[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation
Steve, I agree that it's often difficult to follow the flow of the text and
distinguish between Leontiev's description of a position that he's going to
critique and move beyond, and the position he's finally going to put
forward.
If indeed we should think of reflection as active, is the an English word
that better captures the sense?
Martin
On 1/7/09 9:34 AM, "Steve Gabosch" <stevegabosch@me.com> wrote:
> Martin, a thought on your post about reading Leontiev on reflection in
> dualist versus non-dualist ways. I too find myself uncomfortable with
> some of Leontiev's formulations about psychic reflection, if I take
> them just a sentence at a time. For example, the first sentence in
> the quote below bugs me - I don't like the photograph metaphor as a
> way of describing how human consciousness reflects reality. If that
> sentence was all I read, I would disagree with ANL. But notice how he
> quickly qualifies this in the following sentences - the living
> organism, and moreover, the human organism, transforms the objective
> "print" into something new, something subjective. I have been
> noticing this when Leontiev discusses the theory of reflection - he
> seems to acknowledge the "direct" aspect that is usually emphasized by
> the 'official' versions of that theory, but then immediately adds in
> the subjective, human aspect, which is by far his main concern, and
> the reason for his theory of activity, which is his recommended way of
> accounting for the objective reality that the human is immersed in,
> sensing, internalizing, interpreting, reacting to, and responding to.
> The more I dig underneath some of the awkward translations of his
> writing, and sometimes the opaque writing itself, perhaps, the more it
> appears that Leontiev was working very hard against dualist
> methodology, although possible a little under the radar (something
> Vygotsky did not do). But perhaps, not hard enough. Are there some
> specific phrases you have come across that strike you as clear
> examples of dualism in Leontiev?
>
> from ANL, Ch 2 ACP
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/ch2.htm
> "The Lenin theory of reflection considers sensory images in human
> consciousness as prints, photographs of an independently existing
> reality. This is also what brings psychic reflections close to
> “related” forms of reflection peculiar also to material that does
> not have a “clearly expressed capability of sensing“ V.I. Lenin,
> Collected Works, Vol 14. But this forms only one side of the
> characterization of psychic reflections; the other side consists of
> the fact that psychic reflection, as distinct from mirror and other
> forms of passive reflection, is subjective, and this means that it is
> not passive, not dead, but active, that into its definition enters
> human life and practice, and that it is characterized by the movement
> of a constant flow, objective into subjective.
>
> <end>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
>
>> Well, I shall be delighted if I am wrong and there is a way of
>> reading the
>> talk of 'reflection' that is non dualistic. Leontiev certainly says
>> many
>> things that are spot on. That mind is a property of matter, that
>> psyche is
>> found in the life process, that the opposition between objective and
>> subjective is generated and never complete, that consciousness
>> cannot be
>> reduced to brain processes, or explained by parallelism, and shouldn't
>> ignored completely, or studied in isolation; that naïve psychology
>> sharply
>> distinguishes two planes of reality but that this cannot be the true
>> object
>> of investigation; that life does not simply 'eliminate' but
>> 'dialectically
>> removes' the inorganic, mechanical relation among bodies.
>>
>> It's when he starts to talk about "the capacity to reflect objective
>> reality" that I think he runs into problems - or I run into problems
>> understanding the use of the term reflection. But let me check my
>> notes, and
>> dig into the text again. I appreciate all the efforts to point me in
>> the
>> right direction! :)
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 1/5/09 6:46 PM, "Haydi Zulfei" <haydizulfei@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Martin,
>>> Just one quote :
>>> [[Mind arises at a certain stage of the evolution of life not
>>> by chance out of necessity.i.e. naturally . But in what does
>>> the necessity of its origin consist? Clearly, if mind is not
>>> simply a purely subjective phenomenon, and not just an
>>> 'epiphenomenon' of objective processes, [but a property that
>>> has real importance in life] , the necessity of its origin
>>> is governed by the evolution of life itself . More complex
>>> conditions of life require an organism to have the capacity,
>>> to reflect objective reality in the form of the simplest sensa-
>>> tions. The psyche is not simply 'added' to the vital functions
>>> of organisms, but arises in the course of their development
>>> and provides the basis for a qualitatively new, higher form
>>> of life-life linked with mind, with a capacity to reflect real-
>>> ity.
>>> This implies that in order to disclose the transition from
>>> living matter that still has no psyche to living matter that
>>> has one, we have to proceed not from internal subjective states
>>> by themselves, separated from the subject's vital activity,
>>> or from behaviour taken in isolation from mind, or
>>> merely as that through which mental states and processes
>>> are studied, but from the real unity of the subject's mind
>>> and activity, and to study their internal reciprocal connections
>>> and transformations.]]
>>> Here we read there was a time when the organism faced
>>> *undifferentiated* flat
>>> environmet ; in his A,C,P , Leontiev also alludes to the idea of
>>> environment
>>> once having been *objectless* for the organism , then at a higher
>>> stage having
>>> faced *object-based differentiated* environment .
>>> If I'm right in my reading , first the rustling in the environment
>>> triggers
>>> the frog to be led then to the food direct (insect) . This is when
>>> Leontiev
>>> says need is not sufficient clue to activity ; it must hit an
>>> object .
>>> The other problem with your *dualism* vs *monism* is explained as
>>> follows :
>>> Leontiev says at one time in evolution , it's not been the case
>>> that the
>>> organism has been able to see the thing once ; the image of that
>>> thing twice
>>> . He has seen just one . Here we face the idea of the extension of
>>> matter . In
>>> his book Lenin says quite clearly extension , time , place ,
>>> causality are
>>> intrinsic to the Matter . Monism says the superhuman existence is the
>>> extension of **matter** . These are not two but one and and the
>>> same thing .
>>> Decartes , Hume , you well know had a different problem in view .
>>> They
>>> believed in so-called one SOULED-body . Soul having been
>>> incarnated , as Andy
>>> says , in the Air and detachable capable of leading independent
>>> life This is
>>> Dualism . But when you believe in *Mind* being just a *property*
>>> of matter ,
>>> then philosophical dualism is eliminated . And here is again where
>>> I could say
>>> when you initiate with *culture* as one agental transformative , we
>>> object as
>>> you placing yourselves just midway ignoring *continuity*
>>> disconnecting culture
>>> from its whereabout/origin .
>>> Best
>>> Haydi
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation
>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 2:51 PM
>>>
>>> 'Sad' because my sense is that if one wants to avoid dualism -
>>> crucial
>>> for
>>> Vygotsky - Lenin's writing about 'reflection' isn't the way to
>>> go. I don't
>>> know the details well, but from what I have read Lenin assumed a
>>> simple
>>> dualism in which mental representations 'reflect' the real world. The
>>> 'image' may be reversed, but still it is in a realm quite different
>>> from the
>>> real. (Bakhurst discusses Lenin's philosophy in *Consciousness and
>>> Revolution* if I remember correctly.)
>>>
>>> I recently read through *Problems of the Development of Mind*,
>>> which Michael
>>> and Andy generously made available (it fell down my chimney early one
>>> morning) and was disappointed to discover how little Leontiev seems
>>> to have
>>> avoided dualistic ways of thinking/writing. Here too the relation
>>> of psyche
>>> to world is expressed in terms of 'reflection,' for example:
>>>
>>> "The transition to existence in the conditions of a complex
>>> environment formed as things is therefore expressed in or-
>>> ganisms' adaptation to it taking on a qualitatively new form
>>> associated with reflection of the properties of a material,
>>> objective reality of things" (44)
>>>
>>> The sense of reflection is not very clear in this excerpt, but the
>>> term is
>>> used repeatedly in ways that generally suggest Leontiev sees the
>>> psyche
>>> forming subjective representations of an objective reality. Perhaps
>>> this can
>>> be saved by drawing on Marx's use of 'widerspiegeln,' which as
>>> Michael
>>> points out avoids the connotations of mirroring. But at least it
>>> invites
>>> readings of CHAT which don't challenge the dualism in contemporary
>>> western
>>> social science.
>>>
>>> By the way, although the repeated presentations of the same notions
>>> in
>>> Leontiev's book made me suspicious along the way, it wasn't until the
>>> very
>>> end that I discovered (from an endnote) that it is a compilation of
>>> articles
>>> from very different dates. I'd recommend reading it in
>>> chronological order
>>> to get a clearer sense of how his ideas developed. For instance, I
>>> need to
>>> go back to see how his relative emphasis shifted between the child's
>>> encounter with objects, and adult guidance of this encounter. At
>>> times the
>>> latter is not mentioned, at others it is added on ("by the way..."),
>>> and at
>>> times it is highlighted. But since the chapters are out of order, I
>>> don't
>>> yet have a clear sense of the chronology of these shifts.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 1/4/09 11:50 PM, "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The idea that always occurs to me about reflections is that in
>>>> mirrors,
>>>> left
>>> and right are reversed.
>>>
>>> Sad? Or a reason to pause to think?
>>> Quien
>>>> Sabe?
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why sad?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know, but it would be sad
>>>> to discover that Vygotsky was drawing so
>>>>> heavily
>>>>> from Lenin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On
>>>> 1/4/09 9:42 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I might say
>>>> as an aside, that "reflection" whatever it is in
>>>>>> Russian, has a strong
>>>> place in Russian Marxism. This is
>>>>>> because Lenin made such a powerful
>>>> attack on his
>>>>>> philosophical enemies in "Materialism and
>>>> Empirio-Criticism"
>>>>>> written in 1908. Ilyenkov still defends this books in
>>>> the
>>>>>> mid-1970s, though almost all non-Russian Marxists would say
>>>>>> that
>>>> it is a terrible book and was written before Lenin had
>>>>>> studied Hegel, etc.
>>>> In M&EC Lenin makes reflection a central
>>>>>> category, a universal property of
>>>> matter, etc., and bitterly
>>>>>> attacks the use of semiotics of any
>>>> kind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have an ambiguous attitude to M&EC myself. Apart from
>>>>>>
>>>> "sins of omission" perhaps, Lenin is right, but did he
>>>>>> really have to
>>>> shout it that loud? Well, in the historical
>>>>>> context of the wake of the
>>>> defeat of the 1905 Revolution,
>>>>>> probably he did. Did all Russian Marxists
>>>> for the next 100
>>>>>> years have to follow his lead? Probably not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>> note that in Dot Robbins' book on Vygotsky and Leontyev's
>>>>>> Semiotics etc.,
>>>> Dot defends the notion of reflection. The
>>>>>> situation, as I see it, is that
>>>> "reflection" has a strong
>>>>>> advantage and an equally strong disadvantage in
>>>> conveying a
>>>>>> materialist conception of sensuous perception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On one
>>>> side it emphasises the objectivity of the
>>>>>> image-making - there is nothing
>>>> in the mirror, or if there
>>>>>> is, it is an imperfectionit which distorts the
>>>> image. On the
>>>>>> other side, mirror-imaging is an entirely passive process,
>>>> a
>>>>>> property of even non-living matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I think
>>>> "reflection" belongs to Feuerbachian
>>>>>> materialism, not Marxism, but in
>>>> historical context, the
>>>>>> position of many Russians who use the concept,
>>>> is
>>>>>> understandable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's how I see it anyway,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed Wall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears the
>>>> root is more or less
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> отрaжáть
>>>> (отрaзить)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and, at least according to my dictionary, has the
>>>> sense of reflecting
>>>>>>> or having an effect. However, my qualifications are
>>>> dated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Martin Packer
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the end of last year several of us were trying to figure
>>>> out whether
>>>>>>>> 'reflection' is a good term to translate the way
>>> Vygotsky
>>>> and leontiev
>>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>>> about 'mental' activity. Michael Roth pointed
>>>> out that the German word
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> Marx used was Widerspiegeln rather
>>>> than Reflektion (see below). I don't
>>>>>>>> think anyone identified the Russian
>>>> word that was used. I still haven't
>>>>>>>> found time to trace the word in
>>>> Vygotsky's texts, English and Russian.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> an article by Charles
>>>> Tolman suggests that the Russian term was
>>>>>>>> 'otrazhenie.' Online
>>>> translators don't like this word: can any Russian
>>>>>>>> speakers suggest how
>>>> it might be translated?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reflection (German: Widerspiegelung;
>>>> Russian: otrazhenie)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tolman, C.W. (1988). The basic vocabulary of
>>>> Activity Theory. Activity
>>>>>>>> Theory, 1, 14-20.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/25/08 12:40 PM, "Wolff-Michael Roth"
>>> <mroth@uvic.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marx does indeed use the term
>>>> "widerspiegeln" in the sentence you
>>>>>>>>> cite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Das Gehirn
>>>> der
>>>>>>>>> Privatproduzenten spiegelt diesen doppelten
>>>> gesellschaftlichen
>>>>>>>>> Charakter ihrer Privatarbeiten nur wider in den
>>>> Formen, welche im
>>>>>>>>> praktischen Verkehr, im Produktenaustausch erscheinen
>>>> - den
>>>>>>>>> gesellschaftlich
>>>>>>>>> nützlichen Charakter ihrer Privatarbeiten
>>>> also in
>>>>>>>>> der Form, daß das Arbeitsprodukt nützlich sein muß,
>>> und zwar
>>>> für
>>>>>>>>> andre - den gesellschaftlichen Charakter der
>>> Gleichheit der
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> verschiedenartigen
>>>>>>>>> Arbeiten in der Form des gemeinsamen
>>>> Wertcharakters
>>>>>>>>> dieser materiell verschiednen Dinge, der
>>>> Arbeitsprodukte.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But the Duden, the reference work of
>>>> German language says that there
>>>>>>>>> are 2 different senses. One is
>>>> reflection as in a mirror, the other
>>>>>>>>> one that something brings to
>>>> expression. In this context, I do not
>>>>>>>>> see Marx draw on the mirror
>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For those who have trouble, perhaps the analogy with
>>>> mathematical
>>>>>>>>> functions. In German, what a mathematical function
>>> does
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> "abbilden," which is, provide a projection
>>> of, or reflection,
>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> whatever. You have the word Bild, image, picture in
>>> the verb.
>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> when you look at functions, only y = f(x) = x, or -x
>>> gives you
>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> you would get in the mirror analogy. You get very
>>> different
>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> when you use different functions, log functions, etc.
>>> Then
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> relationship between the points on a line no longer is
>>> the same
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the "image", that is, the target domain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We sometimes
>>>> see the word "refraction" in the works of Russian
>>>>>>>>> psychologists, which
>>>> may be better than reflection. It allows you to
>>>>>>>>> think of looking at the
>>>> world through a kaleidoscope, and you get all
>>>>>>>>> sorts of things, none of
>>>> which look like "the real thing."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25-Oct-08, at 9:01 AM,
>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's one example
>>>> from Marx, and several from Leontiev, if we can
>>>>>>>>> get into
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>> Russian too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The twofold social character of the labour of
>>> the
>>>> individual appears
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> him, when *reflected* in his brain, only
>>>> under those forms which are
>>>>>>>>> impressed upon that labour in every-day
>>>> practice by the exchange of
>>>>>>>>> products." Marx, Capital, Chapter 1,
>>>> section 4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " Activity is a non-additive unit of the
>>> corporeal,
>>>> material life of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> material subject. In the narrower sense,
>>>> i.e., on the psychological
>>>>>>>>> plane,
>>>>>>>>> it is a unit of life, mediated
>>>> by mental *reflection*, by an *image,*
>>>>>>>>> whose
>>>>>>>>> real function is to
>>>> orientate the subject in the objective world."
>>>>>>>>> Leontiev,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> Activity & Consciousness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " The circular nature of the processes
>>>> effecting the interaction of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> organism with the environment
>>>> has been generally acknowledged. But
>>>>>>>>> the main
>>>>>>>>> thing is not this
>>>> circular structure as such, but the fact that the
>>>>>>>>> mental
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> *reflection* of the objective world is not directly generated by the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> external influences themselves, but by the processes through which
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> subject comes into practical contact with the objective world, and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> therefore necessarily obey its independent properties,
>>>> connections,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> relations." ibid
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> " Thus,
>>>> individual consciousness as a specifically human form of the
>>>>>>>>> subjective
>>>> *reflection* of objective reality may be understood only
>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> product of those relations and mediacies that arise in the course of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> establishment and development of society." ibid
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3
>>>> 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
>>>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy
>>>> Blunden:
>>>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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