ken and all those who claim to have true consciousness
(for only if you have this consciousness could you talk of the false
consciousness of others)

your questions are many.

the first half of them concern "THE problem of false consciousness,"
presuming IT to be a problem without saying for whom this is a problem and
what could solve that problem.  stated as such, it is a problem that
seemingly hangs in the air, in search for an expert to "address this
problem."  this to me is totally unsatisfactory.  i have yet to meet a
person who believes s/he is suffering from false consciousness.  all uses of
the term, including yours, ken, is about other people

you say clearly that nobody can know the mental state of another human
being.  i am half with you on that.  the half that i am parting from this
statement is that it presupposes the existence of states of consciousness,
which you, after asserting the impossibility of knowing them in another
person, then neatly distinguish between false and not false or true.  (to be
correct, you did not say "not false" nor did you say "true" but from what
would false consciousness possibly deviate?)

i am hesitant to define consciousness, but i consider it to be manifest in
the metaphorical assertion "i see myself doing (thinking, acting, saying
...) something."  to be sure: i can think (perform all kinds of conceptual
operations), act (ride a bicycle, play a piano), and talk or write without
seeing myself or reflecting on my doing it.  there is consciousness and
there is routine, unreflected behavior.  being conscious cannot be false
(which is not the same as saying that one can recognize that one made a
mistake or didn't think about something when it would have been better had
one done so).  consciousness either is or is not, including many shades
between these extremes.  also consciousness is always about something

since you cannot assess the state of consciousness of another person, it
would logically follow that you should limit your talk to your own
consciousness.  when do you consider your own consciousness true?  when do
you consider it false?   when it is false how would you know?  by which
standard can you experience such a state?  since you need a true
consciousness to identify a false one, do you suppose you could have two
consciousnesses, one being true to see the falseness of the other?  -- i
hope you realize that the more you get into the logic of this construction
the deeper you get into a logical morass.

the problem with your argument, ken, is that you argue from a monological
perspective, from one logic.  my earlier critique of the concept was
dialogical, related to the use of language, what people do and say to each
other.

the claim that someone else has a false consciousness can only be made by
someone who presumes to have access to the truth, which the very statement
denies to the one so judged.  since, as you say, one cannot objectively
assess the consciousness of that other human being, all that the assertion
does is to entail the speaker's (irrefutable) superiority over the other.
it is a put down concept.  it has tremendous dialogical consequences in the
ensuing interaction.

i do not want to get too deeply into motivations but the concept of false
consciousness started, i believe, with marx' critique of ideology, putting
down all those not seeing the world the way he did.  it justified ruthless
revolutionaries at that time.  the idea of claiming to know the mentality of
others continued in the form of the construction of an unconscious in the
psychoanalysis of freud, for example, who claimed access to what his
patients lacked.  you mention several kinds of counseling that continue this
rhetorically effective (but ethically devious) strategy.  (one of my phd
students is writing her dissertation on the strategies that therapists
employ to establish their authority by imposing mental conceptions on
patients' stories they are told they did not know).

there is no doubt that some of us have difficulties coping with something
and are seeking the help of professionals, but then it is we who notice
these difficulties.  i grant you also that there are people who make the
life of others difficult, who rape, steal, and kill.  but these are not
indications of false consciousness but deviation from the law of the land.

let me insert a few comments, not answers, to your questions:

you say: "We cannot know the internal state of another human being." then
you ask:
Question 6: What are the limits and conditions - if any - that permit
us to claim that another human being suffers from a state of false
consciousness?

wouldn't it logically follow that no condition would permit us to make such
claims?

Question 7: Is the declaration that another human being suffers from
a state of false consciousness even possible in any meaningful sense?

yes, it is possible as a put down, as a claim of authority over others.
but should't one point out the epistemological flaw of such a declaration
and reveal it as unethical?

2.2.1 Valid engagement with the problem of false consciousness in
other human beings in a situated context

when you ask for validity you speak in detached monologue, which cannot deal
with dialogue.  interestingly, all of your examples of situated contexts
concern other people interacting, not truths.  you seem not to acknowledge
that you are actually asking for a negotiated truth that takes account of
what people say why and how.  monologue is simply not powerful enough when
people are in dialogue

Question 8: What are the psychological, therapeutic, or spiritual
dimensions of inquiry into false consciousness?

if you can't say what false consciousness is, how could you ask for its
dimensions?  i fail to see how one could answer such a question

Question 9: How can a therapist, mentor, or counselor work
effectively with the concept of false consciousness in a way that is
constructively helpful for the conscious subject who seeks the
support of a professional advisor?

my answer would be to abandon the belief in the existence of false
consciousness in favor of attentive, unprejudiced, nontheoretical listening

Question 10: Are there psychological, therapeutic, or spiritual
circumstances in which a therapist, mentor, or counselor is required
to address the problem of false consciousness under the obligations
of declared responsibility (f.ex., Hippocratic Oath, priestly vows,
etc.)

the hippocratic oath asserts respect for the life of others, the
responsibility to heal where possible, not to judge.  priestly vows concern
loyalty to a church.  i cannot see what either of these have to do with
false consciousness?

Question 11: How can a doctoral supervisor or research advisor work
effectively to help a research student address the problem of false
consciousness?

again you presume such a problem.  for me education means encouraging the
best in students, guiding, coaching, being a model

Question 12: What specific ethical and professional challenges must a
doctoral supervisor or research advisor address to work effectively
with a research student who hopes to address the problem of false
consciousness?

i would strongly discourage any of my students to address this as a factual
problem and deal with it in a monological way.  but i have encouraged
students to study situations in which people make such claims, to whom and
with which consequences, dealing with claims to be concerned with such
mental construction dialogically, through the use of language, as social
constructions


tell me, would you, ken, accept the proposition that your consciousness is
false because you see "the problem" from a limited objectivist or
monological perspective (what is IT, is IT appropriate or not, is IT valid
or not, what are IT's dimensions, etc).  or would you want to say that my
consciousness is false because i prefer to ask dialogical questions
concerning who claims what about whom, what does this do to those talked
about and acted upon, how can we resist the imposition of categories by
devious authorities, or more positively, how can we participate in the
co-construction of realities that we prefer to live in (that do not haunt
us)?

i like to see design going into the latter direction - constructive,
respectful, dialogical, future oriented and acknowledging our use of
language as a way of life.

respectfully

klaus