Brains and Politics
- This topic has 46 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Bijou Drains wrote: “I am using the term conscious mind, within the commonly used framework derived from Freud. The conscious mind in this sense means, as a part of mind which is responsible for rationalizing, paying attention, logical thinking and reasoning.”
Thanks for your straightforward answer, BD.
The ‘commonly used framework’ that I’m using, on the contrary, is derived from Marx. The essential difference is that Freud is discussing ‘biological individuals’, whereas Marx is discussing ‘social individuals’. This means that any discussion of ‘conscious mind’ for Freud looks within the individual, whereas Marx looks externally to the individual’s society, as it changes over time. So, regarding rationality, attention, logic and reason, Freud doesn’t ask where those concepts came from, who created them, why they created them, for what purpose, and how they’ve changed through history, but simply assumes they are universal concepts, and that they can be simple allied to any individual, in an asocial and ahistorical setting. The framework that I used assumes that all those questions must be determined before attempting to address the ‘conscious mind’.
BD wrote: “For example, if an individual is asked to add one and one, it is the conscious mind which will work out the calculation and give the answer.”
As a concrete example of my above answer, one would have to determine the mathematical background of the individual concerned, because many historical humans wouldn’t even understand the theory of ‘add one and one’, never mind the practice of ‘working out the calculation’. Mathematics is a socio-historical product, and varies by the societies within which individuals are developed.
BD wrote: “In this framework the subconscious mind includes the parts of the mind that are not actively consciously being engaged, i.e. out of awareness, but are still influential on the outcomes of thought and behaviour.”
But you don’t explain where this ‘subconscious mind’ comes from, neither as a concept or as a social product. For example, does Freud give us example of where HE acts unconsciously? How would he know, if he is unconscious of his act? If he knows, or can get to know, his ‘subconscious mind’, why doesn’t, or can’t, everyone? Or does Freud divide society into two, those with the capacity to know their ‘subconscious mind’, like him, and those (the majority?) who don’t? Doesn’t this seem reminiscent of Marx’s famous warning to workers to ask the question ‘who educates the educators?’?
That’s probably enough to be going on with. I suspect that Freud is favoured by those who regard ‘mind’ as an internal individual issue, related to the ‘brain’, which biological individuals just have as an accident of birth, and it can’t be changed (hence the focus on ‘instinct’). For Marx though, ‘mind’ is a socio-historical product, and its production can be changed by humans, which is why socialism is possible. We are not driven by ‘instincts’ from within the brain in politics. Which, of course, is the subject of the thread.
“For Marx though, ‘mind’ is a socio-historical product, and its production can be changed by humans, which is why socialism is possible.”
Mind, or the collection of thoughts, is a social product. Without society there is no mind. There is no such thing as a physical, a biological, or a non-social mind. The ideas, or the thoughts, of any given epoch are determined in general by the social conditions of that epoch, which also includes relics of past ideas. As these conditions change so do the ideas, over a longer or shorter time.
Lew: “The ideas, or the thoughts, of any given epoch are determined in general by the social conditions of that epoch, which also includes relics of past ideas. As these conditions change so do the ideas, over a longer or shorter time.”
This is not Marx’s view, Lew.
If ideas/thoughts are determined by social conditions which includes ideas…
…then conditions and ideas play a part in changing ideas.
And if these conditions are not a social product (ie. not the product of theory and practice), how could we change them?
No, Marx argued that humanly produced social conditions change social conditions. He didn’t separate ‘ideas’ from ‘conditions’. We are the active ‘changer’ of ‘conditions’; we are not the ‘passive’ recipient of ‘active’ conditions.
That understanding was what separated Marx’s views from 18th century ‘materialism’. Without that understanding, we would have to separate society into two, one part (the smaller) which could change ‘conditions’, and a larger part which couldn’t. Which is what the 18th century materialists did – they looked to an elite of ‘educators’ to ‘educate’ the masses. A Leninist party was the result of that ideology. And we already know just how many workers democratically controlled any Leninist party – none.
LBird: “No, Marx argued that humanly produced social conditions change social conditions.”
Yet again you don’t cite any evidence, and its a tautology anyway. Here is Marx:
“The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htmLBird: He didn’t separate ‘ideas’ from ‘conditions’.
Nobody has suggested that we should or can separate ideas from conditions.
LBird: We are the active ‘changer’ of ‘conditions’; we are not the ‘passive’ recipient of ‘active’ conditions.
Again, the WSM has not argued against this, and it would be rather pointless having a WSM if we did. I think you are conflating consciousness, ideas and mind.
‘For example, does Freud give us example of where HE acts unconsciously? How would he know, if he is unconscious of his act? If he knows, or can get to know, his ‘subconscious mind’, why doesn’t, or can’t, everyone?’
Not content with making a nonsense of Marx’s ideas LBird now shows a complete misunderstanding of Freud. Freud believed that there were several ways that we can become aware of the activity of our unconscious mind – two of which were famously through dreams and through free association. Therapy is about decoding the symbols which are manifested in dreams and free association seeks to bypass the censorship of the ‘super-ego’ and ego. He never referred to something called ‘the subconscious’. Freud sought to understand his own and his patients unconscious activity through these techniques which are relevant to us all but unfortunately the NHS only regards mental health as the province of psychiatrists and drug companies.
With regards to the subconscious-unconscious debate (going on for at least the last 100 years.
Freud originally used it interchangeably with “unconscious” at the outset. The words in German are similar (subconscious is das Unterbewusste; unconscious is das Unbewusste), although I agree he eventually stuck with the term unconscious. (similar debate between the orignal use of the word Socialism and Communism)
I used the term subconscious, to differentiate it from unconscious in this debate as I didn’t want to link it to the more common use of the term i.e. knocked out cold.
BD – I’ve looked at the index of my Freud collected works and there’s not one reference to the ‘subconscious’. I’ve always found this term to be a litmus for BS when people start talking about Freud. It matters because the subconscious implies that it is more accessible to the ego but the point is that it is not. Having said that I defer to your knowledge of the German language.
http://aaap.be/Pages/Pannekoek-en-1938-Marxism-And-Psychology.html
Anton Pannekoek, Marxism and Psychology
Freud and Marx, do they mix ?
Freud and Marxism ( 1)
Freud and Marxism ( 2)
Darren’s re-publishing of past Socialist Standards produced this article from 1942 which despite its date may be of interest in this discussion.
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/06/is-mind-myth-1942.html
“…Put even more simply, the word mind is an abstract term, which correctly understood, is used to describe a definite form of activity—the activity of the brain. Similarly, the word digestion describes certain processes associated with the stomach. But no altars have yet been erected to the God of Digestion, nor do we hear about “Absolute Digestion.” and the “Universe of the Stomach.”…”
Marx, psychiatry, and national liberation come together in Fanon bio
Besides Marcuse and Fromm also Franz Fannon tried to mix Psychiatry with Marxism, and he sees oppression from a psychological point of view
alanjjohnstone quoted: “…the word mind is an abstract term, which correctly understood, is used to describe a definite form of activity—the activity of the brain.”
This is an example of the ‘wet-stuff’, biological, individual, ideology of ‘mind’, alan.
Marx regarded ‘mind’ as a social product, and so ‘described a definite form of activity – the activity of’ SOCIETY.
Lew – I am not a German scholar, but I have a good friend who is German and works as a German – English (and sometimes as a German Geordie) translator. Therefore I was working on the basis of his notes and guidance on the subject based on his use of early publications written in German.
My assumption has always been that due to Freud’s later use of das Unterbewusste that later English translations of das Unbewusste have been using Freud’s later expressed preference for das Unterbewusste. Perhaps a 1st edition of “The Interpretation of Dreams” in the original German, might solve the question.
I just checked on line and the earliest German edition for sale is from 1921 (22 years later) and is priced at £437.00, so buying a copy might have to be a unfulfilled wish. I’ll let you know what it’s like if I ever dream about it.
LBird putting the cart before the horse again – where is the evidence of a mind existing without a brain anywhere in nature?
Chollet wrote: “Intelligence is situational
The first issue I see with the intelligence explosion theory is a failure to recognize that intelligence is necessarily part of a broader system — a vision of intelligence as a “brain in jar” that can be made arbitrarily intelligent independently of its situation. A brain is just a piece of biological tissue, there is nothing intrinsically intelligent about it. Beyond your brain, your body and senses — your sensorimotor affordances — are a fundamental part of your mind. Your environment is a fundamental part of your mind. Human culture is a fundamental part of your mind. These are, after all, where all of your thoughts come from. You cannot dissociate intelligence from the context in which it expresses itself.”https://medium.com/@francois.chollet/the-impossibility-of-intelligence-explosion-5be4a9eda6ec#:~:text=In%201965%2C%20I.%20J.,of%20any%20man%20however%20clever.
I also recommend: ‘The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do’ by Erik Larsen
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.