[Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie

[Martin John Packer]

Well, it would be better that they obtain larger stockings!  :)

M

> On Dec 19, 2017, at 4:09 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Those who find that Martin's book won't quite fit in their stockings should
> look at Martin's 2008 article "Is Vygotsky relevant?"
> 
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749030701798607
> 
> Scrooges can get a free pre-draft by googling "Is Vygotsky Relevant". For
> some reason the LCHC link doesn't work any more, and the paper doesn't
> appear to be on Martin's website any more either.
> 
> 
> David Kellogg
> 
> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
> 
> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
> 
> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
>> wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com<mailto:d
>> kellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected
>> both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the
>> context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's talking
>> about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive" psychology
>> on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research at
>> all.
>> 
>> If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject
>> Dilthey’s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey’s division of
>> the natural sciences and the human sciences — sciences of spirit — as yet
>> another version of dualism. It’s not quite true that this has nothing to do
>> with contemporary conceptions of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ research,
>> in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to accept
>> Dilthey’s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ‘explanation’
>> whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can provide
>> only ‘description.’ I reject this proposal.
>> 
>> There are other problems with Dilthey’s version of interpretive inquiry. I
>> write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the theory
>> of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works....
>> Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the 'thought-constituting
>> work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely cognitive
>> matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact that
>> escapes rational theorizing.”
>> 
>> This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand:
>> 
>> “[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences
>> are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the implications of
>> his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always
>> historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the
>> historical character of our experience wanted to provide interpretations
>> that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in history
>> it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on human
>> phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to
>> achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an activity
>> that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid
>> foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose legitimacy
>> he sought to define.”
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>>