Thanks for everyone's perseverance here. Wtih cooperation the collective
capacity for communication is growing, bit by byte so to speak.
mike
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> I still can't understand why PowerPoint doesn't work, but I have now, with
> assistance from Bruce Jones, uploaded a simple HTML version of the talk on
> Hegel and Cultural Psychology:
>
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/ablunden/hegel-cultural-psychologist/index.htm
>
> The disadvantage of the HTML version is just that you have a wait a minute
> between each section of the talk while the audio is queued.
>
> Apologies for all the fuss to get this right. nI will find the time to
> transcribe it to text.
>
> Andy
>
>
> Martin Packer wrote:
>
>> Doesn't work. File, Open brings up a selection window, not a box. This is
>> PowerPoint for the Mac, of course-
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/08 9:23 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>> OK, if you can't open PPT with your non-MicroSoft browser,
>>> you *can* enter the URL into the File ... Open ... box of
>>> your MicroSoft PowerPoint.
>>>
>>> So copy "
>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/hegel-cultural-psychologist/hegel-chat.ppt"
>>> and paste it into the File Open box.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy,
>>>>
>>>> I get the dingle, then silence on the 2nd slide, downloaded from either
>>>> site. If I try to run it in KeyNote instead of PowerPoint I get a
>>>> message
>>>> saying the mp3 files are missing. But it's a large file (1.6M) so I
>>>> suspect
>>>> they're in there somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/13/08 7:47 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh! and before that, when you are asked to Open or Save, of
>>>>> course you *open* it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You press the round button, then it will go to the first slide with a
>>>>>> "dingle" sound and a couple of seconds later I start talking.
>>>>>> Otherwise
>>>>>> try
>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/hegel-cultural-psychologist/hegel-c
>>>>>> ha
>>>>>> t.ppt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't imagine how it would not work on a Mac or otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It downloads without the soundtrack, at least to my Mac, Andy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/08 6:43 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He, he. I guess it's almost self-evident that I think that
>>>>>>>> Hegel is absolute central to both Vygotsky's program and
>>>>>>>> even more important for its furher development. I just think
>>>>>>>> that explanation of the human species in terms of biological
>>>>>>>> evolution is peripheral if interesting to both projects.
>>>>>>>> Basically work like Merlinm Donald's (which I support
>>>>>>>> enthusiastically) are specualting on the basis of what we
>>>>>>>> know fairly well about what we know almost nothing about. I
>>>>>>>> am sure that if Hegel had had the benefit of reading "Origin
>>>>>>>> of Species" he would have radically revised his theory of
>>>>>>>> nature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A summary of my view of Hegel's contribution is at
>>>>>>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/hegel-cultural-psychologist/hegel-chat.ppt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>> Given the points you make about Hegel, which strike me as cogent
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> important, what is your view of the contribution Hegel made to
>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's
>>>>>>>>> program for a general psychology, and the contribution our
>>>>>>>>> understanding of
>>>>>>>>> Hegel today could make for our efforts to continue such a program?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/08 7:18 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both the points you make are valid enough Martin, I am just
>>>>>>>>>> being a bit pedantically precise, but I think it's worth it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For example, as I came to realise how firmly opposed, not
>>>>>>>>>> just unaware of biological evolution Hegel was, it really
>>>>>>>>>> focussed my attention on how he gets development out of
>>>>>>>>>> consciousness and human activity. Interestingly, despite the
>>>>>>>>>> oportunity for a radically "non-essentialist" philosophy
>>>>>>>>>> here, Hegel made gender and race differences something given
>>>>>>>>>> by Nature and introduced horrific sexism and racism into his
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy. But feminists and postcolonialists have not been
>>>>>>>>>> put off using Hegel for their own purposes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise, his declaration in the Philosophy of Right that he
>>>>>>>>>> was not here concerned with the history of Right, only what
>>>>>>>>>> right is, forces one to think very deeply about the place of
>>>>>>>>>> historicism in science. So even though we have to amend
>>>>>>>>>> Hegel in places - I certainly do - it is well worthwhile
>>>>>>>>>> keeping in mind what is Hegel and what is interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Re appearance and reality: what is "reality", what kind of
>>>>>>>>>> thought-form is it? Presumably you mean it as something
>>>>>>>>>> outside thought?? Or is it potential thought? Is it of a
>>>>>>>>>> different substance than appearance? ... Reality is I think
>>>>>>>>>> synonymous with Actuality for Hegel, a category which is
>>>>>>>>>> part of the Doctrine of Essence. I really don't think you
>>>>>>>>>> can sustain the concept of Reality in the sense of the
>>>>>>>>>> ultimate object of knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I don't want to anachronistically read Darwin back into
>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel. Right
>>>>>>>>>>> now my Hegel scholarship is restricted to Marcuse's book since
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> my other
>>>>>>>>>>> books are out of reach, and Marcuse emphasizes the dynamic
>>>>>>>>>>> character of
>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel's conception of - well, of everything. If one considers
>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel's
>>>>>>>>>>> position that the World makes progress towards knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>> truth, through
>>>>>>>>>>> the means of human subjectivity, one could read this as a
>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>> of evolutionism - and as you know Lenin saw Darwin as a truly
>>>>>>>>>>> dialectical
>>>>>>>>>>> thinker.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On moving from appearance to reality- I'm drawing here in part
>>>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>> of a colleague at Duquesne, Tom Rockmore, who's an excellent
>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel
>>>>>>>>>>> scholar.
>>>>>>>>>>> In a recent book Rockmore emphasizes that for Hegel the
>>>>>>>>>>> distinction between
>>>>>>>>>>> appearance and reality occurs within our experience. For Kant, in
>>>>>>>>>>> contrast,
>>>>>>>>>>> all we can ever experience is appearance. It is for Kant that
>>>>>>>>>>> there is "a
>>>>>>>>>>> reality hidden behind appearances." For Hegel, human knowledge is
>>>>>>>>>>> fallible
>>>>>>>>>>> but gradually progresses to more and more adequate knowledge of
>>>>>>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> what I think needs to be added is that (as I understand it) Hegel
>>>>>>>>>>> saw this
>>>>>>>>>>> progress not as simply a result of humans knowing the world
>>>>>>>>>>> better, but
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> as a result of humans transforming the world to make it suit our
>>>>>>>>>>> needs,
>>>>>>>>>>> interests, and ideals. But that takes us into Mike's latest
>>>>>>>>>>> message...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/08 8:54 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Martin,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with your main conclusion about LSV, that it was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> *materialist* psychology that he aspired to, but could I
>>>>>>>>>>>> offer some pretty small change "corrections" to your
>>>>>>>>>>>> observations?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hegel's ideas about the origins of human life are
>>>>>>>>>>>> surprisingly inconsistent with a modern reading of him. He
>>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically rejected the idea that humans originated from
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals or that any animal originated out of another animal.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He was familiar with Lamarck and rejected this theory out of
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand. He believed that Spirit was created, as in the Book of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Genesis, all at once. This doesn't stop us "interpreting"
>>>>>>>>>>>> him in a materialist spirit, in the light of Darwinism.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, Hegel did believe that consciousness originated in
>>>>>>>>>>>> labour, child-rearing and speech. But not out of "matter",
>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever that would mean. The idea of matter having the
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential for thinking is not a Hegelian idea. Matter is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction of thought, for Hegel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I think that to talk of how "knowledge can ... move
>>>>>>>>>>>> beyond appearance to reality" is dubious. This retains the
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of a reality hidden behind appearances. If there are
>>>>>>>>>>>> two kinds of knowledge then I think "appearance" and
>>>>>>>>>>>> "reality" are not the right names for them. If "appearance"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and "reality" are meant to be categorically different
>>>>>>>>>>>> things, then I think Lenin had it right in denying this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two1.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more I think about this (and I have been thinking on it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interim), the more comfortable I am that Vygotsky indeed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisted on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lopping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> off the idealist side of psychology's dualism. The notion that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universe is solely material, and that there is no separate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'mental stuff' or 'spiritual stuff' has a long and distiguished
>>>>>>>>>>>>> history,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the BBC program makes clear. A materialist psychology would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in line with Marx's materialism. And even Hegel, despite being
>>>>>>>>>>>>> labelled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idealist and despite Marx's claim to have turned him on his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> head,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognized
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that humans evolved from simpler stuff which must have had its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> origins in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter. The capacity for thinking, Hegel reasoned, is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent in matter, and develops over time, rather than having
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its source
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some other, etherial, transcendental or platonic realm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's materialist psychology avoids equating the mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective, or consciousness with appearance as representation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the study of consciousness is not the study of appearances
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely distinct from reality (Kant's vision). It is not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> study of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way a person constructs mental representations of a world that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside them. For Vygotsky, like Hegel, Marx & Feuerbach, our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress, and move beyond appearance to reality. If we accept
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have a different conception of the way humans live in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to study the "material, sensory acts" in which a person
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world. He wanted to study the mind, but not as a mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjectivity, related to external objects. This is the way mind
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself in introspection, but in action mind is not divided in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind, and consciousness, are real and objective processes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the interactions between bodies and material objects. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> studied empirically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/08 1:29 PM, "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is your current take on this issue, Martin? Perhaps a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> followup in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MCA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is warranted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Martin Packer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packer@duq.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the article published in MCA that was discussed here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that in Crisis Vygotsky declared the need to end the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychology by eliminating the idealist pole and developing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialist psychology. Some of the history of materialism,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reductionist and non-reductionist versions (V¹s being the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter) can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heard at the link below, in the BBC Radio program In Our Time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn that they ran out of time to discuss Hegel and Marx,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shame. (This is the same program which a year or so ago ran a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poll in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marx was voted the most important philosopher of all time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much to host
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Melvyn Bragg¹s surprise and dismay.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Received on Sat May 17 09:37 PDT 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 01 2008 - 00:30:04 PDT