[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] fetishism

That is a helpful metaphor, Andy. You are suggesting that consciousness is our "only" window to objective reality.

If what you mean by "consciousness" (and "activity") is every aspect of a living biological organism, then this statement is inarguable - but uninformative with regard to the relationship of human social consciousness to objective reality. This is an example where classical activity theory is not very helpful, any more than chemistry would be.

If what you mean by this metaphor is that our only window into objective reality is our social consciousness, then you are taking a position that makes it difficult to explain relationships such as between biological perceptions and social conceptions, and in general, how humans act and develop in a material world.

Vygotsky's solution, as one can see in his critique of Piaget, was to view objective reality as a necessary and fundamental dimension in the development of historical and individual human consciousness.

Your metaphor, if your intention is to respond to Vygotsky's viewpoint, seems to seek to leave the role of objective reality as an **independent** dimension unaccounted for and relatively unimportant, reducing the sources of human consciousness to "only" forms of social consciousness, to only what humans "know" about what they do.

- Steve

On Apr 23, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:

Steve, if you have access to objective reality that does not entail any activity on your part and does not wind up in your consciousness, then that's fine, but you don't know about it. Granted objective reality may be more important to you than *my* consciousness and *my* activity, but your consciousness is the only window you have on objective reality.


xmca mailing list