Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation

[Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@yahoo.com>]

Martin,
Forgive the delay . 
I hope you are now relieved with the Cartesian dualism . However , you seem to be engaged with a dualism of a new type : Is Mind within or without ? 
You say : [[OK, to keep the ball rolling, what are we to make of the discussion around
page 310 of "interiorization," which Leontiev defines as "the
gradual
conversion of external actions into internal, mental ones"?

On page 284 Leontiev has just praised Rubinstein for proposing that mind is
*in* activity. Now he says that mental activity is the *product* of
'external' activity, and furthermore that mental activity is
'internal'
activity. This sounds very dualistic to me.]]

1. Here so many times was discussed the idea that L was happy Rubinstein took Mind out of its centuries-old emprisonment into the outside (non-introspectionist) but he didn't say either of them let it (Mind) loose there wandering about here and there . L explicitly declares when this was achieved , there appeared the Behaviourists jailmen who remained with it outside only to completely omit Consciousness from their realm of debates . Somewhere else L says it's not the case when we put things outside , we let the organism go their own way , objects their own quite independent of one another ; just in their INTERACTIONS . L poses the question when R accepts Mind without and adds it acts through the *internal* , does he mean his the *internal* is already there cryptically awaiting for the *external* to its bosom ? No such situation , he concludes : S====>R indeed . 
2. The A part you have read is about 130 pages based on many experimentations . What I could extract from these pages was that when that SOMETHING we now call *man* , entered society , all things began . Mainly with the organismic creatures there were things with properties direct to their satisfaction of needs like food (unconditioned) . And properties like colour , smell , sound , etc. not direct to that satisfaction . L argues to reach and get the latter , the former system (irritability) was not sufficient . Sensibility (senses) is now on the scene of evolution . Sense requires nerves because formerly Nature had not encountered this new problem of recognizing and differentiating between primary and secondary properties . So on so forth . Now suppose these interactions were not , where did you seek for their genesis (nerves,psyche,mind,etc ?) Their coming into existence , growth , development , etc. ? Now conditioned . Now in such milieu ,
 what is mind ? Where is it ? Now what is circular is not the way you depict ; It's this process L depicts which is sure circular , never coming to a hault . Then when we say mind is without , we don't mean it's stationary in just one particular place ; Indeed , it originates outside and without of the head and without of the depths (Freud) just *within* an uninterrupted process of life , here a round of activity jestating outside having that device , the box upon our shoulder which helps--(L always stressing *with the help of mind*--dragging things inside , somehow intolerant of being a kind hostess to ideality guest , then then then then , all stations without a queue , in fact non-stoppage stations . I wonder if I can say a thought is a moment of a process . 
3. Mind in the head ? I wonder if L prefers to say the whole ideality which is so intolerant , volatile , moving , in its penetrating influences , involves the thing in the head , the brain . And this thing is not a dead thing ; it works on and on ; hence thinking activity . 
Please continue :    



And here are my notes on page 311:

[[But this is circular reasoning. Interiorisation is necessary, ANL tells
us,
because accumulated human knowledge comes to the child as something
'external.' ]]
Yes , we put that . If there they came internally/intrinsically , that Device would not be required .
[[These 'objects, verbal concepts, knowledge' have an
'immediate
physical aspect' that is 'not yet refracted through the prism of the
generalized experience of social practice.' ]]
Yes , when , say , it sees mother , it's a physique for it , meaningless . Or sounds from aside , mother/carer , again a physique , meaningless . 
[[But what happened to ANL's
recognition that the child acts on objects always with adult guidance, so
that the *immediate* contact *is* refracted through this prism (though I'd
like to avoid the refraction/reflection metaphors).]]
I wonder what's dualistic here . Yes , the child gradually with adult guidance gets familiarized with the meanings of things whatever . L for better or worse , takes activity as non-additive . In activity , subject/object , naturally tool/sign , other , language , dialogue are contained , and not discretely . 
"And even if ANL were correct, why is any of this an explanation of why
interiorization is necessary?
Because the material man did not fall down right from Heavens . He came into being through interaction with the environment (not necessarily through dialogue) and philosophically unfortunately did not accept to quit his bad habit of interaction giving impetus to so many creations/complications .. Incidentally your dualism is proven here : You argue in a way one infers after that jestation outside , it was quite justifiable the organism left the object/reality/outside world/environment/situation/community/medium to itself , returning to its solitary life as the supremest of the created ???
 [[If (past) human activity is 'embodied' in
objects, that doesn't mean that I need mental actions to act with them. On
the contrary, the whole notion of 'embodiedness' began as an
*alternative*
to idealist psychology.]]
I cannot communicate here ; too philosophical . 
"And 'reflection in the child's head [p. 311]'?!"
??
Someone give me a monist gloss of all this, please!
You turned Cartesian again ? Matter with time,place,causality,extension is five or one ????
Brain with its property is two or one ?? Body with Soul is two or one ??
Subjects A to Z are 26 or one ??
Best
Haydi



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