[Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie

[Martin John Packer]

Ho ho ho!

>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Packer 2008 Is Vygotsky relevant Vygotsky's Marxi.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 143517 bytes
Desc: Packer 2008 Is Vygotsky relevant Vygotsky's Marxi.pdf
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171219/ac8fd8c6/attachment.pdf