Dear Chuck
I can go along with your account of abstraction and consciousness.
Some of the issues being raised by Klaus and Filippo are, for me, outcomes of the stance one might take on where language originates - inside the individual (Piaget) or outside the individual (Vygotsky).
Language, for me, is inherently taken up by the individual from the outside. Once it is inside the individual, it is easily forgotten that it was naturalized and accommodated as of-the-individual (mine) rather than of-the-group (ours).
Our common-sense feeling that we can hide our thoughts from others is a silly pretense that we allow each other to make ourselves feel better about each other. We know lots more in common than we bother to admit.
Consciousness is not intrinsically individual which is a bit of a bugger for creatives who feel that THEY are creative.
The concept of individuality solves very few puzzles even though it radically alters consciousness.
cheers
keith
>>> Charles Burnette <[log in to unmask]> 10/06/09 11:03 AM >>>
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> And yes, abstractions reside in language, are interpersonally and
> con-sensually coordinated, they don't originate in the brain. The
> brain of course participates and is shaped by its participation with
> others.
Klaus, I'm afraid that you misunderstand my (and perhaps Keith's) use
of the term "abstraction". In this instance it means that
consciousness is not given in one physiological bite but is derived
from many physiological contributions. In this understanding a
singular "concrete" cognitive object does not exist. Dropping into
neuron think is dropping out of the realm of abstraction which is at a
level cognitively above the concrete. Abstractions originate in the
brain and are not necessarily con-sensually coordinated or voiced in
language despite your stubborn belief to the contrary. Or so I
stubbornly believe.
Chuck
|