[Xmca-l] Re: Shpet & principium cognescenti

[Larry Purss]

I am not sure how interested others are on what I would refer to as the
"theme" of the "Trinity" and how Christian motifs may weave into other
places in historical constructions.

I am attaching two notes from an article by Steven Cassedy who is situating
Shpet in his cultural historical epoch. The title of the article is: Gustav
Shpet and Phenomenology in an Orthodox Key.
The notes are following up on Cassedy's claim that Hegel's understanding of
the "incarnation" on the Russian understanding of the same concept in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

*NOTE 33:*
Shpet’s involvement with Hegel has been little commented on. Hegel’s name

appears fairly often in Shpet’s writings, and Shpet spent the last years of
his life

translating the *Phenomenology of Spirit *into Russian. Perhaps the
clearest evidence

that Shpet was on some level a Hegelian is the long essay he wrote in

1918 called “Germenevtika i ee problemy” (Hermeneutics and its problems).
This

essay, which is largely a history of the science of interpretation from
classical

times to Dilthey, not only contains references to Hegel and his ideas, but
follows

a method of exposition that can only be described as Hegelian, each new
stage

in the history of Shpet’s subject following from the previous by a logic
similar

to the one Hegel finds in the unfolding of Spirit and history. See
“Germenevtika

i ee problemy,” in *Kontekst *(1989): 229–67; *Kontekst *(1990): 219–59;
*Kontekst*

(1991): 215–55. See the editor’s introduction, pp. 229–30 of the first
installment,

for a reference to the Hegelian style of the essay.
*NOTE 34*
Hegel commented on this subject in a number of places. In the
*Phenomenology*

*of Spirit*, for example, he says this: “This incarnation [*Menschwerdung*]
of

the divine being, or the fact that it essentially and immediately has the
form of

self-consciousness, is the simple content of absolute religion. In this
religion the

being of God is known, or this being is its consciousness that it is itself
Spirit. For

Spirit is the knowledge of oneself in one’s externalization.” See Hegel, *Werke
in*

*zwanzig B¨anden*, eds. Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel (Frankfurt am

Main: Suhrkamp, 1970), 3: 552. See also, in the “Philosophy of Spirit”
section of

the *Encyclopedia*, the passage where Hegel distinguishes the Christian
doctrine

of the incarnation from similar doctrines in other religions: “It was
Christianity

that for the first time, through the doctrine of the incarnation [
*Menschwerdung*]

of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the community of believers,
gave

to human consciousness an entirely free relation to the infinite and
thereby made

possible a comprehending knowledge [*begreifende Erkenntnis*] of the spirit
in its

absolute infinitude” (Hegel, *Werke*, 10: 10). Or, in the *Lectures on the
Philosophy*

*of Religion*: “This determination, that God shall become man, so that the
finite

spirit may have the consciousness of God in the finite itself, is the
weightiest

[*schwerste*] moment in religion : : : but for man, the unity of divine and
human

nature is brought to consciousness, to certainty, in [the belief] that the
otherness

or, as one might express it, the finitude, the weakness, the frailty of
human nature

is not incompatible with this unity, just as in the eternal idea otherness
in no way

detracts from the unity that is God” (Hegel, *Werke*, 17: 276–78).
*NOTE 35*
 In the *Philosophy of Religion*, Hegel says, “Every *activity*, every
producing,

every creating is already a principle that is distinct from the abstract
general

and that, as a second principle, appears thus and can appear as that which
manifests

itself, that which expresses itself (Logos, Sophia)” (Hegel, *Werke*, 17:
234).

Emphasis in the original. And, a few pages later: “God is the creator, in
the determination

of the *Logos*, as the *Word *that expresses and articulates itself” (Hegel,
*Werke*, 17: 239). Emphasis in the original.

*comment:*
Mike mentioned the notion of thirds  [third spaces, third places, third
topos]. I am intrigued by the multiple ways this "theme" plays out through
historical consciousness [or historical ontology]

Larry

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>