[Xmca-l] Re: Shpet & principium cognescenti

[Huw Lloyd]

Oscillation between conceptions or technical foci seems pretty normal to
me, Larry.  However, I don't read that as an invitation for dualism.  Its
more of a technical problem than a big deal about dualistic thinking etc,
as I see it.

Huw

On 28 January 2015 at 15:15, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw
> When you mention the oscillations are not a big deal but what is
> interesting is the transitions between FROM essential to internal to
> external I would just mention to explore your interest is what Zinchenko
> was approaching.  He mentions that the image of oscillation haunts him and
> therefore this is the imaginal "energy" or "force" that propels him to
> engage and embody the understanding of these transitions.
>
> Martin also mentioned Shpet's book that has been translated into English is
> an early book written around 1918. The topic [topos or space] was
> to introduce Husserl to Russia and was written only one year after
> Husserl's book. This "Husserl" is the 1917 Husserl that Vygotsky was
> responding to.  However, Shpet's work developed beyond Husserl and was
> focused on the historical coming into being of phenomena that was socially
> embodied.
> However, Shpet was not Marxist and his work on the transitions from
> essential to internal to external were deeply informed by Plato.  Therefore
> his fate was sealed.
>
> However, for a number of years after 1917 Shpet's exploring the
> transformations from essential to internal to external were actively
> approached by a group of scholars gathered around this topic.
>
> IShpet wrote a book on the topic of thought and word and it is this topos
> [third space] that Zinchenko is now exploring through the figure of
> oscillation.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'm hardly an expert on Shpet; most of what I know comes from The
> > Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Again with apologies for quoting
> myself, I
> > think that it's important to contextualize Vygotsky's challenges in
> > referencing his mentors in repressive times. P. 8, Smagorinsky, P.
> (2011).
> > Vygotsky and literacy research: A methodological framework. Boston:
> Sense.
> >
> > The Soviet system has long been known for its brutal reinforcement of its
> > ideol-ogy, and in its early days and through at least the 1950s monitored
> > its psycholo-gists with a vengeance (see Cole, Levitin, & Luria, 2006).
> > Because of the excessive role he identified for individual development in
> > social context, says Zinchenko (2007), “Vygotsky’s commitment to Marxist
> > beliefs did not save him from criti-cism. His works were banned,
> denounced,
> > and declared to be vicious and even evil. He was lucky to have managed to
> > die in his own bed in 1934” (p. 213). Some believe that Vygotsky allowed
> > himself to die rather than face interrogation, torture, and execution by
> > the authorities over his departure from the state’s more exacting
> > interpretation of Marx (M. Cole, personal communication).
> >         Others, however, were not so fortunate to die of natural causes.
> > In Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky did not reference Gustav Gustavovich
> > Shpet, one of his mentors. Vygotsky likely avoided acknowledging Shpet
> > because did not wish to bring upon himself the fate of Shpet himself, who
> > was dismissed from his academic positions on multiple occasions and
> > subjected to “brutal interrogation and execution in 1937” by Soviet
> > authorities (Wertsch, 2007, p. 184). Shpet made the fatal error of
> > exhibiting “freedom and dignity and the independence of his thought from
> > Marxist-Leninist ideology, which at the time was growing stronger and
> > stronger” (Zinchenko, 2007, p. 212). Shpet’s literary contemporary
> > Mandel’shtam, notes Zinchenko, met the fate of many Soviets, no matter
> how
> > seemingly benign their field of endeavor, who in any way defied the party
> > position: He died in the Gulag in 1938.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:53 AM
> > To: Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Shpet & principium cognescenti
> >
> > So people find the three-ness interesting?  The thing I thought might be
> > interesting was the transitions from essential to external to internal.
> >
> > I can't say I read anything about dualism into the article.  The
> > oscillation (which didn't strike me as being a big deal) was between the
> > variously given forms of phenomena (if I recall correctly).  Zinchenko's
> > referencing functional organs and his intimate work with ergonomics etc
> > permit him an alternative form of investigation, that doesn't rely upon a
> > dialectic description (but that is compatible with it).
> >
> > Huw
> >
> > On 28 January 2015 at 02:47, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Apparently these principium triad comes from the Theologian Hermann
> > > Bavinck: all knowledge begins with God, and via the Scriptures, man
> > > can make it his own knowledge.
> > > But in line with Mike's observation, I well remember the perezhivanie
> > > I had when a friend pointed out the parallels between the Marxist
> > > conception of primitive communism - civilization - socialist society,
> > > and not just the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, but a half a dozen
> > > narratives or our own time. Paralleled by the perezhivanie I had when
> > > I read that for Spinoza, "God" meant Nature (including humanity).
> > > Nonetheless, despite the humbling symmetry between the great world
> > > theories, we all signal our allegiance to this one or that one by the
> > > names we give to the One (God, Nature, matter, Allah, Spirit, ...) and
> > > the Triad and in the case cited, Vygotsky is using a famous Hegelian
> > > version of the triad, "in itself, for others, for itself":
> > >
> > >    "The education and instruction of a child aim at making him actually
> > >    and for himself what he is at first only potentially and therefore
> > >    for others, viz., for his grown up friends. The Reason, which at
> > >    first exists in the child only as an inner possibility, is
> > >    actualised through education: and conversely, the child by these
> > >    means becomes conscious that the goodness, religion, and science
> > >    which he had at first looked upon as an outward authority, are his
> > >    own nature."
> > >
> > > Although the symmetry between the systems of thought we unkowingly
> > > affiliate to is surprising, we all declare our affiliation by the name
> > > we give to the One or the Triad, as the case may be. In the article
> > > Larry cites, however, Zinchenko just seems to be chiding Vygotsky
> > > repeatedly for failing to adhere to analytical Dualism.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > mike cole wrote:
> > >
> > >> I can try an answer, Huw. These idea of a triadic system, spirals of
> > >> development, etc are core metaphors for expressing some sort of
> > >> thirdness about human life.
> > >> Father/son and holy ghost, id/ego/superego, subject/object/medium
> > >> etc. It is a part of the Judeo-Christian system and aligns with
> > >> non-religiously affiliated intuitions that dualism does not cut it as
> a
> > mode of thought.
> > >> The trouble is, there are only two kinds of people in the world....
> > >> !
> > >> mike
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Huw Lloyd
> > >> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> There seems to be a clear parallel between Vygotsky's use of the
> > >>> formulation "in itself, for others, for itself" and Shpet's
> > >>> referencing theological principium cognescenti which according to my
> > >>> brief browsing are three principles:
> > >>> principium essendi, principium cognoscendi externum, principium
> > >>> cognoscendi internum.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is anyone here familiar with the etymology of these principles and
> > >>> their bearing on Vygotsky's work?  Is there more than a superficial
> > >>> resemblance?
> > >>>
> > >>> Huw
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>