
when we link it to discussions such as that in learning by expanding of
secondary intersubjectivity, or in the context
of Latour's interobjectivity ideas, it seems to be exactly right.
(to me, who cannot recover recent contexts!)
mike
On 2/12/07, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> Are we referring to Feuerbach in "Philosophy of the Future":
>
> http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/future/future0.htm#12
> Andy
> At 08:25 AM 12/02/2007 +0100, you wrote:
> >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 text
the earlier translation of this volume
> >>>(
Thought
> >>> >>and language
) 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 doesnıt consider consciousness: in one
> >>>class
> >>> >>one
> >>> >>>>might study memory, in another perception, in a third language,
> >>>and so
> >>> >>on.
> >>> >>>>> From Vygotskyıs 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 canıt
> >>>remember
> >>>it
> >>> >>in
> >>> >>>>English!
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>And they said, okay, very good, but what was Vygotskyıs
> >>>definition of
> >>> >>>>consciousnessı? Give us a definition of consciousness, and keep
> >>>it
> >>> >>concise
> >>> >>>>and formal. They said this with a (collective) smile, so I know
> >>>they
> >>> >>werenıt
> >>> >>>>expecting a dictionary definition, even before reading Davidıs
> >>>message.
> >>> >>But
> >>> >>>>I wasnıt 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
> >>> >>Vygotskyıs
> >>> >>>>position on scientific concepts is misunderstood when people say
> >>>that
> >>> >>such
> >>> >>>>concepts enable self-control; V is clear that itıs the other way
> >>>round:
> >>> >>>>self-control, mastery of oneıs own psychological functions, makes
> >>>such
> >>> >>>>concepts possible.) But Iım not entirely comfortable *equating*
> >>> >>>>consciousness with volition. I guess for a first shot Iıd 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
> >>>Vygotskyıs
> >>> >>>>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. Iım off for enchiladas. More words of wisdom
> >>>from
> >>> >>XMCAıs
> >>> >>>>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
>
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 10:36:50 PST