I gather that what we are doing is discussing the review of Andy's
book in the latest MCA.
I'm not really sure why we are doing this, because it doesn't actually
seem immediately and obviously related to the topic of Leontiev and
Stalinism, it was not chosen by vote, and it is also rather
scandalously long and more than usually poorly written.
On p. 374, Nissen says that CHAT is in search of a kind of universal
unit of analysis. I was not aware that this was considered possible,
much less that it was considered a central point in CHAT. Nissen
strongly implies that Andy's book really does claim the "collaborative
project" as a kind of God particle, a universal, interdisciplinary
unit of analysis. Is this true?
Vygotsky never implied that there was any universal, interdisciplinary
unit of analysis to be had. Quite the contrary. He explicitly puts
forward very different units of analysis for different problems. For
example, he argues that perizhvanie is the U of A for the emotional
life of the child, and that word meaning is for the problem of
Thinking and Speech. Molecules and molecular movement are for
understanding quite specific problems in hydrology, not for discussing
water generally. If Andy really does disagree with this, I'd like to
know about why, but I rather suspect he does not.
On p. 375, Nissen writes:
"What is immanence? A colleague whom I much respect declared recently
that Blunden is so much of a newcomer to CHAT that he shouldn't be
taken seriously at all."
I cannot understand how the answer answers the question. Can someone
explain this?
"More specifically he (Andy) exhibits Hegel so meticulously that at
some points the relevance escapes me, whereas Marx is rendered in such
a simplifying way that it at once stirred my nostalgia for
pre-post-modern Marxism and my urge to let us, finally, get beyond
it--as Marxists, that is! Speaking of legacy..."
No, let's not speak of legacy. I can't understand a word of this. Will
somebody please translate?
"Frankly, it seems Blunden has not worked enough on this to make it
worth the while for us to go into it any further, so let's just leave
it there."
I rather he would have left it there, but unfortunately, the review
goes on for another eight (!) equally incoherent pages. I gather that
a special exception to the normal 2000 word limit was made for this
review, and I would really like to hear why, particularly since Andy
is so very proud of the high rejection rate of the journal!
I must put in a good word for the p. 375 footnote though:
"For a price of 99 pounds, one would expect some careful editing to be
done, an at least not quite so many typos."
Well put. But I think the same thing holds true for my MCA subscription.
David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
--- On *Sun, 12/25/11, Andy Blunden /<ablunden@mira.net>/* wrote:
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo
Finnish Insufficiences
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 25, 2011, 6:23 PM
Good point, Arturo.
One of the most difficult things to work out is what Hegel is talking
about, the subject matter of his writing. The concept of Recognition
arises not in the Philosophy of Right (which is surely just about
modern
communities) but in the Subjective Spirit, and here the topic is
quite
ambiguous. It is about human beings emerging from what Hegel took
to be
a state of nature towards the modern state. But what sense do we
give to
"emerging"? Hegel did not believe in the evolution of species. He
believed that only history changed; nothing new ever happened in
nature.
So he saw human beings as intelligent animals who only came into
themselves as they built languages, customs, forms of production,
"raised" children, and so on. But the immediate section before the
Subjective Spirit is the Philosophy of Nature, about animals, the
immediate section following Subjective Spirit is about private
property.
So Subjective Spirit is about how human animals (organically exactly
what they are now) became modern citizens. But it reads less as a
theory
of history than as a theory of human anatomy and physiology. The
section
on recognition comes in the section on self-consciousness, prior
to the
section on language. It is about history as much as it is about
biology.
Hegel is making a logical exposition of how human beings must be.
Anyway, recognition not only "predates" the modern state, it
"predates"
even language, for Hegel. The struggle to the death for recognition
makes abundant sense so long as one situates it in the struggle of a
social movement or emergent nation, not as the struggle of an
individual. But how far do we take such a reading of the subjective
spirit. Given that the Zusatze for the Subjective Spirit were not
translated into English till 1971 and since 1830 only two books in
English have been written on the Subjective Spirit, there is a lot of
puzzles to untangle yet.
Andy
Arturo Escandon wrote:
> I think Greg is referring to the quest for recognition and its
link to identity. When the commonwealth is born, there are more
clear loci of recognition. At least one can argue that the state
helps selecting and reproducing identities that are treated as
official. See segments of Hegel's Philosophy of Right on person
and subject.
>
> How does chat deal with ascertaining the positioning of the
subject for that is the locus of power and control.
>
> Best
> Arturo
> Sent from my iPod
>
> On 26 Dec 2011, at 07:33, mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
>
>> Greg -- mediation through culture begins only after emergence
of the state?
>> Mike
>>
>> On Dec 25, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Victor Friedlander
<victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il>>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 25 December 2011 10:10, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't know Markell, but I read Williams as what I call
billiard table
>>>> recognition. As you correctly say, individuals in the modern
state get
>>>> recognition first of all through Right, and then on top of
all that
>>>> through participation in a whole variety of mediating projects.
>>>> Mediation is the alpha and omega of Hegel and I don't see a
single
>>>> glimmer of understanding of this in the writers I mentioned.
Why? They
>>>> express the spirit of their age, in which individuals bang
around like
>>>> billiard balls on a level playing field. They want to do away
with
>>>> religion, but all they have to replace it with is individualism.
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of be said for Mead and his rendering of the
master-slave
>>>> narrative, but I think he remained unclear, and his subjects
seem to be
>>>> able to generate the means of mediation from within
themselves. OK up to
>>>> a point, but as Hegel says ...
>>>>
>>>> Also, what is overlooked is that the subjects of Hegel's
narratives are
>>>> not first of all individuals, but are social subjects, and only
>>>> derivatively from that, persons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Andy, your quote from Hegel makes clear that Hegel is
tracing out
>>>>> subjective spirit as it emerges through recognition in
phylogenetic
>>>>> history. But this is not to say that the process of
recognition is all
>>>>> said and done once human social life has developed past this
state.
>>>>> What does follow from this historical transformation, imho,
is that
>>>>> recognition will take on a new quality with the emergence of
civil
>>>>> society and the State - recognition becomes mediated in a
whole new
>>>>> way; recognition becomes mediated through culture. This is
not your
>>>>> father's recognition. It is not about struggle and battle,
but it is
>>>>> about gaining rich individuality through the complex
macrosocial array
>>>>> of identities that are on offer in society (and which are
realized
>>>>> with respect to the complex metapragmatics of exhibiting and,
>>>>> critically, being recognized as having had exhibited, the
signs and
>>>>> symbols of having had been such and such type of person in a
given
>>>>> moment). To put it in a slightly different idiom, identity
is like a
>>>>> right - it exists consequentially only through the
recognition of
>>>>> others (writ large, i.e. recognition via thirdness (Peirce)
or, if you
>>>>> prefer, a generalized other (Mead), in short, through
recognition
>>>>> through culture). And just as property creates possibilities for
>>>>> agentive action, e.g. raising cattle or raising capital, so
too do
>>>>> various identities create possibilities for agentive action
(something
>>>>> that the con-man is well aware of, but which most of the
rest of us
>>>>> seem too stuck in our "own" skin to realize).
>>>>>
>>>>> I also happen to think that this importance of culture to
mediation
>>>>> comes through in both Markell's and Williams' readings of Hegel,
>>>>> although I think it is more clearly articulated in the
former than in
>>>>> the latter (though I do have some issues with both). And I
will need
>>>>> to go back through my notes and through your writings on
Williams,
>>>>> Andy, to see where I think that you've got Williams wrong
(but I'm not
>>>>> about to make a similar claim about your reading of Hegel -
you're way
>>>>> out of my league in that regard!).
>>>>>
>>>>> But that will have to wait as there are more pressing
matters right
>>>>> now (presents to wrap and cookies to eat and notes to leave!).
>>>>>
>>>>> And a very merry Christmas to you Andy.
>>>>> And to all a good night.
>>>>> -greg
>>>>>
>>>>> p.s., to mike I'm not sure at all how to connect this to
Leontiev.
>>>>> Have much work to do in that connection... Motivation maybe?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> To let Hegel speak for himself. In The Subjective Spirit,
after the
>>>>>> "master-servant" narrative, he says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "To prevent any possible misunderstandings with regard to the
>>>>>> standpoint just outlined, we must here remark that the
fight for
>>>>>> recognition pushed to the extreme here indicated can only
occur in
>>>>>> the natural state, where men exist only as single, separate
>>>>>> individuals; but it is absent in civil society and the
State because
>>>>>> here the recognition for which the combatants fight already
exists.
>>>>>> For although the State may originate in violence, it does
not rest
>>>>>> on it" (1830/1971 ��432n).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have written/spoken eslewhere and at length on R R
Williams (as well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> Robert Brandom, Axel Honneth and others) and I regard
their postmodern
>>>>>>> interpretation of recognition-without-culture. I regard it
as the main
>>>>>>> barrier to an understanding of CHAT or Hegel of our times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Functionalism is interesting in the way you mentioned, in
that it
>>>>>>> prefigured more contemporary currents which also do away
with any
>>>>>>> centre of
>>>>>>> power but cast power as flowing through "capillaries" - a
more radical
>>>>>>> conception of power-wthout-a-centre actually.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for providing a link back to the
Leontiev/functionalism
>>>>>>>> discussion, Andy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The links appear to go right through your home hegelian
territory and
>>>>>>>> link us up
>>>>>>>> to current discussions of "recognition." They also link
up with ideas
>>>>>>>> linked to
>>>>>>>> Zygmund Bauman's "Liquid Modernity." And to the many
other people whose
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> I know too little of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With respect to functionalism, casting national
aspersions aside :-))
>>>>>>>> , it never occurred to me during my years getting trained
to be a
>>>>>>>> learning
>>>>>>>> theorist in the
>>>>>>>> Skinnerian tradition, to consider the question of "where
does the
>>>>>>>> function come from" or "who is exerting power here?" We
starved the
>>>>>>>> rats
>>>>>>>> and they ran or died. Or coerced sophomores using grades
as "part of
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> education."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I went to Moscow. Where the caste of characters
under discussion
>>>>>>>> were my hosts. Like I said. I am a slow learner on all these
>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>> matters. At the rate I am going I am never going to
figure it all out!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablunden@mira.net>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my view, Mike, there were some basic questions asked and
>>>>>>>> answered by A N Leontyev in launching the enquiry we know as
>>>>>>>> "Activity Theory" are uneliminable, that is, he took a
step which
>>>>>>>> has to be valued and continued. But it was a step at an
extremely
>>>>>>>> fundamental level. It absolutely left open
Stalinist-functionalist
>>>>>>>> directions and well as emancipatory directions. Personally, I
>>>>>>>> think the impact of the "planned economy" and the
"leadership"
>>>>>>>> which understood "the laws of history" and the state which
>>>>>>>> represented a "higher stage of society" and so on, left a
mark on
>>>>>>>> the whole current. But its basics, its fundamentals
remain intact.
>>>>>>>> It only remains to agree on what those were.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By-the-by, the home of "functionalism" is the USA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By-the-by again, in the early 80s I was a member of a
Trotskyist
>>>>>>>> party which put Ilyenkov on a pedastal, and published new
>>>>>>>> translations of his work in English, which also came very
close to
>>>>>>>> endorsing Lamarkism. It debated it, but the Party
perished before
>>>>>>>> the debate was resolved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am being very slow here. How does this discussion
resolve
>>>>>>>> or help me to
>>>>>>>> think more clearly about the issues in the subject
line? the
>>>>>>>> issues over
>>>>>>>> different interpretations of Leontiev, their relation to
>>>>>>>> functionalism,
>>>>>>>> stalinism, fascism, etc?
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Greg Thompson
>>>>>>>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.**com
<greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Larry,
>>>>>>>> IMHO, you're hitting the heart of the matter with
>>>>>>>> recognition and
>>>>>>>> agency - self-assertion vs. self-emptying seems a
nice way
>>>>>>>> to think
>>>>>>>> about the central problematic (and I agree with your
>>>>>>>> preference for
>>>>>>>> the latter). If you are interested in developing
a more more
>>>>>>>> self-emptying Kyoto-like notion of recognition,
I've got a
>>>>>>>> couple of
>>>>>>>> suggestions (and I'm sure I've made these
suggestions in a
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> context before, so apologies for redundancy).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, I'd strongly encourage a read of Robert
Williams'
>>>>>>>> Ethics of
>>>>>>>> Recognition. In Williams' read of Hegel, you find an
>>>>>>>> articulation of
>>>>>>>> recognition that is much more like the Kyoto
understanding of
>>>>>>>> recognition and which is against the crass
version you get
>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>> existentialists where recognition always about a
fight or
>>>>>>>> struggle for
>>>>>>>> recognition. As evidence of the cultural tendency
toward
>>>>>>>> self-assertion, it is very telling that one small
>>>>>>>> paragraph in Hegel's
>>>>>>>> oeuvre would get picked up as the thing that most
people
>>>>>>>> for most of
>>>>>>>> the 20th century would equate with Hegel's notion of
>>>>>>>> "recognition."
>>>>>>>> But that approach is shortsighted and Williams really
>>>>>>>> nails this
>>>>>>>> point. (although I am persuaded by Willaims'
>>>>>>>> interpretation, I don't
>>>>>>>> have any skin in the game of whether or not this
is a more
>>>>>>>> or less
>>>>>>>> "authentic" interpretation of Hegel - I just
happen to
>>>>>>>> believe that
>>>>>>>> the position Williams articulates is far more
productive
>>>>>>>> than the
>>>>>>>> struggle-for-recognition model that has been on
offer from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> existentialists).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, to provide some further support for this
claim,
>>>>>>>> I'd also
>>>>>>>> suggest checking out Johann Georg Hamann, who is
said to
>>>>>>>> have been a
>>>>>>>> significant influence on Hegel (but don't read Isaiah
>>>>>>>> Berlin's stuff
>>>>>>>> on Hamann, he misses the point). Hamann didn't really
>>>>>>>> publish much. He
>>>>>>>> was most noted for his letters to his friend,
Immanuel
>>>>>>>> Kant and in
>>>>>>>> which he repeatedly tells Kant that he's got it
all wrong
>>>>>>>> (and does it
>>>>>>>> in a style that makes the point through medium as
well as,
>>>>>>>> if not more
>>>>>>>> than, message - a point which itself speaks to
one of his
>>>>>>>> central
>>>>>>>> points about the importance of poetics). In these
letters,
>>>>>>>> Hamann has
>>>>>>>> a wonderful sense of the intractability of human
life, and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> fundamental wrong-headedness of the desire for
sovereign
>>>>>>>> agency. I'd
>>>>>>>> be happy to share more if there is any interest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, and I forgot there is a third author of
interest in
>>>>>>>> this regard,
>>>>>>>> Patchen Markell's Bound by Recognition gives a
compelling
>>>>>>>> portrait of
>>>>>>>> what he calls "the impropriety of action" - the
sense in
>>>>>>>> which our
>>>>>>>> actions are not our property alone. Markell's
book argues
>>>>>>>> that tragedy
>>>>>>>> (and its twin, comedy) derives from this very human
>>>>>>>> problem. Also
>>>>>>>> great stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All three of these readings I suggest as a way of
pointing
>>>>>>>> out that
>>>>>>>> within Western traditions there is a trope that
is closer to
>>>>>>>> self-emptying than self-asserting. Unfortunately it
>>>>>>>> doesn't articulate
>>>>>>>> as well with Enlightenment perspectives because it is
>>>>>>>> often, as with
>>>>>>>> Hamann, articulated through Christianity. This
presents
>>>>>>>> something of a
>>>>>>>> marketing problem since the Enlightenment put
Christianity
>>>>>>>> as a thing
>>>>>>>> of the past and as the kind of believing that
small minded
>>>>>>>> people do
>>>>>>>> (the kind that tote guns and don't believe in
evolution),
>>>>>>>> and thus a
>>>>>>>> not very appealing thing for most Westerner's
"natural" (i.e.
>>>>>>>> "cultural") inclination to self-assertion. So I
think that
>>>>>>>> as a matter
>>>>>>>> of packaging, Buddhism, with its stripped down
religious
>>>>>>>> ideology,
>>>>>>>> probably has more appeal to most post-Enlightenment
>>>>>>>> Western thinkers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I wanted to add that I feel like your posts are
>>>>>>>> speaking directly
>>>>>>>> to me and maybe we can carry on this conversation
in more
>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>> somewhere down the road (in a different thread, I
>>>>>>>> suspect). So many
>>>>>>>> thanks for your words (even if they weren't
"intended" for
>>>>>>>> me - a
>>>>>>>> fortuitous impropriety to be sure!).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, hope all is well,
>>>>>>>> greg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Larry Purss
>>>>>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>
<mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm enjoying this line [circle?
spiral?] of
>>>>>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David, you wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The mind is a highly parsimonious thing; it
is very
>>>>>>>> tiring to believe one
>>>>>>>> thing and say another. Vygotsky's genetic law
predicts
>>>>>>>> that eventually it
>>>>>>>> is the former that shall cede to the latter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I want to go out on a speculative limb that
tries to
>>>>>>>> weave together some
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein's notions that are
also
>>>>>>>> expressed in John
>>>>>>>> Shotter's
>>>>>>>> exploration of conversation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question of the relation and distinction
between
>>>>>>>> "taking a position"
>>>>>>>> and "developing dispositions" In David's
quote above
>>>>>>>> "believing" one
>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>> [a position] and "saying"
[practicing
>>>>>>>> another] will
>>>>>>>> over time eventually
>>>>>>>> lead to the practice winning out over the belief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their are a group of scholars in Japan
referred to as
>>>>>>>> "the kyoto school"
>>>>>>>> who are engaged in the project of having an
indepth
>>>>>>>> conversation between
>>>>>>>> Buddhism and German Continental philosophy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A central difference the authors of the Kyoto
school
>>>>>>>> are articulating is
>>>>>>>> different notions [and values] of
"intersubjectivity"
>>>>>>>> as epressed in the
>>>>>>>> contrasting concepts
>>>>>>>> "self-assertion" and "self-emptying".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They suggest many Western notions of
intersubjectivity
>>>>>>>> and recognition
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> in pursuit of recognizing our
assertoric
>>>>>>>> stance or
>>>>>>>> position towards
>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>> self, other, & world. This
assertive
>>>>>>>> position can be
>>>>>>>> expressed in
>>>>>>>> emancipatory notions of "finding one's VOICE" and
>>>>>>>> overcoming being
>>>>>>>> "silenced". Anger and conflict leading to
overcoming
>>>>>>>> resistance from
>>>>>>>> within classes, races, genders. Through
recognition
>>>>>>>> [being seen and
>>>>>>>> listened to develops the capacity to move from a
>>>>>>>> silenced "voice" to an
>>>>>>>> assertive "voice"] one stands up and speaks
back to
>>>>>>>> the dominating
>>>>>>>> constraints and the shame and humiliation that
>>>>>>>> silences voices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Shotter [in Christine's quotes above
shows] the
>>>>>>>> assertoric position of
>>>>>>>> challenging dominant structures and power can
be seen
>>>>>>>> as expressing a
>>>>>>>> particular "attitude" or "style" or "posture".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This style or attitude valorizes "the assertoric
>>>>>>>> stance" in the world"
>>>>>>>> which develops into an enduring "disposition"
if we
>>>>>>>> keep "saying" this
>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>> of recognition and emancipation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, the Kyoto School, in deep
conversation with
>>>>>>>> this assertoric
>>>>>>>> "position" and "disposition" suggests or gestures
>>>>>>>> toward an "alternative"
>>>>>>>> [not truer, more real, but an alternative]
>>>>>>>> They suggest Buddhist practice and "saying"
can guide
>>>>>>>> or mediate another
>>>>>>>> in*formation of "self" that they express in the
>>>>>>>> concept of "self-emptying
>>>>>>>> This is NOT a passive or resigned form of
agency but
>>>>>>>> rather an active
>>>>>>>> intentional positioning of self that attempts to
>>>>>>>> foreground the
>>>>>>>> "fallibility" and "uncertainty" of ALL
positioning and
>>>>>>>> assertoric
>>>>>>>> stances.
>>>>>>>> This is a deeply
intersubjective practice
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> valuing
>>>>>>>> "emergence" and
>>>>>>>> "openning spaces" in which to INVITE the other to
>>>>>>>> exist by the practice
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> mving our self from center
stage. Finding
>>>>>>>> one's
>>>>>>>> "voice" from this
>>>>>>>> position
>>>>>>>> of ACTIVE INTENTIONAL
self-emptying [and
>>>>>>>> creating the
>>>>>>>> openning space for
>>>>>>>> the other's "voice" to emerge] is a very
different
>>>>>>>> "attitude" or "stance"
>>>>>>>> or "posture" to take leading to a very different
>>>>>>>> "disposition" from
>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> a very different form of
"saying" and
>>>>>>>> "practice".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I "read" scholars such as Wittgenstein, Shotter,
>>>>>>>> Gadamer, Buber, Levinas,
>>>>>>>> as exploring this alternative in*formation of
"self"
>>>>>>>> that is less
>>>>>>>> assertoric in finding one's "voice" and
moving towards
>>>>>>>> a posture of
>>>>>>>> self-emptying that embraces FALLIBILITY,
UNCERTAINTY,
>>>>>>>> AMBIVALENCE, NOT
>>>>>>>> KNOWING, at the heart of this particular way of
>>>>>>>> becoming human.
>>>>>>>> I do believe this is an historically guided
>>>>>>>> perspective that embraces
>>>>>>>> multiple perspectives and multiple practices.
>>>>>>>> Intersubjectivity and dialogical hermeneutical
>>>>>>>> perspectives and the
>>>>>>>> multiple formations this conversation can take
>>>>>>>> [expressing alternative
>>>>>>>> moral committments] is the concept at the
center of
>>>>>>>> this possible
>>>>>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how "possible" it
is for
>>>>>>>> persons in North
>>>>>>>> America to
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>> such alternative moral compasses as
>>>>>>>> explored
>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>> Kyoto School. [it may
>>>>>>>> be beyond our horizon of understanding to
envision as
>>>>>>>> a possibility].
>>>>>>>> It is also difficult to grasp Wittgenstein's
attempt
>>>>>>>> to "see through"
>>>>>>>> theoretical positions as a practice and
disposition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Self-asserion is often viewed as the only path to
>>>>>>>> intentional stances and
>>>>>>>> postures in finding one's voice to participate in
>>>>>>>> GENERATIVE
>>>>>>>> conversations. Is there merit in engaging with
>>>>>>>> another tradition
>>>>>>>> exploring
>>>>>>>> agentic ACTORS actively practising
>>>>>>>> "self-emptying"
>>>>>>>> motivated by the deep
>>>>>>>> disposition and committment to generative
dialogical
>>>>>>>> ways of practice.??
>>>>>>>> As I said in my opening remarks, this is
going "out on
>>>>>>>> a limb". Is
>>>>>>>> conflict
>>>>>>>> and anger the ONLY motivators
that can be
>>>>>>>> harnessed to
>>>>>>>> transform the
>>>>>>>> world??
>>>>>>>> I'm also aware that my position as a "white
male" with
>>>>>>>> a secure job may
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> calling me to take a naive
"utopian"
>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>> At the minimum I want to suggest that it is
these types
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> "conversations"
>>>>>>>> across "traditions" such as the
Kyoto
>>>>>>>> School
>>>>>>>> scholars
>>>>>>>> are engaged in
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> invite us into a world
conversation which
>>>>>>>> puts into
>>>>>>>> play the monolithic
>>>>>>>> bias towards the assertoric stance in the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm preparing for "challenges" to this
alternative
>>>>>>>> "attitude" but am
>>>>>>>> putting it out there in a spirit of the
holiday season
>>>>>>>> to think outside
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> Western notions of
"self-assertion" and
>>>>>>>> finding one's
>>>>>>>> voice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:04 AM, David Kellogg <
>>>>>>>> vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>
<mailto:vaughndogblack@yahoo.**com<vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ivan:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the beginning of the Philosophical
>>>>>>>> Investigations, Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>> quotes
>>>>>>>> Augustine, who describes the
>>>>>>>> indescribable
>>>>>>>> experience of learning a
>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>> language in Latin, and
remarks that his
>>>>>>>> model of
>>>>>>>> language (a big bag of
>>>>>>>> names) is OK, but only for a very restricted
>>>>>>>> application; there are many
>>>>>>>> things we call language for which it is not
>>>>>>>> appropriate. And thence to
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> famous discussion of
complexes, in the
>>>>>>>> form of
>>>>>>>> games and language games.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think what I said was that Wittgenstein's
>>>>>>>> account of language is
>>>>>>>> pragmatic in a linguistic sense.
Pragmatics is
>>>>>>>> about the use of
>>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>>> as opposed to its usage
(which is more
>>>>>>>> or less
>>>>>>>> what Augustine is
>>>>>>>> describing, language as a dictionary
written in
>>>>>>>> some form of mentalese,
>>>>>>>> where every language is necessarily a foreign
>>>>>>>> language).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I think what Wittgenstein says about
language
>>>>>>>> applies to every
>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>> of language, even his own;
it is
>>>>>>>> appropriate, but
>>>>>>>> ony for a very
>>>>>>>> restricted
>>>>>>>> application. In that way it
is like a
>>>>>>>> metaphor (as
>>>>>>>> we see in the
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> games section, and the tool box
>>>>>>>> section,
>>>>>>>> it really
>>>>>>>> IS a metaphor). So I
>>>>>>>> think we need to ask the question where
it stops
>>>>>>>> being appropriate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Andy points out, it doesn't describe
conceptual
>>>>>>>> thinking very well.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> that is not because the
pragmatic
>>>>>>>> account of
>>>>>>>> language is a subset of
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> larger conceptual account;
I think that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> relationship is quite the
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> way around: scientific
concepts are a
>>>>>>>> rarefied,
>>>>>>>> specialized subset of
>>>>>>>> semantic meaning, and of course semantic
meaning
>>>>>>>> took many centuries of
>>>>>>>> billions of daily interactions to be
precipitated
>>>>>>>> from everyday
>>>>>>>> pragmatics.
>>>>>>>> Now it seems to me that on
this scale
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>>> the cultural individual
>>>>>>>> really is quite unchanging and hidebound,
rather
>>>>>>>> like a bottle. We
>>>>>>>> rejoice
>>>>>>>> that Western women do not
bind their
>>>>>>>> feet--and
>>>>>>>> instead mutilate their
>>>>>>>> chests with silicon implants. We rejoice
in not
>>>>>>>> stoning women for
>>>>>>>> adultery
>>>>>>>> and congratulate ourselves
on no longer
>>>>>>>> insisting
>>>>>>>> on the male ownership
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> sexuality that this
entails, but we so
>>>>>>>> stigmatize
>>>>>>>> child sexual abuse
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> children's lives, and not
simply their
>>>>>>>> putative
>>>>>>>> purity, are now at risk
>>>>>>>> from pedophiles, and nobody reflects that
what is
>>>>>>>> really threatened
>>>>>>>> here is
>>>>>>>> the parental ownership of
sexual access
>>>>>>>> to their
>>>>>>>> children.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This morning's New York Times, just for
example,
>>>>>>>> has a thoroughly silly
>>>>>>>> article on North Korea by one Nicolas
Kristof. We
>>>>>>>> are told that
>>>>>>>> apartments in Pyeongyang are all equipped
with
>>>>>>>> telescreens that
>>>>>>>> make propaganda announcements of, e.g., the
>>>>>>>> leaders' golf scores. We
>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>> similar telescreen in our
apartment in
>>>>>>>> Seoul,
>>>>>>>> which announces municipal
>>>>>>>> elections and tells where to find the
local leader
>>>>>>>> of the anti-communist
>>>>>>>> militia. The difference is that when we
do it is
>>>>>>>> feels normal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kristof certainly does not feel
hidebound; he is
>>>>>>>> quite comfortable in
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> own skin. Nevertheless, he
tells a
>>>>>>>> wildly
>>>>>>>> brainwashed account of the
>>>>>>>> way in
>>>>>>>> which North Korea developed
nuclear
>>>>>>>> weapons. He
>>>>>>>> correctly remembers
>>>>>>>> that in
>>>>>>>> 1994 an agreement was
negotiated to
>>>>>>>> build nuclear
>>>>>>>> power plants in North
>>>>>>>> Korea (he carefully omits to say that
these would
>>>>>>>> be non-weaponizable
>>>>>>>> and built by South Korean companies). Now,
>>>>>>>> according to Kristof, the
>>>>>>>> Clinton administration only did this
because they
>>>>>>>> fooishly assumed that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> regime would collapse
before the
>>>>>>>> reactors were
>>>>>>>> actually built! Wisely,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Bush administration caught
the North
>>>>>>>> Koreans
>>>>>>>> "cheating", and tore up the
>>>>>>>> agreement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What really happened, as anybody with a
memory
>>>>>>>> longer than the Bush
>>>>>>>> adminstration will tell you, was that the
North
>>>>>>>> Koreans asked for, and
>>>>>>>> got,
>>>>>>>> a codicil that would supply
them with
>>>>>>>> fuel oil for
>>>>>>>> energy as a stopgap
>>>>>>>> measure (if you look at the widely circulated
>>>>>>>> satellite picture of North
>>>>>>>> Korea at night you will see why they
insisted on
>>>>>>>> this). The Clinton
>>>>>>>> Administration always boasted that the
fuel oil
>>>>>>>> they supplied was
>>>>>>>> unusably
>>>>>>>> poor, but that was not
enough for the
>>>>>>>> Bush
>>>>>>>> adminstration. They simply
>>>>>>>> reneged on the agreement. But the North
did not
>>>>>>>> renege: they had
>>>>>>>> promised
>>>>>>>> they would develop nuclear
weapons if
>>>>>>>> the deal
>>>>>>>> fell through, and that is
>>>>>>>> what they did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why does Kristof tell this transparent lie?
>>>>>>>> Doesn't it go against the
>>>>>>>> usual NYT ethos of telling the truth about
>>>>>>>> checkable and trivial
>>>>>>>> matters so
>>>>>>>> as to be able to deceive
with the
>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>> authority when it comes to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> essentials? I think, alas,
Mr. Kristof
>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>> cannot control himself any
>>>>>>>> more (see his WILDLY improbable tale about a
>>>>>>>> husband executing his own
>>>>>>>> wife
>>>>>>>> for writing a highly
implausible letter
>>>>>>>> to Kim
>>>>>>>> Jeong-il himself). The
>>>>>>>> leather mask has become a face.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I think that is probably what
happened to poor
>>>>>>>> Leontiev as well. The
>>>>>>>> mind is a highly parsimonious thing; it
is very
>>>>>>>> tiring to believe one
>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>> and say another. Vygotsky's
genetic law
>>>>>>>> predicts
>>>>>>>> that eventually it is
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> former that shall cede to
the latter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is that sense in which what Mike says
is true:
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's psychology,
>>>>>>>> as a scientific system, describes the
development
>>>>>>>> of institutionalized
>>>>>>>> lying just as accurately as it describes the
>>>>>>>> development of higher
>>>>>>>> concepts. What I wanted to say was that his
>>>>>>>> earlier sense that ideas are
>>>>>>>> always embodied, and some bodies are
gifted with
>>>>>>>> an extraordinary
>>>>>>>> foresight, is also true. I think Vygotsky
knew
>>>>>>>> that he would die, but he
>>>>>>>> also knew that his ideas, so long as they
were
>>>>>>>> true ones, would live.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Wed, 12/21/11, Ivan Rosero
>>>>>>>> <irosero@ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=irosero@ucsd.edu>
<mailto:irosero@ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=irosero@ucsd.edu>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Ivan Rosero <irosero@ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=irosero@ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:irosero@ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=irosero@ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev:
>>>>>>>> functionalism and Anglo
>>>>>>>> Finnish
>>>>>>>> Insufficiences
>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>>>>>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2011, 6:50 PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David, if you agree with the summary
Larry has
>>>>>>>> presented, I remain
>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>> by your analogy. I read
Larry's
>>>>>>>> presentation of
>>>>>>>> Kitching/Pleasant as
>>>>>>>> saying that action cobbles together
further sense
>>>>>>>> within already-given
>>>>>>>> sense that is simultaneously
ideal-material, and
>>>>>>>> therefore subject to
>>>>>>>> culturally and historically specific
constraints
>>>>>>>> and possibilities. But
>>>>>>>> surely, this includes the bottle and the
person
>>>>>>>> too, both as moving
>>>>>>>> entities (the bottle, unless highly
heated, a much
>>>>>>>> more slowly moving
>>>>>>>> entity). I am not invested in any particular
>>>>>>>> reading of Leontiev, but
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> analogy as presented
suggests a kind of
>>>>>>>> essential
>>>>>>>> fixity to the person
>>>>>>>> which I want to believe you don't really
mean.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To be fair, your emphasis is on the wine
in the
>>>>>>>> bottle. But, in this
>>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>>> a slowly moving bottle is
rather less
>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>> than a human being,
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> a rather less historically
complex
>>>>>>>> relationship to
>>>>>>>> the liquid it gives
>>>>>>>> shape to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does what Andy refer to help here? What
kind of
>>>>>>>> concept-complex (is it
>>>>>>>> enough to call it Stalinism?) helps to
explain the
>>>>>>>> Leontiev at issue
>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>> Or, if the critique was
there from
>>>>>>>> early
>>>>>>>> on, what
>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>> concept-complex
>>>>>>>> would help to explain his
writings'
>>>>>>>> wide
>>>>>>>> acceptance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or, do we forgo all this and just grab
Leontiev,
>>>>>>>> as you say, "on a good
>>>>>>>> day"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM, David
Kellogg <
>>>>>>>>
vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:vaughndogblack@yahoo.**com
<vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike wrote that as he grows
older, he
>>>>>>>> becomes less attached to his
>>>>>>>> position (expressed in his editorial
>>>>>>>> commentary to Luria's
>>>>>>>> autobiography,
>>>>>>>> "The Making of Mind")
that ideas
>>>>>>>> really are
>>>>>>>> highly embodied things.
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>> says that as he grows
older, he
>>>>>>>> becomes more
>>>>>>>> and more attached to
>>>>>>>> Luria's
>>>>>>>> position that only
ideas matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But as I grow older, I become more
and more
>>>>>>>> attached to Mike's
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>> position that
individuals really
>>>>>>>> matter. Wine
>>>>>>>> has no shape of its
>>>>>>>> own; it
>>>>>>>> really depends on what
bottle we
>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>> it in,
>>>>>>>> and the form of ideas
>>>>>>>> depends
>>>>>>>> very much on the
character of the
>>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>>> wo carry them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On paper, the theoretical positions of
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev are not
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> far apart. So when Mike
asks what
>>>>>>>> presents
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky's ideas from being
>>>>>>>> pressed into service by the Stalinist
state, I
>>>>>>>> think the answer has
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> referred to the
individual who
>>>>>>>> carried this
>>>>>>>> idea after all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it is not accidental that one was
>>>>>>>> amenable and the other was
>>>>>>>> not,
>>>>>>>> that one's ideas were
deformed and
>>>>>>>> degenerated, and the others still
>>>>>>>> amaze
>>>>>>>> by their
freshness and
>>>>>>>> color. Nor is it
>>>>>>>> accidental that one lived and
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> died.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But of course death is simply the
moment when
>>>>>>>> our thinking and spoken
>>>>>>>> speech must come to an end, and our
written
>>>>>>>> speech, like a hermit
>>>>>>>> crab,
>>>>>>>> must find a new home in
the minds
>>>>>>>> and mouths
>>>>>>>> of others. And by that
>>>>>>>> measure, it was Vygotsky who lived
on, yea,
>>>>>>>> even in the mind and the
>>>>>>>> mouth
>>>>>>>> of
Leontiev. Well,
>>>>>>>> Leontiev on a good day!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS; I think I am (once again) with
Larry. I
>>>>>>>> think that if we read
>>>>>>>> (late)
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein as a
linguistic (not a
>>>>>>>> philosophical) pragmatist, that
>>>>>>>> is,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> someone who
believes
>>>>>>>> that meaning in language
>>>>>>>> comes from sense in
>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein is
>>>>>>>> perfectly consistent with what
>>>>>>>> Marx writes in the
>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>> Ideology (that language is
>>>>>>>> practical
>>>>>>>> consciousness, real for myself
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> real for
others).
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein is
>>>>>>>> Vygotsky-compatible in other ways,
>>>>>>>> too,
>>>>>>>> e.g. his argument about
>>>>>>>> preconceptual
>>>>>>>> "families" and his argument
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> tool like
nature of
>>>>>>>> signs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Wed, 12/21/11, mike cole
>>>>>>>> <lchcmike@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting
Leontiev:
>>>>>>>> functionalism and Anglo
>>>>>>>> Finnish
>>>>>>>> Insufficiences
>>>>>>>> To: "Larry Purss"
<lpscholar2@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>>>>>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>,
"Morten
>>>>>>>> Nissen" <Morten.Nissen@psy.ku.dk
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Morten.Nissen@psy.ku.dk>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:Morten.Nissen@psy.ku
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Morten.Nissen@psy.ku>.**dk<Morten.Nissen@psy.ku.dk
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Morten.Nissen@psy.ku.dk>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2011,
2:12 PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very helpful, Larry. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I read the Leontiev materials what
was at
>>>>>>>> issue in 1949 is whether
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is any
"third space" of
>>>>>>>> the self in the "unity
>>>>>>>> of consciousness and
>>>>>>>> activity." I take Stalinism
>>>>>>>> in these materials to refer to the
way that
>>>>>>>> idealism is joined with
>>>>>>>> belief
>>>>>>>> in some sort of
>>>>>>>> "autonomous" realm of thought.
>>>>>>>> Zinchenko's work on
>>>>>>>> micromovements of the eye and perceptual
>>>>>>>> action seem to me now
>>>>>>>> significant
>>>>>>>> in exactly this
>>>>>>>> respect:
>>>>>>>> they point to a rapid
>>>>>>>> simulation process
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> not
mechanically
>>>>>>>> connected to externalized
>>>>>>>> action (as one example). If
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> know the
future of
>>>>>>>> history and what is good
>>>>>>>> for everyone, all such
>>>>>>>> processes risk deviation from "the
true path."
>>>>>>>> The motives of the
>>>>>>>> "healthy"
>>>>>>>> individual
are supposed
>>>>>>>> to coincide with those
>>>>>>>> of the "collective" (as
>>>>>>>> represented by the general secretary
of the
>>>>>>>> central committee of the
>>>>>>>> communist party). Functionalism as
command and
>>>>>>>> control statism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we accept THIS version of CHAT,
seems to me
>>>>>>>> that Phillip is
>>>>>>>> corrrect -
>>>>>>>> Use the ideas for
something called
>>>>>>>> communism,
>>>>>>>> fascism, ANY form of
>>>>>>>> collective social project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David says this is Leontiev's (AT)
problem,
>>>>>>>> not Vygotsky's (CH)
>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>> Larry points
>>>>>>>> to Wittgensteinian marxism that
appears to
>>>>>>>> provide a way to select
>>>>>>>> wheat
>>>>>>>> from chaff (or discover
a different
>>>>>>>> level of
>>>>>>>> chaff!).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess is that German, Russian, and
other
>>>>>>>> thinkers have already
>>>>>>>> carried
>>>>>>>> this conversation
pretty far....
>>>>>>>> Morten's
>>>>>>>> citation of German work
>>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> this
conclusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But how are we poor non_Russian,
non_German
>>>>>>>> reading unfortunates
>>>>>>>> wandering
>>>>>>>> in the
woods to find
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> way?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:08 PM,
Larry Purss
>>>>>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lpscholar2@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Hi Andy,
>>>>>>>> Christine, Mike
>>>>>>>> I have been hibernating on Mayne
Island, a
>>>>>>>> small Island between
>>>>>>>>
Vancouver
>>>>>>>> and
Vancouver and
>>>>>>>> Vancouver Island.
>>>>>>>> [school break for the holidays]
>>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>> internet except at
the small
>>>>>>>> library]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was interested in this comment from
>>>>>>>> Morten Nissen on Andy's book
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Blunden, as it were, attacks it
from the
>>>>>>>> �gopposite�h side: the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> functionalism
>>>>>>>>
of Leontiev�fs
>>>>>>>> way of relating subject with
>>>>>>>> society. This has to do
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>
objects and
>>>>>>>> motives appear to coincide in
>>>>>>>> Leontiev�fs idealized
>>>>>>>> image of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
true society,
>>>>>>>> that is, the society of
>>>>>>>> original communism and that of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Soviet
Union.
>>>>>>>> Andy, it is this notion of
"coinciding"
>>>>>>>> that I have difficulty with
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> reading
about
>>>>>>>> Activity Theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leontiev's statements such as
"Education
>>>>>>>> is the decisive force which
>>>>>>>>
forms
>>>>>>>> man
>>>>>>>> intellectually. This intellectual
>>>>>>>> development MUST CORRESPOND TO
>>>>>>>> THE
>>>>>>>> AIMS
AND THE NEEDS
>>>>>>>> OF THE ENTIRE SOCIETY.
>>>>>>>> It must fully agree with
>>>>>>>> REAL
>>>>>>>> human
needs"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm been browsing through an
edited book
>>>>>>>> by Gavin Kitching and
>>>>>>>> Nigel
>>>>>>>> Pleasant titled
"Marx and
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein:
>>>>>>>> Knowledge, Morality,
>>>>>>>> Politics."
>>>>>>>> These authors take an
>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>> perspective on materialism &
>>>>>>>> idealism
>>>>>>>> that gives idealism
its place
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> our human
>>>>>>>> being [in contrast to
>>>>>>>> how I
>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>
Leontiev}
>>>>>>>> These authors are exploring a
>>>>>>>> Wittgensteinian Marxism that examines
>>>>>>>>
Marx's
>>>>>>>>
notion that
>>>>>>>> "The tradition of all the dead
>>>>>>>> generations weighs like a
>>>>>>>> nightmare on the brain of the
living" A
>>>>>>>> Wittgensteinian Marxist
>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>> [from the authors
perspective]
>>>>>>>> would make
>>>>>>>> 3 points.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1] Tradition and circumstances
cannot be
>>>>>>>> understood in ABSTRACTION
>>>>>>>> FROM
>>>>>>>> the traditions and
>>>>>>>> understandings that
>>>>>>>> people have of these
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
2] WHATEVER
>>>>>>>> such varied understandings
>>>>>>>> may consist (class, culture,
>>>>>>>> gender etc) nonetheless some KINDS of
>>>>>>>> actions by historical subjects
>>>>>>>> [agents, actors] will prove
impossible IF
>>>>>>>> these actions are entered
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>
disregard to
>>>>>>>> the traditions and
>>>>>>>> circumstances directly GIVEN,
>>>>>>>>
ENCOUNTERED
>>>>>>>> and
transmitted
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the past
>>>>>>>> 3] A principle WAY in which the
TRADITIONS
>>>>>>>> OF THE DEAD GENERATIONS
>>>>>>>> weighs
>>>>>>>> like a
nightmare on
>>>>>>>> the brain of the
>>>>>>>> living is that ANTECEDENT
>>>>>>>>
historical
>>>>>>>>
circumstances often
>>>>>>>> make it IMPOSSIBLE TO
>>>>>>>> THINK AND FEEL (and
>>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>>> act)in certain ways.
>>>>>>>> Historically created
>>>>>>>> material culture restricts
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> enables
the making
>>>>>>>> of PARTICULAR KINDS of
>>>>>>>> history. People do not
>>>>>>>> try to
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>
things and
>>>>>>>> then for "material reasons"
>>>>>>>> find they cannot do things. (
>>>>>>>>
cannot
>>>>>>>>
make history
>>>>>>>> as THEY PLEASE ) Such
>>>>>>>> traditions and circumstances
>>>>>>>> DEEPLY
>>>>>>>> FORM
>>>>>>>>
what it is
>>>>>>>> that present generations can
>>>>>>>> DESIRE TO DO. and CONCEIVE
>>>>>>>> OF.
>>>>>>>> (as
>>>>>>>>
well as what
>>>>>>>> actions they can conceive of
>>>>>>>> as being
>>>>>>>>
possible/impossible,
>>>>>>>> feasible/unfeasible)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is human action in and on the
world
>>>>>>>> that inextricably LINKS
>>>>>>>> THOUGHT
>>>>>>>> (and language) TO
MATERIAL
>>>>>>>> REALITY.
>>>>>>>> Historical traditions and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>>>>
are the
>>>>>>>> outcomes of previous generations
>>>>>>>> actions [intended &
>>>>>>>>
unintended]
>>>>>>>> which place
>>>>>>>> constraints on present
>>>>>>>> generations. Constraints on what
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> can
think, feel,
>>>>>>>> desire (and how they act)
>>>>>>>> By keeping these 3 points in mind the
>>>>>>>> authors suggest we can avoid
>>>>>>>>
falling
>>>>>>>>
into the DEEP
>>>>>>>> CONFUSIONS which have always
>>>>>>>> attended the
>>>>>>>> material/ideal
>>>>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>>>> The most DIRECT and
comprehensible way to
>>>>>>>> SEE THROUGH this
>>>>>>>>
material/ideal
>>>>>>>>
distinction is to
>>>>>>>> see that all action is
>>>>>>>> simultaneously mental &
>>>>>>>>
physical,
>>>>>>>>
material &
>>>>>>>> ideal. Neither material or
>>>>>>>> ideal is an "epiphenomena" of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my reading of Leontiev in the
chapter
>>>>>>>> from the book posted I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> the nuances
>>>>>>>> recognizing the depths of the
>>>>>>>> "ideal" within Marx's
>>>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>>> This edited book,
by putting
>>>>>>>> Marx into
>>>>>>>> explicit conversation is
>>>>>>>> elaborating a Wittgensteinian
Marxism or a
>>>>>>>> Marxist Wittgenstein.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:39 PM,
mike cole
>>>>>>>> <lchcmike@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lchcmike@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Below are two
quotations
>>>>>>>> from Morten
>>>>>>>> Nissen's review of Andy
>>>>>>>> Blunden's
>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>> on activity theory. Full
review in
>>>>>>>> current issue of MCA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After presenting the quotation, a
>>>>>>>> comment.
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>> -------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Morten Nissen on Leontiev,
>>>>>>>> functionalism, and Stalinism
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �c.behind this terminological
trouble
>>>>>>>> lies a deep theoretical
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>
Leontiev�fs
>>>>>>>> social theory. This problem
>>>>>>>> was identified in the German
>>>>>>>>
and
>>>>>>>>
Scandinavian
>>>>>>>> reception (Axel & Nissen,
>>>>>>>> 1993; Holzkamp, 1979;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Osterkamp,
>>>>>>>>
1976) but
>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>> completely ignored in
>>>>>>>> the Anglo-Finnish (with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Miettinen,
>>>>>>>>
2005, and
>>>>>>>> Kaptelinin, 2005, as the
>>>>>>>> noble exceptions to the
>>>>>>>>
rule)�\and
>>>>>>>> Blunden, as it
were,
>>>>>>>> attacks
>>>>>>>> it from
>>>>>>>> the �gopposite�h side: the
>>>>>>>> functionalism
>>>>>>>> of Leontiev�fs way of
relating subject
>>>>>>>> with society. This has to do
>>>>>>>>
with
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> objects and motives appear to
coincide
>>>>>>>> in Leontiev�fs idealized
>>>>>>>> image
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> true society, that is, the
society of
>>>>>>>> original communism and that
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
Soviet Union.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From the perspective of this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> functionalist utopia, a
psychology
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> become relevant
only in the
>>>>>>>> face of
>>>>>>>> the undeveloped and the
>>>>>>>> deviant:
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>
fact,
>>>>>>>> according to Leontiev (1978),
>>>>>>>> children and disturbed provide
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> tasks of
psychology in the
>>>>>>>> institutions of the Soviet
Union. To
>>>>>>>> paraphrase:
>>>>>>>> The child who puts down her
book still
>>>>>>>> has not grasped the harmony
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> society�fs
needs with the
>>>>>>>> desire to
>>>>>>>> learn that she *must*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> develop�\she has not yet
developed
>>>>>>>> those �ghigher cultural needs.�h
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bourgeois
>>>>>>>>
society
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> another matter, where sense
>>>>>>>> and meaning are divided in
>>>>>>>> principle, but this
matter�\that of
>>>>>>>> ideology and social
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> critique�\Leontiev
>>>>>>>>
sets aside and
>>>>>>>> forgets. An elaborate
>>>>>>>> critique of Leontiev�fs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> functionalism
>>>>>>>>
was given
>>>>>>>> already in 1980 (Haug,
>>>>>>>> Nemitz,& Waldhubel, 1980),
and the
>>>>>>>> background was explained by
Osterkamp
>>>>>>>> (1976) in her groundbreaking
>>>>>>>>
work
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>
the
>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>> of motivation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
------------------------------**--
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I first read these
passages as
>>>>>>>> part of the attempted "swap of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ideas"
>>>>>>>>
that
>>>>>>>> Morten and I tried to organize
>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our reviews of Andy's book in
Outlines
>>>>>>>> and MCA, I commented how
>>>>>>>> sad it
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>
that the
>>>>>>>> elaborate critique that goes
>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1980 is not in English and fully
>>>>>>>> engaged by both European and
>>>>>>>> "Ango-Finns"
>>>>>>>> (although how poor Viktor
got into
>>>>>>>> that category
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not know!).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems like real interchange
around
>>>>>>>> these issues is long overdue.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>
the
>>>>>>>> progress of the last couple of
>>>>>>>> years, I'll not be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> holding my breath!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But thinking about the issues
as well
>>>>>>>> as my limited language (and
>>>>>>>>
other)
>>>>>>>>
capacities
>>>>>>>> allow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>> ______________________________**
>>>>>>>> ____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**
>>>>>>>> listinfo/xmca <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ______________________________**
>>>>>>>> ____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>>
______________________________**____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
>>>>>>>> Department of Communication
>>>>>>>> University of California, San Diego
>>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
______________________________**____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>> Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
>>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
>>>>>>>> Book:
http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>> Book:
http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ------------
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> Joint Editor MCA:
http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857><http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>
>>>> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/#bkV14E118>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Despite my general approach that Historical Dialectics (Marxian
>>> Social-Cultural theory) and Pragmatism mutually repair the
lacuna in their
>>> respective representations of human social and cultural
practice, and a
>>> very critical response to Leninism, Lenin's critique of American
>>> Pragmatism, rough as it is, is right on target.
>>>
>>> [15]
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/#bkV14E118> *
>>>
>>>> Pragmatism�\*a subjective-idealist trend of bourgeois (mainly
American)
>>>> philosophy in the imperialist era. It arose in the seven
ties. of the last
>>>> century in the U.S.A. as a reflection of specific features of the
>>>> development of American capitalism, replacing the hitherto
prevailing
>>>> religious philosophy. The main propositions of pragmatism
were formulated
>>>> by Charles Peirce. As an independent philosophical tendency
it took shape
>>>> at the turn of the century in the works of William James and
Ferdinand
>>>> Schiller and was further developed in the instrumentalism of
John Dewey.
>>>>
>>>> The pragmatists consider that the central problem of
philosophy is the
>>>> attainment of true knowledge. However, they completely
distort the very
>>>> concept of truth; already Peirce looked on cognition as a purely
>>>> psychological, subjective process of achieving religious
belief. James
>>>> substituted the concept of �gusefulness�h, of success or
advantage, for the
>>>> concept of truth, i.e., for the objectively true reflection
of reality.
>>>> From his point of view, all concepts, including religious
ones, are true
>>>> insofar as they are useful. Dewey went, even farther by
declaring all
>>>> scientific theories, all moral principles and social
institutions, to be
>>>> merely �ginstruments�h for the attainment of the personal
aims of the
>>>> individual. As the criterion of the �gtruth�h (usefulness) of
knowledge,
>>>> the pragmatists take experience, understood not as human
social practice
>>>> but as the constant stream of individual experiences, of the
subjective
>>>> phenomena of consciousness; they regard this experience as
the solo
>>>> reality, declaring the concepts of matter and mind
�gobsolete�h. Like the
>>>> Machists, the pragmatists claim to have created a �gthird
line�h in
>>>> philosophy; they try to place themselves above materialism
and idealism,
>>>> while in fact advocating one of the varieties of idealism. In
contrast to
>>>> materialist monism, the pragmatists put forward the standpoint of
>>>> �gpluralism�h, according to which there is no internal
connection, no
>>>> conformity to law, in the universe; it is like a mosaic which
each person
>>>> builds in his own way, out of his own individual experiences.
Hence,
>>>> starting out from the needs of the given moment, pragmatism
considers it
>>>> possible to give different, even contradictory, explanations
of one and the
>>>> same phenomenon. Consistency is declared to be unnecessary;
if it is to a
>>>> man�fs advantage, he can be a determinist or an
indeterminist, he can assert
>>>> or deny the existence of God, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> By basing themselves on the subjective-idealist tradition of
English
>>>> philosophy from Berkeley and Hume to John Stuart Mill, by
exploiting
>>>> particular aspects of the theories of Kant, Mach and
Avenarius, Nietzsche
>>>> and Henri Bergson, the American pragmatists created one of
the most
>>>> reactionary philosophical trends of modern times, a
convenient form for
>>>> theoretically defending the interests of the imperialist
bourgeoisie. It is
>>>> for this reason that pragmatism spread so widely in the
U.S.A., becoming
>>>> almost the official American philosophy. There have been
advocates of
>>>> pragmatism at various times in Italy, Germany, France,
Czechoslovakia and
>>>> other countries. Lenin, V.I. (1908) MATERIALISM and
EMPIRIO-CRITICISM: Critical
>>>> Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy, Chapter 4. Parties in
Philosophy
>>>> and Philosophical Blockheads
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Victor Friedlander
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<http://us.mc1225.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca