[Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

Andy, Alfredo, i do not have access to the other papers in this months journal exploring perezhivanie.
However, i do have access to alfredo’s and Roth’s paper (toward a theory of experience) and this paper may add some clarity to perezhivanie as contemplation, perezhivanie as struggle, and m-perezhivanie.
Turning to page 119 of Alfredo’s article, Alfredo and Roth write :

As Dewey, cultural historical psychologists emphasize that activity cannot be reduced to volitional processes and volitional experiences.

Now turning to Dewey to elaborate this point further, i will quote the paragraph composed by Alfredo and Roth on page 119 that captures this truth :

Having ‘an’ experience – one that is ‘integrated and demarcated in the general stream of experience from other experiences (Dewey, 1934) as opposed to mere automatic reflexes of no significant contribution to further development – involves a ‘balance’ a ‘proportion’ of DOING AND UNDERGOING : ‘Unbalance on either side blurs the perception of relations and leaves the experience partial and distorted.’ (Dewey, p 51). Lust for completion ( an excess of agency) results in an experience ‘so dispersed and miscellaneous as hardly to deserve the name’. (p 51). An excess of receptivity  leads to an equally distorted experience ‘because nothing takes root in mind when there is no balance between doing and receiving’. (p 51-52). Reception MEANS that we are given a gift; and gifts, as recent phenomenological analyses show lie beyond our intentions. (Marion, 1997). In this dialectic between doing and receiving, agency and reception, are set IN CONSTITUTIVE MOTION.

I find this paragraph focusing on Dewey  introducing a truth that can be perceived  and i believe  may add to clarifying perezhivanie as contemplative, perezhivanie as enduring struggle, and m-perezhivanie.
As Vygotsky emphasized - the passions -what we are subject and subjected to, including suffering and pain, are an integral and IRREDUCIBLE part of perezhivanie ‘generally’.


 



Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Andy Blunden
Sent: January 9, 2017 8:34 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!

I agree with you that taking an action as sign-mediated is 
distinct from taking an action as tool-mediated. One can of 
course point with a stick, and poke with a finger, yes? 
That's all good. But Larry drew from reading your message 
that signs were not material artefacts. Perhaps he had in 
mind: "that SIGN is not a thing, but a relation between two 
persons."

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making 

On 10/01/2017 2:57 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> I am not sure what part of Larry's or mine text you refer to, Andy, or why what I have written raises that question. But if your question is whether I think that words (as signs) are immaterial, or that a cube (as per the empirical case in our article) is immaterial as sign, then of course not. If your question is whether I think that sign relations are immaterial because they are not things but relations, then again no, that's not what I think or try to say. I assume we agree, however, that a pointing finger *does* things in a very different way than things can be done with a stick.
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Sent: 10 January 2017 00:41
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
>
> Is that right, Alfredo, what Larry says? That signs are not
> material artefacts (as I had thought), at all? It seemed to
> me that you were saying that as well.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>
> On 10/01/2017 5:25 AM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
>> So,  following your train of thought we should always
>> qualify ‘sign’ as ‘sign relation’ that moves genetically
>> or  ‘dynamically’.
>>