Immersed in some of the different views of Marx for a different type of project I was interested to find a difference between the French view of Marxism and change and I suppose the more central and Eastern Europe (recogniaing of of course that these type of general distinctions are ridiculous to begin with). The difference seems to center around the French revolution and the degree to which the Master/Slave relationship, or the Master/Servant relationship is involved in Marx's view of change. The French view of Marxism seemed to have been very influenced by the idea that the French took revolution in to their own hands and moved from an assymetrical relationship to more of an equal relationship between humans that was based on ideas and shared knowledge and less on power relationships. For the French then Hegel's Master/Servant relationship became ciritical to the whole idea of revolution, where there Servant, as an individual, recognizes that the Master has no special powers, does not actually have any power to control nature. Individual thinking is critical in this instance - leading to Hegel's famous quote about the French revolution that individuals were finally walking on their heads. The more central and eastern Europe vision of change did not seem to integrate the Master/Servant relationship in to the idea of Marxist based revolution, seeing it as coming from tensions within the larger social system (that's my take anyway). One wonders if this has anything to do with the myths and belief systems of these central and Eastern European countries.
Anyway, it always seems that this tension is there - are individuals the cause or effect of revoluion?
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Ed Wall
Sent: Sat 4/18/2009 10:35 PM
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking?
Just for the sake of thinking (or for fun although I guess they could
occur simultaneously), plug in (with a little creativity) 'hear' or
'use' in the place of 'think'.
Ed Wall
On Apr 18, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
> Oh gosh, Derek. I guess that quotation was not so interesting after
> all!
> But perhaps the discussion that it is engendering is interesting. To
> take
> an example from your comments below:
>
> The colloquial mind-centred figurative descriptions of thinking have
> the
> effect of
> subliminal propaganda. We hear and use them all the time. We take it
> for
> granted that our minds think, or that we think in our minds -- that
> thinking
> goes on in people's heads.
>
> Might not old Ludwig say you supporting his argument?
>
> G'day!
> mike
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Derek Melser
> <derek.melser@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> *The greatest error of individualist psychology is that a person
>> thinks.*
>>
>> That a *person* thinks is not a mistake. Thinking is a personal
>> action. It
>> is not something that 'the mind' does, or the brain does. Nor is it
>> something that a community does -- though this is getting nearer
>> the mark..
>> Thinking is something that the person does. And, like almost any
>> other
>> action, it is something that a person has to learn how to do.
>> Furthermore,
>> if you know where to look, you can see children learning how to do
>> it.
>>
>> *This leads to a continual search for the source of thought within
>> the
>> individual himself and for the reasons why he thinks in a
>> particular way
>> and
>> not in any other...*
>>
>> This is not true. What leads to the assumption that the agent or
>> venue of
>> thinking is inside the person is the disingenuous colloquial
>> nominalisation
>> of the old verb *to mind* (which, three or four hundred years ago in
>> English, meant *to think*) and the rhetorical 'supporting' of this
>> nominalisation with numerous stock metaphors - the core examples of
>> which
>> firmly locate 'the mind' inside people's heads. The colloquial
>> mind-centredfigurative descriptions of thinking have the effect of
>> subliminal propaganda. We hear and use them all the time. We take
>> it for
>> granted that our minds think, or that we think in our minds -- that
>> thinking
>> goes on in people's heads.
>>
>> As for the remainder of this sentence: the 'continual search... for
>> the
>> reasons why [the individual] thinks in a particular way and not in
>> any
>> other' is one of the main subject matters, if not the main subject
>> matter,
>> of *psychology*. Personal thinking styles, abilities and limitations
>> thereof, pathologies, etc. -- all are legitimate and interesting
>> psychological topics.
>>
>> *What actually thinks within a person is not the individual himself
>> but his
>> social community. *
>>
>> As I humbly submit above, nothing thinks *within* a person,
>> certainly not a
>> whole community. To suggest that a person can get inside himself
>> (to do his
>> thinking) is far-fetched enough. The notion he can get all his
>> friends in
>> there too is beyond even the figurative.
>>
>> *The source of his thinking is not within himself but is to be
>> found in his
>> social environment and in the very social atmosphere he 'breathes'.*
>>
>> If this is to say that thinking is a skill that everyone practices
>> and that
>> we learn from other people and that it consists in essence of the
>> private
>> rehearsing by individuals of public, social interactions
>> (conversations,
>> discussions, lessons, demonstrations, admonitions, etc.), then it is
>> perfectly true. As a statement it is unnecessarily vague and
>> figurative,
>> however.
>>
>> *His mind is structured and necessarily cannot think in any other
>> way.*
>>
>> As I say, talking in terms of 'minds' is just a colloquial way of
>> speaking.
>> It is slang and inappropriate in serious discussion of thinking.
>> 'Structured' (like 'constructed') is just a metaphor that, like other
>> metaphors used outside of everyday speech in everyday situations,
>> obscures
>> as much as it illuminates (more, in this case). The reason the
>> individual
>> 'cannot think in any other way' is that this particular rapid and
>> subtle
>> ('private') way of rehearsing a public educative interaction is what
>> thinking *is*. If an individual were doing it any other way, he'd
>> be doing
>> something else.
>>
>> I contribute the above because I think it is ironic that followers of
>> Vygotsky should be applauding such a vague and confused (basically
>> incompetent - the author is clearly just feeling his way in an
>> unfamilar
>> area) description of the social basis of thinking. I mean, why do
>> you think
>> LSV devoted himself with such creative fury to sorting these issues
>> out?
>> Maybe he read this passage of Gumplowig.
>>
>> Cheerfully,
>>
>> Derek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/4/19 Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
>>
>>> That certainly is a thought-provoking quote.
>>>
>>> Anybody know anything about its author, Ludwig Gumplowig? The only
>> result
>>> I got from Google on him is the April 1980 LCHC Newsletter Mike
>>> was just
>>> looking at.
>>>
>>> - Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 18, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, all,
>>>> Mike's quote seems fairly deterministic to me, particularly when
>>>> considering the term "structured" and what it means to a
>>>> sociological
>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns
>>>> Profesor Asociado y Director
>>>> Departamento de Psicología
>>>> Universidad de los Andes
>>>> jlarream@uniandes.edu.co
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 18, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was looking for something else and found a fascinating old
>>>> quotation
>>>>> from
>>>>> German in the LCHC Newsletter.
>>>>> It is attached because I cannot figure out how to get it from
>>>>> old pdf
>>>>> format
>>>>> into here.
>>>>> I think you will find it interesting.
>>>>> mike
>>>>> <xmcaquote.doc>_______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca