[Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Sat Jan 7 17:13:41 PST 2017
Larry, you quote from p. 113 ... of what? Are you
introducing an article from a different issue of MCA to shed
light on perezhivanie?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 8/01/2017 11:25 AM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Alfredo, i will attempt to stay within ‘an experience’ and
> as the ‘working over an experience’.
>
> If i may, i will borrow your word meaning where you use
> the word (perfuse) as it helps me listen into David and
> Andy explore the contrast of ‘word’ and ‘word meaning’ as
> units.
>
> On page 113 of your and Roth’s article you focus in on
> affect. In your words you say :
>
> Affect is neither something separate from the unit nor a
> factor that influences or characterizes a part of this
> unit : It PERFUSES the unit. The unit you refer to is
> experience/perezivanie. This minimal unit includes all
> individuals, their social/material setting, and the
> TRANS-actional relations that BIND them into a whole.
>
> I hope this is staying within the bounds of exploring
> having AN experience as a unit ; -)
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> *From: *Alfredo Jornet Gil <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> *Sent: *January 7, 2017 12:24 PM
> *To: *Andy Blunden <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>; Peter
> Smagorinsky <mailto:smago@uga.edu>; eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Larry
> Purss <mailto:lplarry@live.com>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
>
> Larry, all,
>
> our arguments in the 2014 address a science education
> literature in which the constructivist perspective is the
> leading perspective; We note that the assertion that
> people learn from experience is everywhere taken for
> granted but nowhere accounted for. We resort to pragmatist
> and phenomenological literature along with Vygotsky's
> insights to point out the need to account for learning as
> something that cannot be the result of an individual's
> construction; in experience there is always something in
> excess of what you intended, and this is a basic feature
> of doing, of performing. I take that to be your "trans" in
> the trans/zhivanie word, Larry, which already is denoted
> in the word PERezhivanie.
>
> But I do not wish to move our discussion too far away from
> Marc's paper and the Perezhivanie special issue. We also
> risk disengaging many that have not have the privilege
> we've had to have the time to read so many articles in
> just few days into the new year. I think we are a point in
> the discussion where a pretty clear point of
> agreement/disagreement, and therefore of possibility for
> growth, has been reached with regard to the view of
> perezhivanie as "an experience" and as the "working over
> it". I think that to allow as many as possible to follow,
> and hopefully also engage, I think it will be helpful to
> bring the diverse perspectives and theoretical accounts to
> matter in accounting for some actual material. And there
> are a number of cases described in the articles, including
> Marc's case of a teacher, as well as everyday facts, such
> as those brought by Beth, and in Beth's article...
>
> I take the task for myself too, but Saturday morning need
> to attend to other things!
>
> A
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
> lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>
> Sent: 07 January 2017 18:26
>
> To: Andy Blunden; Peter Smagorinsky; eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity; Larry Purss
>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
>
> Andy, Peter, i hope the intention to move beyond
> politeness to struggle with this topic materializes.
>
> In this vein i want to introduce exploration of the
> ‘excess’ of actual over intended meaning as he sketched
> his introduction to ‘experience’.
>
> Citing Dewey, Alfredo says that this excess of actual
> learning over intended learning INCLUDES what Dewey refers
> to as ‘attitudes’ and these ‘attitudes’ are FUNDAMENTALLY
> what count in the future.
>
> Alfredo and Roth then add this summary statement :
>
> There is therefore, a need to theorize experience in terms
> that do not assume control and rationality as the sine qua
> non of learning. It also implies a need to develop
> analytical accounts that retain the ‘uncertainty’ that is
> an ‘integral part’ of human experience.
>
> Where are Alfredo and Roth leading us with this sketch of
> experience? To highlight ‘attitudes’ that occur in the
> excess of actual over intended learning? The word
> ‘attitudes’ generates images of (atmosphere) and (moods)
> that ‘flow’ like cascading waterfalls that can be imaged
> as (force) or as (receptive). Attitudes that flow to
> places where they are received within a certain attitude
> of care and concern. Not as forceful an image as moving
> only with control and rationality. Describing ‘weaker’
> thought that remains uncertain but that also opens us to
> the other’s peril and plight. Possibly a post-analytic
> motion that exceeds the intended by living-through the
> actual that develops ‘attitudes’ that are fundamentally
> what count for the future.
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: Andy Blunden
>
> Sent: January 7, 2017 5:00 AM
>
> To: Peter Smagorinsky; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
>
> OK Peter, what you say is all very true I am sure, but it
>
> entails conflating activity and action (as mass nouns) and
>
> context and mediation, and makes the required distinction
>
> much like one could find multiple meanings for the word
>
> "and" by listing the different phrases and clauses which can
>
> be linked by "and."
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
>
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>
> On 7/01/2017 11:42 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Let me try to illustrate.
>
> >
>
> > Reading as mediated action: The cultural-historical
>
> > context of reading mediates how one’s attention and
>
> > response are channeled in socially constructed ways. So,
>
> > in one setting, say at home or reading in the company of
>
> > friends, a novel might bring a reader to tears, or invite
>
> > readers to share personal stories that parallel those of
>
> > the plot lines, or laugh out loud. But another setting, a
>
> > formal school or university class, would have historical
>
> > values and practices that mute emotional and personal
>
> > responses, and promote a more sober, analytic way of
>
> > reading and talking that fits with specific historical
>
> > critical conventions and genres, and discourages others.
>
> >
>
> > Reading as mediating action: The act of reading can be
>
> > transformational. In reading about an talking about a
>
> > character’s actions, a reader might reconsider a value
>
> > system, become more sympathetic to real people who
>
> > resemble oppressed characters, etc. In other words,
>
> > reading a text may serve a mediational process in which
>
> > textual ideas and exemplars enable a reader to think
>
> > differently.
>
> >
>
> > *From:*Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
>
> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:28 AM
>
> > *To:* Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>; eXtended Mind,
>
> > Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
>
> >
>
> > Can you explain in a paragraph or two,. Peter, rather than
>
> > asking us all to read 10,000 words to extract an answer?
>
> >
>
> > Andy
>
> >
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > Andy Blunden
>
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
>
> >
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 7/01/2017 11:23 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Andy and others, I tried to work out the
> mediated/mediating question in the area of reading....see
> if this helps.
>
> >
>
> > Smagorinsky, P., & O'Donnell-Allen, C. (1998).
> Reading as mediated and mediating action: Composing
> meaning for literature through multimedia interpretive
> texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 198-226. Available
> athttp://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/RRQ/RRQ1998.pdf
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> >
>
> > From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>
> > <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy
> Blunden
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 7:12 PM
>
> >
>
> > To:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> >
>
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
>
> >
>
> > I have never understood this supposed distinction,
> Alfredo, between "mediated activity" and "mediating
> activity" given that all activity is mediated and all
> activity mediates.
>
> >
>
> > Also, could you spell out what you mean by the "tension"
>
> >
>
> > between perezhivanie as meaning and perezhivanie as
> struggle.
>
> >
>
> > Andy
>
> >
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > Andy Blunden
>
> >
>
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy
> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
>
> >
>
> >
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>
> >
>
> > On 5/01/2017 6:26 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Thanks Marc for your careful response.
>
> >
>
> > I am familiar to Vygotsky's notion of cultural
> mediation and I am aware and acknowledge that it was
> elaborated as a means to overcome dualism, and that it is
> not analog to a computational approach.
>
> >
>
> > When I brought the computing analogy, I did so
> with regard not to the concept of cultural mediation in
> general, but to the way it can be (and is) deployed
> analytically. I react to what it seems to me a dichotomy
> between a "meaning" as something that is static (thereby a
> form of "representation" or reflection of the relation
> with the environment instead ofrefraction) and the
> experiencing-as-struggling, which is described
> astransformation or change. If so, mediation here would
> seem to be part of a methodological device that first
> dissects "a type of meaning" from "a type of activity" (or
> a given state from the process that changes that state),
> and then unites it by adding the term "mediation." And
> this may be my misreading, but in that (mis)reading (which
> perhaps is mostly due to the fact that in your empirical
> illustration only the initial and end product, i.e.,
> perezhivanie, are described, but not the
> experiencing-as-struggle, that is, the moving between the
> two), mediation here seems to do as analytical concept
> precisely what you were afraid our monism was doing:
> explaining nothing. Only the end products but not the
> process of producing perezhivanie are revealed. This may
> be problematic if one attends to what Veresov argues in
> the paper I shared yesterday, where he defends the notion
> of mediation but also specifies that Vygotsky speaks of
> *mediating activity* (as opposed to *mediated* activity).
> That is, not mediation by signs as products, but mediating
> activity as the activity of producing signs (which again
> is an activity of producing social relations, perhaps what
> you refer as "holistic meanings"?). What do you think?
>
> >
>
> > I did not think you were trying to deny the
> influence of Spinoza, and I do not think we ever said that
> Perezhivanie was primarily a move from Cartesian Dualism
> to Monism, as you suggest in your post. I copy and paste
> from my prior post: "The fact is that Vygotsky was
> building a theory on the unity of the affect and the
> intellect that was to be grounded on Spinoza, and what we
> try to do is to explore how perezhivanie, as a concept
> being developed during the same period (but not finalised
> or totally settled!), could be seen from the perspective
> of the Spinozist Vygotsky."
>
> >
>
> > I totally believe that bringing the distinction
> between perezhivanie as meaning, and perezhivanie as
> struggle, is totally relevant, and Beth Ferholt's
> vignettes of Where the Wild Things Are do indeed
> illustrate this. We really need to address this tension,
> which as Beth's examples and as our own everyday
> experience shows, is a tension that matters not just to
> books and to theories but to living persons (children,
> teachers), a tension that moreover is present and
> mentioned in all the articles of the symposium. The papers
> offer different proposals, and I think is so great we have
> the chance to discuss them! I too, as you, am very
> interesting in hearing others about the questions you had
> concerning sense and meaning.
>
> >
>
> > Alfredo
>
> >
>
> > From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>
> > <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> >
>
> > <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> > <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
> Marc Clarà
>
> >
>
> > <marc.clara@gmail.com> <mailto:marc.clara@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > Sent: 04 January 2017 22:31
>
> >
>
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
> >
>
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and
> Perezhivanie!
>
> >
>
> > Thank you very much, Alfredo, for sharing this
> excellent paper by
>
> >
>
> > Veresov, and thanks also for your responses,
> which really helped me to
>
> >
>
> > better understand your points. My main doubt
> about your proposal
>
> >
>
> > was/is caused by the statement that the idea of
> cultural
>
> >
>
> > mediation/mediator implies a cartesian dualism.
> This shocks me
>
> >
>
> > because, to me, the idea of cultural mediation
> is absolutely crucial
>
> >
>
> > (in fact, the keystone) for the construction of
> a monist (and
>
> >
>
> > scientific) psychology that does not forget mind
> –that is, a cultural
>
> >
>
> > psychology. From your response, however, I
> realized that we may be
>
> >
>
> > approaching the idea of mediation in different
> ways. I talk of
>
> >
>
> > mediation and mediators in a quite restricted
> way. The starting point
>
> >
>
> > of my understanding of mediation is a
> dialectical relationship
>
> >
>
> > (organic, transactional) between the subject and
> the world (Vygotsky departs from the scheme
> stimulus-response, from reflexology).
>
> >
>
> > This relationship, that Vygotsky calls primitive
> psychological
>
> >
>
> > functions, would be basically biological.
> However, in human beings
>
> >
>
> > this relationship is mediated by cultural means:
> signs and tools; or
>
> >
>
> > primary, secondary and terciary artifacts. These
> cultural means
>
> >
>
> > reorganize the primitive functions (dialectic
> S-O relationship), which
>
> >
>
> > become then higher psychological functions
> (S-M-O) (see for example,
>
> >
>
> > The problem of the cultural development of the
> child, in The Vygotsky
>
> >
>
> > Reader). Now, the subject, the cultural
> mediators, and the object form
>
> >
>
> > an inseparable dialectical unit, so that the
> subject acts on
>
> >
>
> > (transforms) the object through the prism of the
> cultural mediators,
>
> >
>
> > the object acts on (transforms) the subject also
> through the prism of
>
> >
>
> > the cultural mediators, and the cultural means
> are themselves also
>
> >
>
> > transformed as a consequence of their mediation
> in this continuous
>
> >
>
> > dynamic dialectical tension. Here, for me, it is
> important the idea
>
> >
>
> > that the cultural means are as material (if we
> assume a materialist
>
> >
>
> > monism) as all the rest of the world; in fact,
> are parts of the
>
> >
>
> > material world which become signs or tools (and
> can be therefore
>
> >
>
> > socially distributed). This permits the
> introduction of the scientific
>
> >
>
> > study of mind-consciousness (as mediating
> systems of signs), because
>
> >
>
> > mind is not anymore something immaterial and
> unobservable, but it is
>
> >
>
> > as material and observable as the rest of the
> natural world. It is
>
> >
>
> > from this view that, for me, the idea of
> cultural mediation is the
>
> >
>
> > keystone of a monist psychology that includes
> mind. Thus, when I speak
>
> >
>
> > of mediators, I refer to the cultural means
> which mediate in the S-O
>
> >
>
> > dialectics; I am especially interested in
> signs/secondary artifacts.
>
> >
>
> > Here, it is perhaps necessary to insist that
> when I talk of studying
>
> >
>
> > mediators (and their semantic structure), this
> doesn't mean that they
>
> >
>
> > are taken out from the activity (the flux of
> live) in which they
>
> >
>
> > mediate (since out of activity they are not
> signs anymore); here, I
>
> >
>
> > think Vygotsky tries again to overcome another
> old dichotomy, the
>
> >
>
> > functionalism-structuralism one. I hope that all
> this makes also clear the difference between this view and
> that of computational psychologies (which in general are
> profoundly and explicitly dualist and not dialectic).
>
> >
>
> > Back to perezhivanie, I'm not obviously trying
> to deny the influence
>
> >
>
> > of Spinoza on Vygotsky's thinking (this is
> explicit in Vygotsky's
>
> >
>
> > writings, especially in “The teaching about
> emotions”, in the Vol.6 of
>
> >
>
> > the Collected Works). But I have doubts that
> Vygotsky's introduction
>
> >
>
> > of the concept of perezhivanie is to be regarded
> primarily as a
>
> >
>
> > movement towards monism (from a previous
> cartesian dualism), and that
>
> >
>
> > this movement questions the concept of cultural
> mediation. Instead,
>
> >
>
> > and I think that this is in line with some of
> González-Rey
>
> >
>
> > observations in his paper, my impression is that
> the introduction of
>
> >
>
> > the concept of perezhivanie responds more to a
> movement (a further
>
> >
>
> > step) towards holism (something that, in my
> understanding, can also be
>
> >
>
> > found in Spinoza). Thus, I think that the word
> meaning is still the
>
> >
>
> > unit of analysis in the last Vygotsky -and
> therefore, the idea of
>
> >
>
> > cultural mediation is still crucial (in fact, in
> The problem of the
>
> >
>
> > environment, he connects the concept of
> perezhivanie, which has just
>
> >
>
> > introduced, to the development of word meaning
> [p.345-346, also cited
>
> >
>
> > in my paper]). However, in my view, in the last
> Vygotsky the focus is
>
> >
>
> > not anymore primarily on the word-meaning as
> formed for things (or
>
> >
>
> > collections of things, as in the ontogenetic
> research with Sakharov), but the focus is now in the
> formation of meaning for holistic situations.
>
> >
>
> > Best regards,
>
> >
>
> > Marc.
>
> >
>
> > 2017-01-03 19:16 GMT+01:00 Alfredo Jornet
> Gil<a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>:
>
> >
>
> > Hi Marc, all,
>
> >
>
> > thanks for joining and for your interesting
> work, which I follow
>
> >
>
> > since I became aware of it. I appreciate the
> way in your paper you
>
> >
>
> > show careful and honest attention to the
> texts of the authors
>
> >
>
> > involved, but perhaps most of all I
> appreciate that the paper makes
>
> >
>
> > the transformational dimension related to
> struggle and change
>
> >
>
> > salient, a dimension all papers deemed
> central to perezhivanie. And I
>
> >
>
> > have learned more about Vasilyuk by reading
> your paper. But I also
>
> >
>
> > see that we have approached the question of
> perezhivanie differently
>
> >
>
> > and I think that addressing the questions
> that you raise concerning
>
> >
>
> > our article may be a good way to both
> respond and discuss your paper.
>
> >
>
> > I am aware that our use of the term monism
> may be problematic to
>
> >
>
> > some, and N. Veresov, who has recently
> written about this (see
>
> >
>
> > attached article), warns against the dangers
> of simply moving from
>
> >
>
> > dualism into an undifferentiating monism
> that relativizes everything,
>
> >
>
> > making development un-studiable. This seems
> to be the way in which
>
> >
>
> > you have understood our argument, and of
> course this is not what we are or want to be doing.
>
> >
>
> > Probably many will think that *dialectical
> materialism* rather than
>
> >
>
> > monism is the proper term, and I could agree
> with them; we do in fact
>
> >
>
> > use dialectical materialism there and
> elsewhere. Yet, we wanted to
>
> >
>
> > emphasise the Spinozist influence (an
> influence that also runs
>
> >
>
> > through Marx) and so we found it appropriate
> to use the term monism,
>
> >
>
> > a term that Vygotsky uses before arguing
> that Spinoza "develops an essentially materialistic view"
>
> >
>
> > (Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 124). For us,
> the aim is working out
>
> >
>
> > ways to empirically examine and formulate
> problems in ways that do
>
> >
>
> > not reify a mind-body dualism.
>
> >
>
> > Although overcoming dualism is foundational
> to the CHAT paradigm, I
>
> >
>
> > would however not say that Vygotsky did get
> to solve all of the
>
> >
>
> > problems that Cartesian dualism had created
> for psychology, even
>
> >
>
> > though he recognised those problems
> brilliantly as early as in the
>
> >
>
> > "Crisis". It should suffice to cite
> Vygotsky's own remarks, which we quote in the paper (and
> which A.N.
>
> >
>
> > Leont'ev mentions in the introduction to the
> collected works), where
>
> >
>
> > Vygotsky explicitly critiques some of his
> own prior ideas for failing
>
> >
>
> > to overcome dualism. We agree with those
> who, like F. G. Rey, see
>
> >
>
> > Vygotsky's project as a developing rather
> than as a finalised one.
>
> >
>
> > The fact is that Vygotsky was building a
> theory on the unity of the
>
> >
>
> > affect and the intellect that was to be
> grounded on Spinoza, and what
>
> >
>
> > we try to do is to explore how perezhivanie,
> as a concept being
>
> >
>
> > developed during the same period (but not
> finalised or totally
>
> >
>
> > settled!), could be seen from the
> perspective of the Spinozist Vygotsky.
>
> >
>
> > As you note, in our article we argue that,
> if one takes the Spinozist
>
> >
>
> > one-substance approach, classical concepts
> used in non-classical
>
> >
>
> > psychology, at least in the way they are
> commonly used in the current
>
> >
>
> > literature, should be revised. One such
> concept is mediation. And I
>
> >
>
> > personally do not have much of a problem
> when mediation is used to
>
> >
>
> > denote the fundamental fact that every thing
> exists always through
>
> >
>
> > *another*, never in and of itself. But I do
> think that it is
>
> >
>
> > problematic to identify MEDIATORS, such as
> "a meaning", as a means to
>
> >
>
> > account for or explain developmental
> processes and learning events,
>
> >
>
> > precisely because it is there, at least in
> my view, that dualism creeps in.
>
> >
>
> > For example, I find it paradoxical that you
> are concerned that our
>
> >
>
> > monist approach risks turning perezhivanie
> into a useless category
>
> >
>
> > because it may be used to explain everything
> and nothing, and yet you
>
> >
>
> > do not seem to have a problem using the term
> mediation to account for
>
> >
>
> > the transformation of perezhivanie without
> clearly elaborating on how
>
> >
>
> > mediation does change anything or what it
> looks like as a real
>
> >
>
> > process. How is it different saying that a
> perezhivanie mediates the
>
> >
>
> > experiencing-as-struggle from simply saying
> that it "affects" or
>
> >
>
> > "determines" it? Indeed, if perezhivanie
> mediates
>
> >
>
> > experiencing-as-struggle, does not
> experiencing-as-struglgle too
>
> >
>
> > mediate perezhivanie? And do not both may be
> said to mediate development, or development mediate them?
> Is not this explaining everything and nothing?
>
> >
>
> > I do believe you can argue that there is a
> difference between
>
> >
>
> > mediation and classical psychology's
> cause-effect relations, but to
>
> >
>
> > show this you need to dig into the
> dialectical underpinnings of the
>
> >
>
> > theory. In your paper, you offer a nice
> analysis of a lovely case of
>
> >
>
> > a teacher who, in dealing with a challenge
> with one of her students,
>
> >
>
> > changes her perezhivanie. I think you can
> rightly argue that there is
>
> >
>
> > a semiotic transformation, and I fully
> support your statement that by
>
> >
>
> > studying discourse we can empirically
> approach questions of
>
> >
>
> > psychological development. The
> contradictions you show as being
>
> >
>
> > involved and resolved resonate really well
> with what I experience as
>
> >
>
> > a parent or as a teacher in the classroom.
> Yet, without unpacking
>
> >
>
> > what this "mediation" taking place between
> one perezhivanie and the
>
> >
>
> > next one means as a concrete and real, the
> same analysis could be done taking an information
> processing approach:
>
> >
>
> > there is an situation that is processed
> (represented?) in one way,
>
> >
>
> > which then leads to a (cognitive)
> dissonance, and then there is a
>
> >
>
> > cognitive resolution by means of which the
> situation is presented
>
> >
>
> > differently in consciousness (indeed, when
> seen in this way, the term
>
> >
>
> > perezhivanie and the term "representation"
> become almost
>
> >
>
> > indistinguishable). How is mediation, as an
> analytical concept,
>
> >
>
> > helping here? And most importantly to the
> question of perezhivanie,
>
> >
>
> > how is this analysis going to show the
> internal connection between
>
> >
>
> > intellect and affect that Vygotsky
> formulates as constitutive of the notion of perezhivanie?
>
> >
>
> > I believe that the key lies in understanding
> what Vygotsky means when
>
> >
>
> > he says that perezhivanie is a unit of
> analysis. I will not repeat
>
> >
>
> > here what already is written in at least a
> couple of the articles in
>
> >
>
> > the special issue (Blunden, ours), that is
> the difference between
>
> >
>
> > analysis by elements and unit analysis
> (Vygotsky 1987). A unit
>
> >
>
> > analysis approach is consistent with
> Spinoza, for whom cause-effect
>
> >
>
> > explanations were not adequate, requiring
> instead an understanding of
>
> >
>
> > self-development, perezhivanie as a kernel
> cell for the development
>
> >
>
> > of personality. And I think you may be after
> this in your article in
>
> >
>
> > suggesting a form of continuous movement
> from perezhivanie to
>
> >
>
> > experiencing-as-struggle. But perhaps the
> major difficulty I find is that, in positing Vygotsky's
> perezhivanie as "a type of meaning"
>
> >
>
> > and Vasilyuk's perezhivanie (or
> experiencing-as-struggle) as a "type
>
> >
>
> > of activity," it is difficult not to see
> here a division between
>
> >
>
> > product and process, a division that then is
> analytically bridged by
>
> >
>
> > the addition of a third term, mediation,
> that should bring back the
>
> >
>
> > real movement between the product and the
> process.
>
> >
>
> > A different approach involves considering
> the concrete extension of
>
> >
>
> > actual living and lived social relations,
> and look at them as
>
> >
>
> > generative phenomena. What is there in the
> encounter between Carla
>
> >
>
> > and the child that leads to change? For it
> is not inside the mind,
>
> >
>
> > but in real life, in consciousness as the
> real relation between people, that Carla is changed.
>
> >
>
> > How is the semantic structure that you
> nicely present and attribute
>
> >
>
> > to Carla a product of the social relation
> between her and the child?
>
> >
>
> > I think that to rightfully situate
> perezhivanie as a concept in a
>
> >
>
> > Vygotskian framework, we ought to address
> its relation to the genetic
>
> >
>
> > law of development.
>
> >
>
> > There is much more to disentangle, but this
> is long enough. I hope I
>
> >
>
> > have succeeded in making clear these ideas.
> Thanks so much for
>
> >
>
> > engaging in the discussion!
>
> >
>
> > Alfredo
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>
> > <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> >
>
> > <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
> > <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of
> Marc Clarà
>
> >
>
> > <marc.clara@gmail.com>
>
> > <mailto:marc.clara@gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > Sent: 02 January 2017 22:14
>
> >
>
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
> >
>
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and
> Perezhivanie!
>
> >
>
> > Hi, all, and thank you so much, Alfredo, for
> your kind invitation to
>
> >
>
> > participate in this discussion. My paper in
> the MCA special issue
>
> >
>
> > focuses on a distinction between a type of
> activity, which I argue
>
> >
>
> > that is what Vasilyuk called *perezhivanie*
> (experiencing) and a type
>
> >
>
> > of semiotic mediator, which I argue that is
> what Vygotsky, in The
>
> >
>
> > Problem of the Environment, called
> *perezhivanie.* I argue, following
>
> >
>
> > Vasilyuk, that in experiencing activities
> (Vasilyuk's perezhivanie),
>
> >
>
> > this type of mediator is profoundly
> transformed – in fact, that
>
> >
>
> > experiencing activities consist of the
> semiotic transformation of this type of mediator.
>
> >
>
> > As Veresov and Fleer argue in their
> commentary, perezhivanie (as a
>
> >
>
> > type of
>
> >
>
> > mediator) is for me a psychological
> phenomenon, one which is of
>
> >
>
> > course conceptualized from a specific
> theoretical framework. But the
>
> >
>
> > phenomenon is also visible from other
> theoretical frameworks as well,
>
> >
>
> > as I mention in the paper. This phenomenon
> is my main interest, and
>
> >
>
> > it is from this interest that I arrived at
> the concept of perezhivanie (not the other way around).
>
> >
>
> > Now, the phenomenon is that at least
> emotion, reasoning, and volition
>
> >
>
> > (formation of conscious purposes) seem to be
> decisively mediated by
>
> >
>
> > holistic situational meaning. My current
> research concern is trying
>
> >
>
> > to find ways to study and understand how
> this mediation occurs and
>
> >
>
> > how these semiotic mediators are transformed
> and distributed. From
>
> >
>
> > this view, I think that experiencing
> activities (Vasilyuk's
>
> >
>
> > perezhivanie) may provide a good terrain to
> study these issues
>
> >
>
> > (especially regarding the mediation of
> emotion), as I tried to exemplify in the paper.
>
> >
>
> > Studying semiotic mediation, however, is of
> course not easy.
>
> >
>
> > Following Vygotsky, I assume that extended
> discourse is the
>
> >
>
> > manifestation of thinking within certain
> psychological conditions
>
> >
>
> > (Vygotsky's Thinking and Speech, chapter 7),
> and I also assume the
>
> >
>
> > Vygotsky's law of the unity of the structure
> and function of thinking
>
> >
>
> > (Vygotsky's Thinking and Speech, chapter 6).
> From these two
>
> >
>
> > assumptions, I propose that meaning (and its
> functions in human
>
> >
>
> > activity) can be scientifically studied by
> structurally analyzing the
>
> >
>
> > narratives generated by subjects,
> considering that the discourse
>
> >
>
> > produced in the narrative is the point of
> departure of this study,
>
> >
>
> > but that considerable analytical work must
> be done to move from this
>
> >
>
> > discourse to the full characterization of
> meaning. It is in that
>
> >
>
> > point where I find useful the work developed
> by Greimas, the usefulness of which I only suggest in the
> paper.
>
> >
>
> > >From this background, I found many
> interesting ideas and questions
>
> >
>
> > in the
>
> >
>
> > other papers of the special issue. In this
> first post I will propose
>
> >
>
> > two of them for possible discussion. The
> first one was raised by
>
> >
>
> > González-Rey, when he introduces, in
> connection with perezhivanie,
>
> >
>
> > the concepts of personality, and especially,
> of sense. So, which is
>
> >
>
> > the conceptual (and-or
>
> >
>
> > phenomenal) relation between perezhivanie
> and sense? González-Rey
>
> >
>
> > suggests that both concepts are somewhat
> similar (and overcome by the
>
> >
>
> > concept of “subjective sense”); my opinion,
> partly expressed in my
>
> >
>
> > commentary, is that perezhivanie is a type
> of meaning, which includes
>
> >
>
> > different levels of depth, and that sense
> corresponds to the deepest
>
> >
>
> > level of meaning (which can be characterized
> as a system of semic
>
> >
>
> > oppositions). Therefore, sense wouldn't be
> in opposition to meaning
>
> >
>
> > (as “a microcosm of human consciousness”, as
> Kozulin remembers in his
>
> >
>
> > commentary), although it would be in
> opposition to manifested meaning (the surface level of
> meaning).
>
> >
>
> > The second issue was raised by Roth and
> Jornet, and I think it goes
>
> >
>
> > beyond the issue of perezhivanie itself. If
> I understand them well,
>
> >
>
> > they argue that Vygotsky's core proposal of
> cultural mediation is
>
> >
>
> > influenced by the Cartesian dualism
> (mind-matter), and that a
>
> >
>
> > promising approach to Cultural Psychology
> would be a Spinozist
>
> >
>
> > monism. I am actually very interested on the
> issue of which
>
> >
>
> > epistemological position can best
> substantiate the construction of a
>
> >
>
> > cultural psychology, and that's why I feel
> inclined to take the
>
> >
>
> > opportunity to ask for your opinions about
> that. About the proposal
>
> >
>
> > of Roth and Jornet, I have some doubts.
> First, I don't see why
>
> >
>
> > Vygotsky's proposals can be seen as dualist
> (in the Cartesian sense)
>
> >
>
> > -I suspect that it is because of the
> analytical distinctions?.
>
> >
>
> > Anyway, in my understanding, Vygotsky
> explicitly assumes a
>
> >
>
> > materialist monism (for example in The
> Crisis), and in fact he constructs his proposal on
> mediation upon reflexology, which also explicitly assumed
> a materialist monism (e.g.
>
> >
>
> > Sechenov). Would a Spinozist monism be a
> better point of departure? I
>
> >
>
> > don't know, in my understanding it is a more
> idealist monism, and I
>
> >
>
> > don't clearly see what could be gained. In
> my opinion, a scientific
>
> >
>
> > psychology which includes the study of mind
> is only possible if any
>
> >
>
> > type of monism is assumed. However, in my
> view, for a scientific
>
> >
>
> > psychology, the ontological nature of the
> world is perhaps less
>
> >
>
> > important (it is an issue for metaphysics?),
> and I am inclined to assume a neutral monism (e.g. Russell).
>
> >
>
> > So from this view, a materialist monism and
> a Spinozist monism
>
> >
>
> > wouldn't be so different, so from both views
> it could be assumed that
>
> >
>
> > all is of the same nature and all is
> similarly knowable (including
>
> >
>
> > mind) [which is the ontological nature of
> the world and to what
>
> >
>
> > degree it is knowable are issues that can be
> left to philosophy].
>
> >
>
> > However, in my opinion, this does not mean
> that, while assuming a
>
> >
>
> > monism, analytical distinctions cannot be
> done when studying the
>
> >
>
> > world. In that sense, I had the impression
> that Roth and Jornet
>
> >
>
> > tended to dilute analytical distinctions in
> the name of monism; I
>
> >
>
> > repeat that I don't know if I understood
> them well, but if this was
>
> >
>
> > the case, in my opinion, analysis would be
> impossible within the new
>
> >
>
> > psychology suggested by Roth and Jornet,
> and, regarding perezhivanie,
>
> >
>
> > there would be the danger, noted by Vygotsky
> in The Crisis and
>
> >
>
> > cautioned by Kozulin in his commentary, that
> by meaning everything, perezhivanie ends by meaning nothing.
>
> >
>
> > Best regards and happy new year,
>
> >
>
> > Marc.
>
> >
>
> > 2017-01-02 9:12 GMT+01:00 Alfredo Jornet
> Gil<a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>:
>
> >
>
> > Dear all,
>
> >
>
> > I would like to join David, Luisa, Ana,
> Henry and the others to wish
>
> >
>
> > you all a Happy New Year! May it be full
> of joy, peace, and opportunity.
>
> >
>
> > I also would like to begin the year
> announcing our first ?MCA
>
> >
>
> > article discussion, ?although in fact
> corresponds to the last issue
>
> >
>
> > of the year
>
> >
>
> > we
>
> >
>
> > just passed, Issue 4 on Perezhivanie.
> This is a very special
>
> >
>
> > *special* issue, not only because its
> topic has raised lots of
>
> >
>
> > interest lately in
>
> >
>
> > the
>
> >
>
> > CHAT community but also because, greatly
> coordinated by Andy Blunden
>
> >
>
> > and the rest of the editorial team, the
> issue takes the form of a
>
> >
>
> > symposium where authors get the chance
> to present and respond to
>
> >
>
> > each others' ideas on the subject. In my
> view, this allows having a
>
> >
>
> > rich and
>
> >
>
> > multidimensional
>
> >
>
> > approach to a subject as important as
> perezhivanie.
>
> >
>
> > Following with the dialogical spirit in
> which the special issue was
>
> >
>
> > assembled, we will focus on one lead
> article, but hoping to also
>
> >
>
> > engage ideas and insights present in or
> relevant to other
>
> >
>
> > contributions in the issue. ?Marc
> Clarà's "Vygotsky and Vasilyuk on
>
> >
>
> > Perezhivanie: Two Notions and One Word"
> will be our focus. The
>
> >
>
> > article very nicely engages the lead
> work of Vygotsky, but also the
>
> >
>
> > less known ??(?in educational
> literature) but totally relevant works
>
> >
>
> > of psychologist ?F. Vasilyuk and semiotician
>
> >
>
> > A.
>
> >
>
> > J. Greimas, mobilising a number of key
> concepts including those of
>
> >
>
> > semiotic
>
> >
>
> > mediation and transformation.
>
> >
>
> > ?In addition to Marc, who will soon join
> us, I have encouraged some
>
> >
>
> > of
>
> >
>
> > the
>
> >
>
> > other authors in the special issue to
> also join as "relevant
>
> >
>
> > others," if time and circumstances allow
> them. Let's hope that this
>
> >
>
> > will help keeping the symposium spirit up.
>
> >
>
> > Marc's article is attached to this
> e-mail and will be made open
>
> >
>
> > access at the T&F pages as soon as
> people is back from the holidays.
>
> >
>
> > The T&F link
>
> >
>
> > is
>
> >
>
> > this:
>
> >
>
> >
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1186194
>
> >
>
> > The link to the MCA Forum pages, where
> we announce our discussions
>
> >
>
> > and other xmca things, is
> here:http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/
>
> >
>
> > I wish us all a very productive and
> interesting discussion.
>
> >
>
> > Alfredo
>
> >
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list