Re: [xmca] Where is thinking

[Derek Melser <derek.melser@gmail.com>]

No-one interested in the Gumplowig/Gumplowicz quote any more? Or in the
provenance of the popular notion that we do our thinking 'inside ourselves',
'inside our own heads'? I can't decide whether this notion has ruined
psychology or created it...

At any rate, the best comment so far, I would say, is Vera's summation: “We
are profoundly, irrevocably interdependent. We need a new set of terms to
express the consequences of that interdependence when it comes to
psychological processes...” (One could put *our thinking* or *consciousness*or
*our being conscious of things *in place of *psychological processes*.) We
are still on square one.

Derek


2009/4/22 Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>

> Andy,
>
> Michael's point was that there are interesting differences between French
> and German Marxism, and that they seem to center around the role of the
> master-slave dialectic. This seems to me accurate. Hegel *did* have a
> theory
> of the master-slace relationship, and the fact that it was only 18
> paragraphs seems an odd criterion on which to evaluate its importance. If
> Hegel is "invariably misunderstood," as you say, then Kojeve can hardly be
> blamed for having an "idiosyncratic" reading of him. But I don't see how we
> are deciding which readings are 'correct' and which are not, anyway. The
> whole notion that there is only one correct way to read Hegel, or Marx, has
> got us into a lot of trouble in the past. We know that Marx did read the
> Phenomenology, and even if he "never said a word" about those 18 paragraphs
> that doesn't prevent us from looking for an influence. I know you don't
> like
> Sartre, but existential-marxism goes way beyond that one person and there
> is
> a much to it that I, at least, find very interesting.
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 4/20/09 7:47 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > Sure, 18 or 808 paragraphs of the Phenomenology was on the
> > Master-Servant narrative. The points are: 1. this was his
> > first published work and the significance of this passage
> > was gradually reduced every time Hegel wrote a new version,
> > 2. it is invariably misunderstood; it is a kind parody of
> > state-of-nature narratives by Rousseau & Co.. 3. Kojeve's
> > reading which is what people base themselves on usually is
> > idiosyncratic 4. No-one commented on it in print till 1947.
> >
> > Here are a couple of references:
> >
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/hegel-activity.htm#s6<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/works/hegel-activity.htm#s6>
> > http://marxmyths.org/chris-arthur/article.htm
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/master-slave-commentary.htm<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/works/master-slave-commentary.htm>
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > Martin Packer wrote:
> >> Or, apparently, if one sends too large an attachment. I replied to Andy
> a
> >> few days ago - this time I'm sending without the attachment:
> >>
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >> Isn't this a bit of an over-statement? I'm attaching 5 pages from
> Hegel's
> >> Phenomenology - the section on "Lordship and Bondage"
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> On 4/18/09 11:22 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This has generated a series of myths, whereby people think
> >>> that  Hegel had some kind of philosophy about masters ans
> >>> slaves and in some kind of way this "influenced" Marx. This
> >>> is fiction from beginning to end.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/19/09 10:02 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mike, my experience is that if I send from the wrong email
> >>> address it doesn't make it at all (which I think was the
> >>> case this time with Karin), but if I send a message with
> >>> format (eg indents or bold type) then the message appears
> >>> blank (which is what happened with mktostes yesterday).
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>> Mike Cole wrote:
> >>>> ALL --   When a message does not make it to XMCA it is almost always
> >>>> because
> >>>> the person has changed email addresses, even slightly.
> >>>> Achilles. Please check Karin's email on the membership list with the
> one
> >>>> you
> >>>> have. It will help solve the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> This caution is used to keep spamming from overwhelming the list.
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Achilles Delari Junior <
> >>>> achilles_delari@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear all, Karin Quast had problems with posting:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Em 19/04/2009 11:52, mktostes < mktostes@uol.com.br > escreveu:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hope this one does not appear blanck as other messages of mine in the
> >>>>> past.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have found 'L. Gumplowicz' or even L. von Gumplowicz on google.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> seems interesting!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Karin Quast
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:52:52 -0700
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking - con't from Tony
> >>>>>> From: lchcmike@gmail.com
> >>>>>> To: vygotsky@unm.edu
> >>>>>> CC: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where is the dichotomy, Vera? Its and/both, heterochronously and
> >>>>>> heterogeneously, relationally and non-linearly.
> >>>>>> So we murder to dissect, routinely.
> >>>>>> (Which constantly gives us more than enough to chat about!)mike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Vera Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>> I keep on thinking that we,too, fall into a dichotomy when we
> reject
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> inside/outside dynamic process. These are at time simultaneous
> actions:
> >>>>>>> appropriation, transformation, externalization  and their impact on
> the
> >>>>>>> speech
> >>>>>>> community, while they are also part of the process of
> brain/neuronal
> >>>>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>> When I remember one of the messages from the xmca community, I
> engage
> >>>>> in an
> >>>>>>> act that requires neuronal activity and  while I am reformulating,
> >>>>>>> communicating with the source of my thinking activity, this
> community,
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>> co-participate in the sustained thinking activities of others. By
> >>>>> viewing
> >>>>>>> these activities as either/or we are shaped by our opponents'
> Cartesian
> >>>>>>> beliefs and terminology.  I cannot write these words without the
> words
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>> others, but I am also moving my fingers--there is no space for
> other
> >>>>> fingers
> >>>>>>> on the keyboard. We are profoundly, irrevocably  interdependent. We
> >>>>> need a
> >>>>>>> new set of terms to express the consequences of that
> interdependence
> >>>>> when it
> >>>>>>> comes to psychological processes which have not a single but
> >>>>> distributed
> >>>>>>> locations,
> >>>>>>> Vera
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com
> >
> >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 10:23 AM
> >>>>>>> Subject: [xmca] Where is thinking - con't from Tony
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  To shorten the string of trailing messages and focus on just one
> of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> interesting responses:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu>
> >>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:44 PM
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Where is thinking?
> >>>>>>>> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For what it's worth:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thought is what it is only by virtue of its addressing a future
> >>>>> thought
> >>>>>>>> which is in its value as thought identical with it, though more
> >>>>> developed.
> >>>>>>>> In this way, the existence of thought now depends on what is to be
> >>>>>>>> hereafter; so that it has only a potential existence, dependent on
> the
> >>>>>>>> future thought of the community.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No present actual thought (which is [in itself] a mere feeling)
> has
> >>>>> any
> >>>>>>>> meaning, any intellectual value; for this lies not in what is
> actually
> >>>>>>>> thought, but in what this thought may be connected with in
> >>>>> representation
> >>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>> subsequent thoughts, so that the meaning of a thought is
> altogether
> >>>>>>>> something virtual.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that
> >>>>> motion
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that
> >>>>> thoughts
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> in us.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -- Charles Peirce, Writings 2: 241,227,227
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> -------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> Reading this puts me strongly in mind of the epigram of the
> chapter 7
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> Thinking and Speech, "I forgot the word I wanted to say, and
> thought,
> >>>>>>>> unembodied, returned to the hall of shadows."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Locally a couple of us have been re-re-re-visiting this idea and
> what
> >>>>>>>> seems
> >>>>>>>> to us an incompleteness that is picked up by Pierce and which
> relates
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> relationship between
> >>>>>>>> imagining and creating as well as sense and meaning. For LSV the
> >>>>>>>> externalized thought-in-word completes the thought, providing the
> >>>>> "most
> >>>>>>>> stable zone of sense." But we were focused
> >>>>>>>> on the hearer of the utterance and how it was then interpreted and
> >>>>>>>> subsequently given further life or not as very important..... the
> >>>>> later
> >>>>>>>> history of what Vygotsky called the embodied thought.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I fear the invitations to confusion in all the inside/outside
> >>>>> invocations
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> what we are quoting and composing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>> Descubra seu lado desconhecido com o novo Windows Live!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> http://www.windowslive.com.br_____________________________________________
> >>>>> __
> >>>>> 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