From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Aug 1 22:12:32 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 22:12:32 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Stanford GSE Open Rank Faculty Position in Early Childhood In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ooooooh. A very ritzy job! Mike ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jelena Obradovic Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:33 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Stanford GSE Open Rank Faculty Position in Early Childhood To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org *STANFORD UNIVERSITY-GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION* *Open Rank Faculty Position in Early Childhood* Stanford?s Graduate School of Education is seeking applications for an open-rank tenure-track faculty position in the area of psychological approaches to early childhood development or education. Successful candidates will demonstrate a creative and productive program of research, and a commitment to excellence in teaching and advising graduate and undergraduate students. Responsibilities will include conducting an independent program of research, mentoring students, and teaching primarily graduate level courses. Applicants should provide: ? a cover letter which describes research and teaching experience ? a curriculum vitae ? three pdfs representing published, in press, or submitted research manuscripts ? Applicants for Assistant rank positions should submit three letters of reference. ? Applicants for Associate and Full Professor ranks should submit a list of three names of references (complete with addresses and phone numbers). We will request letters of recommendation for a short list of finalists only *Please submit applications by October 1, 2018.* All application materials are submitted online. Please submit your application on Interfolio: http://apply.interfolio.com/51855 Questions pertaining to this position may be directed to Tanya Chamberlain, Faculty Affairs Officer, tanyas@stanford.edu. *Stanford is an equal employment opportunity and affirmative action employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law. Stanford also welcomes applications from others who would bring additional dimensions to the University?s research, teaching and clinical missions.* Jelena Obradovi?, Ph.D. Associate Professor Graduate School of Education Stanford University Phone: 650.725.1250 http://www.stanford.edu/~jelenao _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180801/a6c0fff4/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Aug 2 19:38:43 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 19:38:43 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Postdoc available in Cognitive Science In-Reply-To: <8D39A5C3-035C-415B-85FB-220E2573F50D@dartmouth.edu> References: <8D39A5C3-035C-415B-85FB-220E2573F50D@dartmouth.edu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: adina roskies Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:32 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Postdoc available in Cognitive Science To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org *Postdoctoral researcher in Cognitive Science* Location: Hanover, NH Position URL: apply.interfolio.com/52751 Position Description The Cognitive Science Program at Dartmouth College invites applications for a postdoctoral position, in a cognate discipline such as Linguistics, Philosophy, Computer Science, or Psychology or Neuroscience. The position would involve teaching 2 courses (10 weeks each) plus some administrative duties in the fledgling cognitive science program (primarily undergraduate advising), but would leave ample time for your own research. This is a two year position beginning September 1, 2018 or as soon as feasible. Candidates should have a PhD or be ABD, and strong research record in some area of cognitive science, as well as an ability to teach cross-disciplinary cognitive science courses to undergraduates. We seek applicants with a record of successful teaching and mentoring of students from all backgrounds (including first-generation college students, low-income students, racial and ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ, etc.). Dartmouth College, a member of the Ivy League, is located in Hanover, New Hampshire. Dartmouth has a beautiful, historic campus, located in a scenic area on the Connecticut River. Recreational opportunities abound all year. The program (cognitive-science.dartmouth.edu ) is in the School of Arts and Sciences, with abundant collegial interaction among faculty across multiple departments and schools. *Application Instructions* Applicants should submit cover letter, curriculum vitae, one piece of written work, and three letters of reference. Candidates should apply to https://apply.interfolio.com/ 52751 . Review of applications will begin immediately. Questions regarding the application process should be directed to Elizabeth Cassell ( Liz.Cassell@dartmouth.edu) _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180802/bc0ba9b1/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Aug 4 13:14:17 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 20:14:17 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Rogers day Message-ID: Hello fellow Xmcars and venerable others, It was a curious day yesterday, a day that I will call Rogers day. I saw the documentary on Fred Rogers of Misteroger's Neighborhood fame (a public television children's show first produced in the 1960s, and I was the first-gen to imbibe my eyes and ears upon the greeting song, "Won't You Be My Neighbor?", sweaters, tennis shoes, and fish feeding). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers It put me in a good mood, that gentle voice of his still resonates even though he left the earth in 2003, that's 15 years now! He is likely the only tolerable Republican that ever lived. Then I learned (in Jungian fashion) about Carl Rogers and I read the wiki page on him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers I was surprised to learn he lived in La Jolla and did a lot of international work. But I had wondered if anyone on this list might discuss his theories of self, hidden personality, and positive regard and how these compare to Vygotskian theories (i.e, CHAT). The theory about self seems to be heavily phenomenological. I could detect some overlap with Vygotskian theory, but what interested me had to do with the discussion of threat of self and protection of self as a concept about structure, that the self has a structure and I'm assuming this is the personality, and that as experiences and perceptions are internalized how they are integrated into the existing structure depends upon whether there is an existing threat or not to the self. I may not have read this correctly, but my question to the list would be: How does Vygostkian theory account for the unconscious, and also threats to self (as an internalized structure)? I get that experiences coming from culture, language, environment, etc are perceptually received from the "outside" and then internalized but I realized there isn't really a discussion of "threat to self" in my readings by Vygotsky. There is conflict and struggle, but no thorough discussion of threat to self. Perhaps I am being dull and just not remembering correctly. So please edify me as long as your name doesn't conjure up cereal... I would like some fresh voices, that's all. ? Cabbages might be OK. Is it possible that Vygotsky never got far enough to discuss threat-to-self because he didn't live long enough to evaluate adult minds? While I wrote that I considered that children's lives are full of threats, and it is a miracle that they can thrive despite them. Does Vygotsky discuss existential threats in the child? Forgive me that nothing is arising in my memory right now. Carl Rogers indicates 19 propositions that inform his theory. In regard to #6 ("The organism has one basic tendency and striving?to actualize, maintain and enhance the experiencing organism.") echos Spinoza and also Darwin. There are others that resonate with CHAT. There is also his concept of incongruence/congruence as a measure of self-actualization, whereby congruence is achieved when the real self and the ideal self are one and the same, and incongruence is the difference (and manifest tension) between real and ideal self. I can see that the notion of ideal self coming from social expectations being similar to the ideal as presented in Vygotskian theory (I'm wrangling with the notion of "ideal" right now). Mr Fred Rogers seemed to be an adult who had positive regard to children and advocated for self-acceptance ("I like you just the way you are.") We see him doing it every time he is interacting with a child. I think he would call this advocacy for self-acceptance, nothing else but love. In the documentary he says (I paraphrase): "Children should feel special without the pressure of doing something sensational." Which some critics lambasted for creating attitudes of entitlement in children. I wondered about all this in contrast to the concept of perezhivanie. Does Vygotsky discuss concepts of love? OK, so that was my Rogers day, neighbor. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180804/042a9792/attachment.html From bazerman@education.ucsb.edu Sat Aug 4 18:46:59 2018 From: bazerman@education.ucsb.edu (Charles Bazerman) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:46:59 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Annalisa, In 2001 I published an article in MCA Anxiety in Action: Sullivan?s Interpersonal Psychiatry as a Supplement to Vygotskian Psychology MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY, 8(2), 174?186 In it I discuss Sulllivan's theory of the formation of the self-system, with its varius protective systems and the role of anxiety in the maintenance of the self-system. Here is the abstract. Psychiatric issues such as the formation of intimate bonds, personality, anxiety, and antisocial behavior tend to have little place in Vygotskian and neo-Vygotskian studies, giving the impression that all humans are competent and cooperative participants in social interaction. Nonetheless, Vygotsky himself was interested in psychiatric issues and contributed to psychiatric practice. Harry Stack Sullivan?s interpersonal psychiatry is compatible with and adds to socio-historical psychology an account of the origins and consequences of anxiety and the anxiety system. Sullivan provided a Vygotsky-like account of a person trying to grow into the social world he or she is born into and trying to satisfy needs with available people, themselves already socialized, enculturated, and formed as selves. Anthony B. Gabriele?s little-known practical elaborations of interpersonal psychiatry, further, are consistent with situated micro-analytical approaches to learning within social contexts. I have published on Sullivan and his psychiatric project elsewhere, including Practically human: The pragmatist project of the interdisciplinary journal Psychiatry Linguistics and Human Sciences vol 1.1 2005: 15?38 In which I discuss Vygotsky's earliest publications in English in this journal. All these publications are available on my home page http://bazerman.education.ucsb.edu Chuck ---- History will judge. On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 1:15 PM Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello fellow Xmcars and venerable others, > > > It was a curious day yesterday, a day that I will call Rogers day. > > > I saw the documentary on Fred Rogers of Misteroger's Neighborhood fame (a > public television children's show first produced in the 1960s, and I was > the first-gen to imbibe my eyes and ears upon the greeting song, "Won't You > Be My Neighbor?", sweaters, tennis shoes, and fish feeding). > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers > > > It put me in a good mood, that gentle voice of his still resonates even > though he left the earth in 2003, that's 15 years now! He is likely the > only tolerable Republican that ever lived. > > > Then I learned (in Jungian fashion) about Carl Rogers and I read the wiki > page on him here: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers > > > I was surprised to learn he lived in La Jolla and did a lot of > international work. But I had wondered if anyone on this list might discuss > his theories of self, hidden personality, and positive regard and how these > compare to Vygotskian theories (i.e, CHAT). > > > The theory about self seems to be heavily phenomenological. I could detect > some overlap with Vygotskian theory, but what interested me had to do with > the discussion of threat of self and protection of self as a concept about > structure, that the self has a structure and I'm assuming this is the > personality, and that as experiences and perceptions are internalized how > they are integrated into the existing structure depends upon whether there > is an existing threat or not to the self. I may not have read this > correctly, but my question to the list would be: > > > How does Vygostkian theory account for the unconscious, and also threats > to self (as an internalized structure)? > > > I get that experiences coming from culture, language, environment, etc are > perceptually received from the "outside" and then internalized but I > realized there isn't really a discussion of "threat to self" in my readings > by Vygotsky. There is conflict and struggle, but no thorough discussion of > threat to self. > > > Perhaps I am being dull and just not remembering correctly. So please > edify me as long as your name doesn't conjure up cereal... I would like > some fresh voices, that's all. ? Cabbages might be OK. > > > Is it possible that Vygotsky never got far enough to discuss > threat-to-self because he didn't live long enough to evaluate adult minds? > While I wrote that I considered that children's lives are full of threats, > and it is a miracle that they can thrive despite them. Does Vygotsky > discuss existential threats in the child? Forgive me that nothing is > arising in my memory right now. > > > Carl Rogers indicates 19 propositions that inform his theory. In regard to > #6 ("The organism has one basic tendency and striving?to actualize, > maintain and enhance the experiencing organism.") echos Spinoza and also > Darwin. There are others that resonate with CHAT. > > > There is also his concept of incongruence/congruence as a measure of > self-actualization, whereby congruence is achieved when the real self and > the ideal self are one and the same, and incongruence is the difference > (and manifest tension) between real and ideal self. I can see that the > notion of ideal self coming from social expectations being similar to the > ideal as presented in Vygotskian theory (I'm wrangling with the notion of > "ideal" right now). > > > Mr Fred Rogers seemed to be an adult who had positive regard to children > and advocated for self-acceptance ("I like you just the way you are.") We > see him doing it every time he is interacting with a child. I think he > would call this advocacy for self-acceptance, nothing else but love. In the > documentary he says (I paraphrase): "Children should feel special without > the pressure of doing something sensational." Which some critics lambasted > for creating attitudes of entitlement in children. I wondered about all > this in contrast to the concept of perezhivanie. > > > Does Vygotsky discuss concepts of love? > > > OK, so that was my Rogers day, neighbor. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180804/6f6dc1b4/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Aug 7 14:38:13 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 21:38:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Charles, I have to thank you for posting your article, "Anxiety in Action." I just read it quickly and would like to go over it again, but I can say it provoked many thoughts and questions for me. One gnawing assumption, which I am not clear is actually an assumption widely held, is that Vygotskian theory holds that all humans are competent and cooperative in social interaction (This list being a perfect example of what that is not! ? When we see more women and POC participating upon the list, and even novices and newcomers feeling welcome to participate, I don't think this will be caused of a list-wide motivation to prove the impression that Vygotskian theory might give off, that being competence and cooperation in social interaction!) I made this mistake of idealizing the theory this way when doing an interview of Edwin Hutchins for a paper in Vera's class (It was about scientific creativity and he was a dream subject for my paper!) He in no uncertain terms said that cooperation (and even good will) are not what we can (or should) expect in interaction and learning (of course he was speaking about distributed cognition specifically, but his approach is informed by Vygotsky, among other theorists, which concerns sociality of human thought, among other things). Learning includes conflict which is the other side of cooperation, but also that individuals can do the right thing while the society does the wrong thing (he pointed to the 2008 financial meltdown as a case in point), meaning that individuals can think they are cooperating when the system arising from that cooperation does not. So much for singing Kumbayah around the campfire! Also this made me consider is how it is that we adults assume we are finished products (or maybe just finished, in the sense we are done for!) once our biological development has matured to our prime, and that children are these fragile blank slates mirroring and combining and internalizing those reflections from our societies (I don't think Vygotsky thought that) developing at the speed of light into adults who we hope will be significantly competent and cooperative. But this is an illusion isn't it? We are unfinished persons until that time in which our lives are actually over. We will never be authorities, even if we think we are (As my grandmother would say, "The audacity of some people's bombacity!" ? a malaprop in itself)! And yet, while living our lives, we seem to have a self-insight of continuity that we are somehow stable in ourselves and this stability is good, it provides us authority and competence (and other existential trinkets). If we don't feel that way, we want to. Why? Given the flux of human experience in all societies and throughout history, inter-personally or any other mode of relating (to environment, to nature, to animals, to art, etc), it is curious how we possess this feeling that there is a stable continuity within. How is that possible? I suggest that that stability-of-self is not something to attribute to anything that changes, but perhaps mis-identifying this reference point of stability to a changing aspect of self is what causes our existential anxieties. Here we get to a point where some people might say we are (as-if) walking on hot coals with regard to a changing self, that this stability (that we seek) is an illusion itself like the way the flicker of the film frame provides the illusion of continuity despite movement in the frame (and it feels urgent because we are walking on hot coals of life and living, after all). Others have different ideas about where the self belongs, which I suggest has nothing to do with mind and body development, but that mind and body development reveal in a reflective manner that stability. Some mind-body complexes reflect better than others (and at different points in time, since we are moody creatures), and this might even echo the concept of "arete" (excellence) of the Ancient Greeks. So yes, we hope to have well-developed minds and bodies in the social and cultural historical environments that we populate, and we hope they will be cooperative and we will be competent to meet the circumstances at hand. You also raised the point in the paper that we sometimes orient our study of the mind from the standpoint of pathology and I admit that I've always had a hard time with that habit as well. I wonder if an orientation to anxiety might also fall into that same habit. I'm not sure, just thinking out loud. Where I was getting to with my post, I think, though I may not have realized my question clearly at the time, is how we do not consider positive regard as a necessary component of healthy development. That instead development just happens no matter what. I don't know that that worldview or stance ("it just happens") is motivated from anxiety or conflict avoidance. Though I agree that anxiety does warp any person and no one is free from the dynamics of anxiety. What I might say is that the strength of development (occurring in tandem with plenty of positive regard) allows us to withstand anxiety producing events we may encounter. But if anxiety overwhelms us beyond what we can understand (developmentally or cognitively or existentially) pathology ensues after a prolonged period of suffering through it. I just don't think anxiety should be seen as an ingredient of development, but as a symptom of developmental "weakness". When we feel strong (and are strong) in ourselves, we don't feel anxious. When we are not up to the task, we can still perform our best when we are relaxed and unencumbered by anxiety (which I suppose is what we call confidence, not necessarily competence). Consequently, it seems to me that it is the absence of anxiety that allows us to develop. If we remove the anxiety, then what is left? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180807/df8f592d/attachment.html From bazerman@education.ucsb.edu Wed Aug 8 04:56:30 2018 From: bazerman@education.ucsb.edu (Charles Bazerman) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 04:56:30 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looking back at my article I think I stated my point rather crudely, which was only made to open up a space for introducing Sullivan's concept of anxiety. Of course Vygotsky recognized frailty and limits, as he devoted much of his work to defectology/special ed trying to understand and help people in very trying conditions.Some of his testing procedures were even used to assess psychiatric conditions. Further he lived through times of multiple great difficulties, and he himself was sickly. Further those of us who affiliate with work of course recognize human difficulties and frailties. We in fact tend to be quite sensitive about that. What I should have said was that Vygotsky approached human development positively and optimistically, looking at potentials and mechanisms for growth, rather than focusing on the obstacles people felt within themselves. This characterized his approach to disabilities, where he considered how people could grow under whatever set of conditions they experienced ad how others could support that growth. The obstacles he did discuss were largely those of how the disabled were treated by others, inhibiting the opportunities to growth. So the point I was trying to make was that he did not offer any extended analysis that revealed mechanisms of psychological difficulties, such as anxiety--or at least that I was aware of. Sullivan, however, did offer an extended analysis of anxiety, and presented it as one of the major components of the organization of the self. He would agree with you that anxiety could be quite an obstacle to development, interfering with our emotional and cognitive activity, even immobilizing us or fostering delusions, Confronting and alleviating anxiety was an important process to facilitate growth. But that alleviation was not through denial of the anxiety but through recognition, social support that eased anxiety in relations which one had previously found fraught, and acting with focus despite the anxiety, in the long term extending the domains we can act successfully in and decreasing inappropriate anxiety. Chuck ---- History will judge. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hi Charles, > > > I have to thank you for posting your article, "Anxiety in Action." > > > I just read it quickly and would like to go over it again, but I can say > it provoked many thoughts and questions for me. > > > One gnawing assumption, which I am not clear is actually an assumption > widely held, is that Vygotskian theory holds that all humans are competent > and cooperative in social interaction (This list being a perfect example of > what that is not! ? When we see more women and POC participating upon > the list, and even novices and newcomers feeling welcome to participate, I > don't think this will be caused of a list-wide motivation to prove the > impression that Vygotskian theory might give off, that being competence and > cooperation in social interaction!) > > > I made this mistake of idealizing the theory this way when doing an > interview of Edwin Hutchins for a paper in Vera's class (It was about > scientific creativity and he was a dream subject for my paper!) He in no > uncertain terms said that cooperation (and even good will) are not what we > can (or should) expect in interaction and learning (of course he was > speaking about distributed cognition specifically, but his approach is > informed by Vygotsky, among other theorists, which concerns sociality of > human thought, among other things). Learning includes conflict which is the > other side of cooperation, but also that individuals can do the right thing > while the society does the wrong thing (he pointed to the 2008 financial > meltdown as a case in point), meaning that individuals can think they are > cooperating when the system arising from that cooperation does not. > > > So much for singing Kumbayah around the campfire! > > > Also this made me consider is how it is that we adults assume we are > finished products (or maybe just finished, in the sense we are done for!) > once our biological development has matured to our prime, and that children > are these fragile blank slates mirroring and combining and internalizing > those reflections from our societies (I don't think Vygotsky thought that) > developing at the speed of light into adults who we hope will be > significantly competent and cooperative. > > > But this is an illusion isn't it? We are unfinished persons until that > time in which our lives are actually over. We will never be authorities, > even if we think we are (As my grandmother would say, "The audacity of some > people's bombacity!" ? a malaprop in itself)! > > > And yet, while living our lives, we seem to have a self-insight of > continuity that we are somehow stable in ourselves and this stability is > good, it provides us authority and competence (and other existential > trinkets). If we don't feel that way, we want to. Why? Given the flux of > human experience in all societies and throughout history, inter-personally > or any other mode of relating (to environment, to nature, to animals, to > art, etc), it is curious how we possess this feeling that there is a stable > continuity within. How is that possible? > > > I suggest that that stability-of-self is not something to attribute to > anything that changes, but perhaps mis-identifying this reference point of > stability to a changing aspect of self is what causes our existential > anxieties. > > > Here we get to a point where some people might say we are (as-if) walking > on hot coals with regard to a changing self, that this stability (that we > seek) is an illusion itself like the way the flicker of the film frame > provides the illusion of continuity despite movement in the frame (and it > feels urgent because we are walking on hot coals of life and living, after > all). Others have different ideas about where the self belongs, which I > suggest has nothing to do with mind and body development, but that mind and > body development reveal in a reflective manner that stability. Some > mind-body complexes reflect better than others (and at different points in > time, since we are moody creatures), and this might even echo the concept > of "arete" (excellence) of the Ancient Greeks. > > > So yes, we hope to have well-developed minds and bodies in the social and > cultural historical environments that we populate, and we hope they will be > cooperative and we will be competent to meet the circumstances at hand. > > > You also raised the point in the paper that we sometimes orient our study > of the mind from the standpoint of pathology and I admit that I've always > had a hard time with that habit as well. I wonder if an orientation to > anxiety might also fall into that same habit. I'm not sure, just thinking > out loud. > > > Where I was getting to with my post, I think, though I may not have > realized my question clearly at the time, is how we do not consider > positive regard as a necessary component of healthy development. That > instead development just happens no matter what. I don't know that that > worldview or stance ("it just happens") is motivated from anxiety or > conflict avoidance. Though I agree that anxiety does warp any person and no > one is free from the dynamics of anxiety. > > > What I might say is that the strength of development (occurring in tandem > with plenty of positive regard) allows us to withstand anxiety producing > events we may encounter. But if anxiety overwhelms us beyond what we can > understand (developmentally or cognitively or existentially) pathology > ensues after a prolonged period of suffering through it. I just don't think > anxiety should be seen as an ingredient of development, but as a symptom of > developmental "weakness". When we feel strong (and are strong) in > ourselves, we don't feel anxious. When we are not up to the task, we can > still perform our best when we are relaxed and unencumbered by anxiety > (which I suppose is what we call confidence, not necessarily competence). > Consequently, it seems to me that it is the absence of anxiety that allows > us to develop. > > > If we remove the anxiety, then what is left? > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180808/df901a2a/attachment.html From smago@uga.edu Wed Aug 8 06:26:54 2018 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:26:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As someone with chronic severe anxiety who has experienced panic attacks and takes a daily medication and additional pills before flying on planes and giving public talks, I would agree with Chuck?s assessment. From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Charles Bazerman Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 7:57 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Looking back at my article I think I stated my point rather crudely, which was only made to open up a space for introducing Sullivan's concept of anxiety. Of course Vygotsky recognized frailty and limits, as he devoted much of his work to defectology/special ed trying to understand and help people in very trying conditions.Some of his testing procedures were even used to assess psychiatric conditions. Further he lived through times of multiple great difficulties, and he himself was sickly. Further those of us who affiliate with work of course recognize human difficulties and frailties. We in fact tend to be quite sensitive about that. What I should have said was that Vygotsky approached human development positively and optimistically, looking at potentials and mechanisms for growth, rather than focusing on the obstacles people felt within themselves. This characterized his approach to disabilities, where he considered how people could grow under whatever set of conditions they experienced ad how others could support that growth. The obstacles he did discuss were largely those of how the disabled were treated by others, inhibiting the opportunities to growth. So the point I was trying to make was that he did not offer any extended analysis that revealed mechanisms of psychological difficulties, such as anxiety--or at least that I was aware of. Sullivan, however, did offer an extended analysis of anxiety, and presented it as one of the major components of the organization of the self. He would agree with you that anxiety could be quite an obstacle to development, interfering with our emotional and cognitive activity, even immobilizing us or fostering delusions, Confronting and alleviating anxiety was an important process to facilitate growth. But that alleviation was not through denial of the anxiety but through recognition, social support that eased anxiety in relations which one had previously found fraught, and acting with focus despite the anxiety, in the long term extending the domains we can act successfully in and decreasing inappropriate anxiety. Chuck ---- History will judge. On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:39 PM Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: Hi Charles, I have to thank you for posting your article, "Anxiety in Action." I just read it quickly and would like to go over it again, but I can say it provoked many thoughts and questions for me. One gnawing assumption, which I am not clear is actually an assumption widely held, is that Vygotskian theory holds that all humans are competent and cooperative in social interaction (This list being a perfect example of what that is not! ? When we see more women and POC participating upon the list, and even novices and newcomers feeling welcome to participate, I don't think this will be caused of a list-wide motivation to prove the impression that Vygotskian theory might give off, that being competence and cooperation in social interaction!) I made this mistake of idealizing the theory this way when doing an interview of Edwin Hutchins for a paper in Vera's class (It was about scientific creativity and he was a dream subject for my paper!) He in no uncertain terms said that cooperation (and even good will) are not what we can (or should) expect in interaction and learning (of course he was speaking about distributed cognition specifically, but his approach is informed by Vygotsky, among other theorists, which concerns sociality of human thought, among other things). Learning includes conflict which is the other side of cooperation, but also that individuals can do the right thing while the society does the wrong thing (he pointed to the 2008 financial meltdown as a case in point), meaning that individuals can think they are cooperating when the system arising from that cooperation does not. So much for singing Kumbayah around the campfire! Also this made me consider is how it is that we adults assume we are finished products (or maybe just finished, in the sense we are done for!) once our biological development has matured to our prime, and that children are these fragile blank slates mirroring and combining and internalizing those reflections from our societies (I don't think Vygotsky thought that) developing at the speed of light into adults who we hope will be significantly competent and cooperative. But this is an illusion isn't it? We are unfinished persons until that time in which our lives are actually over. We will never be authorities, even if we think we are (As my grandmother would say, "The audacity of some people's bombacity!" ? a malaprop in itself)! And yet, while living our lives, we seem to have a self-insight of continuity that we are somehow stable in ourselves and this stability is good, it provides us authority and competence (and other existential trinkets). If we don't feel that way, we want to. Why? Given the flux of human experience in all societies and throughout history, inter-personally or any other mode of relating (to environment, to nature, to animals, to art, etc), it is curious how we possess this feeling that there is a stable continuity within. How is that possible? I suggest that that stability-of-self is not something to attribute to anything that changes, but perhaps mis-identifying this reference point of stability to a changing aspect of self is what causes our existential anxieties. Here we get to a point where some people might say we are (as-if) walking on hot coals with regard to a changing self, that this stability (that we seek) is an illusion itself like the way the flicker of the film frame provides the illusion of continuity despite movement in the frame (and it feels urgent because we are walking on hot coals of life and living, after all). Others have different ideas about where the self belongs, which I suggest has nothing to do with mind and body development, but that mind and body development reveal in a reflective manner that stability. Some mind-body complexes reflect better than others (and at different points in time, since we are moody creatures), and this might even echo the concept of "arete" (excellence) of the Ancient Greeks. So yes, we hope to have well-developed minds and bodies in the social and cultural historical environments that we populate, and we hope they will be cooperative and we will be competent to meet the circumstances at hand. You also raised the point in the paper that we sometimes orient our study of the mind from the standpoint of pathology and I admit that I've always had a hard time with that habit as well. I wonder if an orientation to anxiety might also fall into that same habit. I'm not sure, just thinking out loud. Where I was getting to with my post, I think, though I may not have realized my question clearly at the time, is how we do not consider positive regard as a necessary component of healthy development. That instead development just happens no matter what. I don't know that that worldview or stance ("it just happens") is motivated from anxiety or conflict avoidance. Though I agree that anxiety does warp any person and no one is free from the dynamics of anxiety. What I might say is that the strength of development (occurring in tandem with plenty of positive regard) allows us to withstand anxiety producing events we may encounter. But if anxiety overwhelms us beyond what we can understand (developmentally or cognitively or existentially) pathology ensues after a prolonged period of suffering through it. I just don't think anxiety should be seen as an ingredient of development, but as a symptom of developmental "weakness". When we feel strong (and are strong) in ourselves, we don't feel anxious. When we are not up to the task, we can still perform our best when we are relaxed and unencumbered by anxiety (which I suppose is what we call confidence, not necessarily competence). Consequently, it seems to me that it is the absence of anxiety that allows us to develop. If we remove the anxiety, then what is left? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180808/deb44f2b/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Aug 11 10:52:40 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 10:52:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Post Doc - Woodward Lab University of Chicago In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent opportunity ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Amanda L. Woodward Date: Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 8:58 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Post Doc - Woodward Lab University of Chicago To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org CC: Laura Tharsen POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER, INFANT LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO The Woodward Laboratory at the University of Chicago seeks a postdoctoral researcher to design and implement research projects to study the neural and cognitive systems that support social cognitive development in infants and young children. The postdoctoral researcher will work on a multi-site collaborative project investigating the neural correlates of social cognitive development, the social-cognitive consequences of action learning and social collaboration in infants, and the longitudinal relations between infant neural and cognitive responses to others? actions and later-emerging social abilities. The postdoctoral fellow will interface with collaborators in the labs of Nathan Fox and Elizabeth Redcay at the University of Maryland, Helen Tager-Flusberg at Boston University, and Pier Ferrari at the Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod, CNRS. This active collaboration creates the opportunity to work closely with colleagues across these groups. The postdoctoral researcher will participate in all aspects of research management, development and implementation. He/she will oversee design, data collection, coding and analysis for behavioral and EEG studies with infants. He/she will maintain data storage systems in the laboratory, and liaise with other projects and collaborators for data sharing and analysis. He/she will oversee the work of research assistants, prepare manuscripts for publication and present research findings at scientific conferences. A doctoral degree is required in psychology, cognitive science, or a relevant field. Expertise in EEG methods is required, with experience using these methods with infants and children strongly preferred. Experience supervising and coordinating the work of assistants and strong project management skills are preferred. The position is open immediately and will remain open until the position is filled. Interested candidates should send a CV, a research statement and the names of two references to: Amanda Woodward Department of Psychology University of Chicago woodward@uchicago.edu The University of Chicago is an Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity / Disabled / Veterans Employer. Individuals requiring accommodation call 773-834-7573. _____________________________ Amanda Woodward Dean of the Division of the Social Sciences William S. Gray Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology University of Chicago Office: (773) 795-2544 Laura Tharsen: (773) 795-2572 woodward@uchicago.edu _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180811/b60d6bc8/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Aug 11 22:49:25 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 05:49:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Peter and Charles and venerable others, Well first of all I certainly did not mean to be crude myself when I spoke of anxiety as "weakness" which is why I put it in quotes. I understand anxiety can be debilitating, and I did not intend to be flip about it (positive regards to Peter). No one likes to be anxious, it is a very negative feeling, but there is something about the nature of anxiety in which it makes us feel weakened, not strong. If I might point out how universally it is that anxiety is an unwelcomed experience because it seems to obstruct us from performing our best, or just from feeling strong in ourselves, vulnerable. What is the purpose of anxiety? We agree that the virtue of Vygotsky's approaches arises from the ways in which he looked optimistically rather than orient from limitations of deficiencies and pathologies. What can the patient do, not what can the patient not do. His work was not about bell curves nor was he interested in defining what was normal. What I've always admired about the work is that it provides a pathway to consider outliers. But getting back to the Rogers? I was considering in my post the importance of positive regard. There is magic in it. At the same time, is so easy to take it for granted. Whether we are dealing with growing children, as Fred Rogers did, or dealing with unwell patients therapeutically as Carl Rogers did. (I find the title of a work of C Rogers, "On Becoming a Person" to be a very compelling one) Development is much easier when we don't have to deal with the pollution of ridicule or anxiety-producing interactions and I think that is true in the therapeutic relationship too, even experimental democracies. Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that. I understand that he looked to Spinoza to consider the place for emotions, and then there is meaning. If one studies Vygotsky and neglects to understand what meaning means to his work, well...the work would be meaningless ! ? If you see the film Won't You Be My Neighbor and watch how Fred Rogers speaks to children, how they are utterly mesmerized by him, I almost wonder if Vygotsky had that same sort of charisma with the people around him. What is the function of kindness and positive regard? I looked up the wiki page on Roger's "Unconditional positive regard" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard and it mentions at the tippy top: "The central hypothesis of this approach can be briefly stated. It is that the individual has within him or her self vast resources for self-understanding, for altering her or his self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behavior?and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided." and then later: "The main factor in unconditional positive regard is the ability to isolate behaviors from the person who displays them." The section "Criticism" on that page, Ruth Sanford argues how we can't hold unconditional positive regard to everyone we meet (that this quality is dependent upon how deep the relationship is), though I disagree and I believe that we can hold positive and it is a matter of habit and inner persistence to cultivate unconditional positive regard for everyone, including the self. Then Albert Ellis seemed to think there is a conundrum about the "unconditional" in unconditional positive regard, because the idea is that the client cannot learn to have unconditional positive self-regard unless it comes from the therapist first, which is itself a condition. (Of course I'm thinking, but this is also Vygotskian because it is first outside, then inside! It is social! But does that mean it is never there, or does it mean it is latent?) Additionally: "While Ellis strongly supported unconditional positive regard of clients, he believed they could, and had better, accept themselves and adopt unconditional positive regard of themselves whether or not their therapist or anyone else does." Which seems to say that positive regard is necessary for self-growth. And the lack of it is actually an obstruction, which means that positive regard is the necessary condition, it is an engine for growth. (Some might call it love). So when I think about positive regard, whether conditional or not, what is interesting is that it MEANS something, it is an essential ingredient to our growth and development. WHY IS THAT? What does it do for us? Then, (for contrast) how does positive regard relate to judgement and anxiety? It seems it is the absence of judgement and anxiety. Judgement and anxiety (to me) are products arising after dividing ourselves from something, they diminish us. I don't believe judgement and anxiety can occur if there is unconditional positive (self) regard. There's a thought experiment for you. Having said that, I am considering Peter's condition, and I don't mean to say that he has no positive self-regard conditional or unconditional or that his anxiety is a product of low-esteem. I don't mean this at all. But certainly there can be a possibility for managing anxious moments through having positive regard and having it unconditionally, whether from a fellow traveler or from within (with self talk). It might be cheaper than medication and more effective in the long run. Though I understand that might not present an immediate solution. Where I'm going is this: What is anodyne of that positive regard? How does it operate? Why does it work (when it does work)? I am not sure if I am quite making my point, but thank you for allowing me the attempt make it. Kind regards, without condition! Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180812/5d9c00c8/attachment.html From smago@uga.edu Sun Aug 12 02:54:27 2018 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 09:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples. From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2018 1:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi Peter and Charles and venerable others, Well first of all I certainly did not mean to be crude myself when I spoke of anxiety as "weakness" which is why I put it in quotes. I understand anxiety can be debilitating, and I did not intend to be flip about it (positive regards to Peter). No one likes to be anxious, it is a very negative feeling, but there is something about the nature of anxiety in which it makes us feel weakened, not strong. If I might point out how universally it is that anxiety is an unwelcomed experience because it seems to obstruct us from performing our best, or just from feeling strong in ourselves, vulnerable. What is the purpose of anxiety? We agree that the virtue of Vygotsky's approaches arises from the ways in which he looked optimistically rather than orient from limitations of deficiencies and pathologies. What can the patient do, not what can the patient not do. His work was not about bell curves nor was he interested in defining what was normal. What I've always admired about the work is that it provides a pathway to consider outliers. But getting back to the Rogers? I was considering in my post the importance of positive regard. There is magic in it. At the same time, is so easy to take it for granted. Whether we are dealing with growing children, as Fred Rogers did, or dealing with unwell patients therapeutically as Carl Rogers did. (I find the title of a work of C Rogers, "On Becoming a Person" to be a very compelling one) Development is much easier when we don't have to deal with the pollution of ridicule or anxiety-producing interactions and I think that is true in the therapeutic relationship too, even experimental democracies. Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that. I understand that he looked to Spinoza to consider the place for emotions, and then there is meaning. If one studies Vygotsky and neglects to understand what meaning means to his work, well...the work would be meaningless ! ? If you see the film Won't You Be My Neighbor and watch how Fred Rogers speaks to children, how they are utterly mesmerized by him, I almost wonder if Vygotsky had that same sort of charisma with the people around him. What is the function of kindness and positive regard? I looked up the wiki page on Roger's "Unconditional positive regard" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard and it mentions at the tippy top: "The central hypothesis of this approach can be briefly stated. It is that the individual has within him or her self vast resources for self-understanding, for altering her or his self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behavior?and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided." and then later: "The main factor in unconditional positive regard is the ability to isolate behaviors from the person who displays them." The section "Criticism" on that page, Ruth Sanford argues how we can't hold unconditional positive regard to everyone we meet (that this quality is dependent upon how deep the relationship is), though I disagree and I believe that we can hold positive and it is a matter of habit and inner persistence to cultivate unconditional positive regard for everyone, including the self. Then Albert Ellis seemed to think there is a conundrum about the "unconditional" in unconditional positive regard, because the idea is that the client cannot learn to have unconditional positive self-regard unless it comes from the therapist first, which is itself a condition. (Of course I'm thinking, but this is also Vygotskian because it is first outside, then inside! It is social! But does that mean it is never there, or does it mean it is latent?) Additionally: "While Ellis strongly supported unconditional positive regard of clients, he believed they could, and had better, accept themselves and adopt unconditional positive regard of themselves whether or not their therapist or anyone else does." Which seems to say that positive regard is necessary for self-growth. And the lack of it is actually an obstruction, which means that positive regard is the necessary condition, it is an engine for growth. (Some might call it love). So when I think about positive regard, whether conditional or not, what is interesting is that it MEANS something, it is an essential ingredient to our growth and development. WHY IS THAT? What does it do for us? Then, (for contrast) how does positive regard relate to judgement and anxiety? It seems it is the absence of judgement and anxiety. Judgement and anxiety (to me) are products arising after dividing ourselves from something, they diminish us. I don't believe judgement and anxiety can occur if there is unconditional positive (self) regard. There's a thought experiment for you. Having said that, I am considering Peter's condition, and I don't mean to say that he has no positive self-regard conditional or unconditional or that his anxiety is a product of low-esteem. I don't mean this at all. But certainly there can be a possibility for managing anxious moments through having positive regard and having it unconditionally, whether from a fellow traveler or from within (with self talk). It might be cheaper than medication and more effective in the long run. Though I understand that might not present an immediate solution. Where I'm going is this: What is anodyne of that positive regard? How does it operate? Why does it work (when it does work)? I am not sure if I am quite making my point, but thank you for allowing me the attempt make it. Kind regards, without condition! Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180812/fe6e91a8/attachment.html From h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk Sun Aug 12 04:03:11 2018 From: h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk (peter jones) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 11:03:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Anxiety - Stress-Vulnerability - Hodges' model 4Ps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1547163977.8684093.1534071791495@mail.yahoo.com> Hi everyone, If I might proffer a further observation concerning 'anxiety' in response to Annalisa's question "What is the purpose of anxiety?" and Peter's point below... Anxiety has a crucial role in our basic survival - the fight or flight response - for example. Within "The Health Career - Life Chances - Model" (Hodges' model) I formulated the 4Ps: PROCESS - sciences knowledge domainPRACTICE - sociological domainPOLICY - political domainand PURPOSE - intra- interpersonal domain The placement of PURPOSE here links to cognition, thought, motivation, stimulus - response, fear, anxiety, pleasure ... (individual psychology) We feel anxious about an exam so we hopefully do some revision.We control our anxiety before an interview as we try to give and present our best..If anxiety is too high then yes it is unpleasant and we become 'dysfunctional'. I came across the Zubin & Spring's (1977) Stress Vulnerability model rather late, but share this with our student nurses, patients and carers when appropriate: Further to Peter's point - on this website in the diagram - https://hearingvoices.org.uk/info_professionals_stress.htm - Vulnerability increases across the bottom axis.If you imagine 4-5 individuals along this axis, you can highlight how although the stressful situations may be the same (work, no work, ill parent, boundary dispute, bullying at work, debt, victim of fraud...), an individual's experience and tolerance will differ markedly. We can also bring in the role of education, in that, of our example persons (all similar gender, age, demographics...): e.g. Joe? Mike? John? Paul? Simon We would want Simon and Paul to learn how to 'move' to the left... making them less vulnerable (increased resilience, responding to the 'recovery and strengths agenda' within mental health policy). The role of medication can also be explained (the THRESHOLD between being ILL or WELL), to try to achieve concordance (not just 'compliance'). Of course, these are idealisations, but they may be helpful nonetheless. Kind regards, Peter Jones Community Mental Health Nurse & Researcher CMHT Brookside Aughton Street Ormskirk L39 3BH, UK +44 01695 684700 Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/h2cm On Sunday, 12 August 2018, 10:55:21 GMT+1, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples. ? From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2018 1:49 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day ? Hi Peter and Charles and venerable others, ? Well first of all I certainly did not mean to be crude myself when I spoke of anxiety as "weakness" which is why I put it in quotes. I understand anxiety can be debilitating, and I did not intend to be flip about it (positive regards to Peter). No one likes to be anxious, it is a very negative feeling, but there is something about the nature of anxiety in which it makes us feel weakened, not strong. If I might point out how universally it is that anxiety is an unwelcomed experience because it seems to obstruct us from performing our best, or just from feeling strong in ourselves, vulnerable. What is the purpose of anxiety? ? We agree that the virtue of Vygotsky's approaches arises from the ways in which he looked optimistically rather than orient from limitations of deficiencies and pathologies. What can the patient do, not what can the patient not do. His work was not about bell curves nor was he interested in defining what was normal. What I've always admired about the work is that it provides a pathway to consider outliers. ? But getting back to the Rogers? I was considering in my post the importance of positive regard. There is magic in it. At the same time, is so easy to take it for granted. Whether we are dealing with growing children, as Fred Rogers did, or dealing with unwell patients therapeutically as Carl Rogers did. ? (I find the title of a work of C Rogers, "On Becoming a Person" to be a very compelling one) ? Development is much easier when we don't have to deal with the pollution of ridicule or anxiety-producing interactions and I think that is true in the therapeutic relationship too, even experimental democracies. ? Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that. ? I understand that he looked to Spinoza to consider the place for emotions, and then there is meaning. If one studies Vygotsky and neglects to understand what meaning means to his work, well...the work would be meaningless ! ? ? If you see the film Won't You Be My Neighbor and watch how Fred Rogers speaks to children, how they are utterly mesmerized by him, I almost wonder if Vygotsky had that same sort of charisma with the people around him. ? What is the function of kindness and positive regard? ? I looked up the wiki page on Roger's "Unconditional positive regard" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard ? and it mentions at the tippy top: "The central hypothesis of this approach can be briefly stated. It is that the individual has within him or her self vast resources for self-understanding, for altering her or his self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behavior?and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided." ? and then later: "The main factor in unconditional positive regard is the ability to isolate behaviors from the person who displays them." ? The section "Criticism" on that page, Ruth Sanford argues how we can't hold unconditional positive regard to everyone we meet (that this quality is dependent upon how deep the relationship is), though I disagree and I believe that we can hold positive and it is a matter of habit and inner persistence to cultivate unconditional positive regard for everyone, including the self. Then Albert Ellis seemed to think there is a conundrum about the "unconditional" in unconditional positive regard, because the idea is that the client cannot learn to have unconditional positive self-regard unless it comes from the therapist first, which is itself a condition. ? (Of course I'm thinking, but this is also Vygotskian because it is first outside, then inside! It is social! But does that mean it is never there, or does it mean it is latent?) ? Additionally: "While Ellis strongly supported unconditional positive regard of clients, he believed they could, and had better, accept themselves and adopt unconditional positive regard of themselves whether or not their therapist or anyone else does." ? Which seems to say that positive regard is necessary for self-growth. And the lack of it is actually an obstruction, which means that positive regard is the necessary condition, it is an engine for growth. (Some might call it love). ? So when I think about positive regard, whether conditional or not, what is interesting is that it MEANS something, it is?an essential ingredient to our growth and development. ? WHY IS THAT? What does it do for us? Then, (for contrast) how does positive regard relate to judgement and anxiety? It seems it is the absence of judgement and anxiety. ? Judgement and anxiety (to me) are products arising after dividing ourselves from something, they diminish us. I don't believe judgement and anxiety can occur if there is unconditional positive (self) regard. There's a thought experiment for you.? ? Having said that, I am considering Peter's condition, and I don't mean to say that he has no positive self-regard conditional or unconditional or that his anxiety is a product of low-esteem. I don't mean this at all. But certainly there can be a possibility for managing anxious moments through having positive regard and having it unconditionally, whether from a fellow traveler or from within (with self talk). It might be cheaper than medication and more effective in the long run. Though I understand that might not present an immediate solution. ? Where I'm going is this: What is anodyne of that positive regard? How does it operate? Why does it work (when it does work)? ? I am not sure if I am quite making my point, but thank you for allowing me the attempt make it. ? Kind regards, without condition! ? Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180812/9666e861/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Aug 12 13:27:31 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 20:27:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: Peter and venerable others, I'm presuming you are directing your post to me. First, I did not ask you to volunteer your private information. Nor am I the author of your responses. I had no intention to post about anxiety, that was a topic inserted from Charle's post on Sullivan. I was comparing and contrasting to integrate what Charles had to say, which is often the way conversations go. Let me be clear: I will not be able to follow your recommendation, Peter, particularly because I feel your true motivation is to shut me down, which is commonly done to women on this list and in society in general. "Nevertheless she persisted!" How dare I do that? ? Please take responsibility for yourself, your actions, and your pain. I find it terribly ironic that I was posting about Fred Rogers and Carl Rogers and... ...POSITIVE REGARD (aka love or care)... ...and the VALUE of that discussion, the discussion that I would very much like to have, passes right by and descends into the topic of anxiety and the commencement of a flamewar. I find it startling that people do not have the COURAGE, nor even the CURIOSITY, to discuss the value of positive regard. Where are you, kind and happy people? Perhaps our own self talk tells us we do not deserve it. So much so we have to censor others who bring it up. What is the apparent crime in discussing positive regard? What is the fear that is stirred up? If anyone wishes to continue discussing models of anxiety, I invite folks to start a different thread about it. Oh, look! I see Peter Jones has done just that. Thanks Peter J. There you go Peter S, now you can discuss anxiety all you like! And any way you like. Have a go. In dicussing Fred Rogers and Carl Rogers, I was interested in something very very different, something that is actually not pathological, but affirming. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180812/88f7ab10/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sun Aug 12 17:57:37 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:57:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> Annalisa, don't you think that a very good example of how not to invite participation or cooperation is by accusing participants, as you do, of not having "courage" or "curiosity" of discussing a given topic rather than another? As if the suggested topic had to be followed in some pre-give way, or else it was a sign of courage or lack of curiosity. I personally think it would be great that others would take up on your thread in the terms that you initially may have intended (as per your later post, it seems it was positive regard) but, alas, as Hutchins may have suggested, social relations/systems have this quality: they are not reducible to the intentions of individuals. And in fact, by pointing out of the transformative potential of dealing with anxiety, I would have said that the discussion was suggesting that either/or positions (unconditional positive-unconditional negative) may be an idealized simplification of an otherwise dialectical, more complex reality. So, just as you seem to assume that people has not followed your thread and truly engaged with you, they might indeed have been trying to and in fact doing so. But, who are we to judge? People always participate from where they are, just as learners do what they can do (in the social, ZPD sense of the "can do"), and not more or otherwise. Even when the teacher is trying to teach them a lesson on whatever subject, students keep learning lots of things *despite* the teacher's intentions, ?most of this learning having little to do with what the teacher intended. Dewey speaks of "collateral learning", and Biesta speaks of "the beautiful risk of education". I invite you, as I invite Peter S. to welcome the risk of being with others in this list for learning together, without necessarily being able to prescribe what this learning is going to be. In fact, although you end up asking about love and Vygotsky, in your initial post you also ask the following: "How does Vygostkian theory account for the unconscious, and also threats to self (as an internalized structure)?" Given that question, I don't think Chuck's post and article and ensuing conversation about anxiety should come as a surprise, or as something to regret, and much less, something to throw up on others. I am grateful for the sharing of the work, as you overtly were, and for the opportunity that came along with it. Peter Jones, as you noted, wisely opened another thread, and this is the way discussions go, they lead to new topics, etc. ?This may be a spin off of your initial intention, but it really is part of whatever you are part of when you generously first post and open for others to respond. You may not have intended to disturb anyone, but you may have done so. And someone else may not have intended to make you feel that you are being shut down for being a woman, but you have felt that way. It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. That said, yes, I too wished that novices, women, people of ?all ethnic/cultural backgrounds would participate more in this list. We are in fact working on a website that shall complement this list and which we are hoping will help achieving this. Meanwhile, in my humble opinion, posts like the last one you wrote do not help. And back to the scholarly topic, you ask (among other things), "Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that." To me Vygotsky was pursuing a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach to the question of affect, and so I don't think your statement "has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition" would have made any sense to him. What is the relation of affect to thinking and this relation changes would have been closer to the kind of question I would have attributed to Vygotky's line of thinking. Best wishes, and hoping for your continued and positive regard participation, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 12 August 2018 22:27 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Peter and venerable others, I'm presuming you are directing your post to me. First, I did not ask you to volunteer your private information. Nor am I the author of your responses. I had no intention to post about anxiety, that was a topic inserted from Charle's post on Sullivan. I was comparing and contrasting to integrate what Charles had to say, which is often the way conversations go. Let me be clear: I will not be able to follow your recommendation, Peter, particularly because I feel your true motivation is to shut me down, which is commonly done to women on this list and in society in general. "Nevertheless she persisted!" How dare I do that? ? Please take responsibility for yourself, your actions, and your pain. I find it terribly ironic that I was posting about Fred Rogers and Carl Rogers and... ...POSITIVE REGARD (aka love or care)... ...and the VALUE of that discussion, the discussion that I would very much like to have, passes right by and descends into the topic of anxiety and the commencement of a flamewar. I find it startling that people do not have the COURAGE, nor even the CURIOSITY, to discuss the value of positive regard. Where are you, kind and happy people? Perhaps our own self talk tells us we do not deserve it. So much so we have to censor others who bring it up. What is the apparent crime in discussing positive regard? What is the fear that is stirred up? If anyone wishes to continue discussing models of anxiety, I invite folks to start a different thread about it. Oh, look! I see Peter Jones has done just that. Thanks Peter J. There you go Peter S, now you can discuss anxiety all you like! And any way you like. Have a go. In dicussing Fred Rogers and Carl Rogers, I was interested in something very very different, something that is actually not pathological, but affirming. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/a4a5ca4f/attachment.html From Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn Sun Aug 12 18:37:35 2018 From: Adam.Poole@nottingham.edu.cn (Adam Poole (16517826)) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 01:37:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello all, I would like to respond to Annalisa's first post and hopefully get the conversation back to where it started. Please forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes. I am writing this in haste before my three-year old boy wakes up and asks me to play cars with him! I come to Vygotsky as an experienced educator, but as a relatively new researcher, so I do not profess to be an expert on the matter. However, Vygotsky's ideas have informed a great deal of my thinking regarding education for minoritised students, so I will engage with Annalisa's dialogue through the lens of my take on Vygotsky! One paragraph resonated with me particularly: 'I get that experiences coming from culture, language, environment, etc are perceptually received from the "outside" and then internalized but I realized there isn't really a discussion of "threat to self" in my readings by Vygotsky. There is conflict and struggle, but no thorough discussion of threat to self.' I do not think that Vygotsky specifically dealt with 'threats to self' as such, but could not the notion of a perezhivanie not be understood as part of this dialectical process of a crisis which could also involve a threat to self? I have found Andy Blunden's take on this to be really useful in my work: a perezhivanie is a self-contained working over of a critical incident or moment in an individual's life that involves reflection, catharsis and finally integration. I would also like to clarify that perezhvanie should be understood as both concept and psychological process. On the one hand, it exists as a concept via academic discourse; on the other, it is arguably a universal psychological process that helps to explain the meeting of mind and society. To apply this to Vygotsky, I am reminded of the oft quoted incident of the three brothers from 'the problem of the environment'. However, while the youngest two children develop neurotic symptoms, the eldest adapts to the situation, adopting the guise of the father. In this respect, the oldest child experiences a crisis, a threat to self, but because of his development or perhaps because of the crisis is able to integrate it into his developing self. Crisis leads to development. The crisis need not be as dramatic as this: it can also take on the form of encountering a new world-view, discovering a new theory, that forces us to reevaluate our assumptions about the world. Does Vygotsky discuss existential threats in the child? Forgive me that nothing is arising in my memory right now. To return to problem of the environment, I would consider the children' experience of emotional and actual poverty to be existential in nature - in the sense that the children internalize an environment that leads to doubt, insecurity, etc which they then reflect back on the environment. This leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it were. I have developed my own interpretation of Moises' funds of identity concept using the same interpretation of perezhivanie - namely existential funds of identity: check out the article here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2018.1434799: forgive the shameless plug!) Finally, 'How does Vygostkian theory account for the unconscious, and also threats to self (as an internalized structure)?' This has really got me thinking. I don't think Vygotsky theory accounts for it. I am not sure if the two are even commensurate - perhaps a discussion for another thread. What do you think, Annalisa? As I am going through a discursive phase at the moment, I would say that the unconscious could be understood as a symbolic tool - in the sense that it exists as an academic discourse which individuals can utilize in order to mediate experience. Anyway, thank you for sharing your ideas and inviting us newbies to add our voices to the community. Cheers, Adam ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 05 August 2018 04:14:17 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Rogers day Hello fellow Xmcars and venerable others, It was a curious day yesterday, a day that I will call Rogers day. I saw the documentary on Fred Rogers of Misteroger's Neighborhood fame (a public television children's show first produced in the 1960s, and I was the first-gen to imbibe my eyes and ears upon the greeting song, "Won't You Be My Neighbor?", sweaters, tennis shoes, and fish feeding). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers It put me in a good mood, that gentle voice of his still resonates even though he left the earth in 2003, that's 15 years now! He is likely the only tolerable Republican that ever lived. Then I learned (in Jungian fashion) about Carl Rogers and I read the wiki page on him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers I was surprised to learn he lived in La Jolla and did a lot of international work. But I had wondered if anyone on this list might discuss his theories of self, hidden personality, and positive regard and how these compare to Vygotskian theories (i.e, CHAT). The theory about self seems to be heavily phenomenological. I could detect some overlap with Vygotskian theory, but what interested me had to do with the discussion of threat of self and protection of self as a concept about structure, that the self has a structure and I'm assuming this is the personality, and that as experiences and perceptions are internalized how they are integrated into the existing structure depends upon whether there is an existing threat or not to the self. I may not have read this correctly, but my question to the list would be: How does Vygostkian theory account for the unconscious, and also threats to self (as an internalized structure)? I get that experiences coming from culture, language, environment, etc are perceptually received from the "outside" and then internalized but I realized there isn't really a discussion of "threat to self" in my readings by Vygotsky. There is conflict and struggle, but no thorough discussion of threat to self. Perhaps I am being dull and just not remembering correctly. So please edify me as long as your name doesn't conjure up cereal... I would like some fresh voices, that's all. ? Cabbages might be OK. Is it possible that Vygotsky never got far enough to discuss threat-to-self because he didn't live long enough to evaluate adult minds? While I wrote that I considered that children's lives are full of threats, and it is a miracle that they can thrive despite them. Does Vygotsky discuss existential threats in the child? Forgive me that nothing is arising in my memory right now. Carl Rogers indicates 19 propositions that inform his theory. In regard to #6 ("The organism has one basic tendency and striving?to actualize, maintain and enhance the experiencing organism.") echos Spinoza and also Darwin. There are others that resonate with CHAT. There is also his concept of incongruence/congruence as a measure of self-actualization, whereby congruence is achieved when the real self and the ideal self are one and the same, and incongruence is the difference (and manifest tension) between real and ideal self. I can see that the notion of ideal self coming from social expectations being similar to the ideal as presented in Vygotskian theory (I'm wrangling with the notion of "ideal" right now). Mr Fred Rogers seemed to be an adult who had positive regard to children and advocated for self-acceptance ("I like you just the way you are.") We see him doing it every time he is interacting with a child. I think he would call this advocacy for self-acceptance, nothing else but love. In the documentary he says (I paraphrase): "Children should feel special without the pressure of doing something sensational." Which some critics lambasted for creating attitudes of entitlement in children. I wondered about all this in contrast to the concept of perezhivanie. Does Vygotsky discuss concepts of love? OK, so that was my Rogers day, neighbor. Kind regards, Annalisa This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of The University of Nottingham Ningbo China. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with The University of Nottingham Ningbo China may be monitored as permitted by UK and Chinese legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/0d35a9ef/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Aug 12 23:52:05 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 06:52:05 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> References: , , , , <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo, Thank you for your post. I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using "people" to address him. If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I maintain it has to do with gender. If I may quote his post: "I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples." I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot of assumptions. QED. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what I'd said. Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, Alfredo. Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that would have been something entirely different, which is always an option when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't let anyone talk to you that way. There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he have the right to make those assumptions about me? If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation about jackasses all about me. A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, and I hope respectful, I am addressing it. I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it certainly wasn't for *my* benefit. Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender sensitivity does not trump what he said? That is a real question. It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of worldviews. Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. Especially with novices, as they are our future. I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it tedious. It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't deal with it from my point of view, did he? If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office. To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making recommendations to me that were not solicited. I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here. I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable. Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it. You say: "It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. " I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have addressed me in the past. You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that. I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an advertisement for "an eye for an eye." Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to positive regard*. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the original post subject title. Kind regards unconditionally, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/9698be5c/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Aug 13 00:27:23 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 07:27:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , , , , <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no>, Message-ID: Alfredo and venerable others, I hoped to respond to this: I had posted > "Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that." Alfredo responded > To me Vygotsky was pursuing a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach to the question of affect, and so I don't think your statement "has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition" would have made any sense to him. What is the relation of affect to thinking and this relation changes would have been closer to the kind of question I would have attributed to Vygotky's line of thinking. Damasio, who was also inspired by Spinoza, found that affect occurs before cognition, and that we require affect in order to think. So Alfredo, does that then mean Vygotsky put thought before affect, if I am understanding you properly in terms of dialectical materialism, with affect arising after? Another way to consider what you say is that he considered the *relation* of affect to thinking, which then could include then that affect does impact thinking (because it happens beforehand), and we certainly can vouch for that when we react before thinking things through. Alfredo, I would appreciate if you might say more what you mean when stating "a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach" I am not sure I understand what you mean. How Spinozist? How dialectical materialist? Remember this has to do in relation to positive regard, that Vygotsky was interested in positive regard BECAUSE OF affect, not because of cognition. I said what I did, perhaps not very clearly, because there is so much on thought and language in Vygotsky's work, but emotions and affect sem peripheral, they don't appear as prominently, and that is why I say it almost seems like something he put off for later. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/c31a75fc/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Aug 13 00:30:08 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 07:30:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Adam, I am very much looking forward to responding to your post, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Thank you so much for your participation, and for your three-year-old's patience! as you did write a fair amount! More soon! Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/616c7d00/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Mon Aug 13 03:09:26 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 10:09:26 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , , , , <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> Hi Annalisa, thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly appreciate your membership to this list. But I would like to clarify that I did not make any assumptions about what you meant to say, but treated your post for what it said; so please, don't say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here. Yes, I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid assuming this or that when we hear someone say something, but I do not want to end up in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally" etc. What I mean is that my assumption, the key in which I read posts here, is that all posts address all and everyone else in the list, even when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object, you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular, then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to. So, my concern is with a tendency that you have displayed in several occasions for admonishing others for having brought up issues of their concern to a discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of a post that you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was never asked". I did not think that post contributed to freedom at all, despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared project. Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up and pursued as topic, and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may have felt Peter's reaction had been language inappropriately. That is why I bring up the example about collateral learning and intentions, another related example is research about teachers asking questions with the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to make sure that your and anyone's else integrity is respected, I do not think that you contribute to anyone's else freedom by blaming others for not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this. I hope that everyone following this list recognises that I intervene when I feel freedom is threatened, and I am sure that you will remember occasions in which I have intervened in which the person I called attention for was white and male, while other female participants (including yourself) had been just as or more rude than Peter S' post at the time. In those other occasions, I called attention about what I felt was most relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not complain then. So, your call to my bias may be after all be biased too. Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing and orienting to our shared project and not any personal. ?Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing these interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues, which I see you have contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the trans-actional mode of collaboration. Best wishes, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 13 August 2018 08:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Alfredo, Thank you for your post. I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using "people" to address him. If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I maintain it has to do with gender. If I may quote his post: "I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples." I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot of assumptions. QED. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what I'd said. Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, Alfredo. Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that would have been something entirely different, which is always an option when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't let anyone talk to you that way. There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he have the right to make those assumptions about me? If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation about jackasses all about me. A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, and I hope respectful, I am addressing it. I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it certainly wasn't for *my* benefit. Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender sensitivity does not trump what he said? That is a real question. It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of worldviews. Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. Especially with novices, as they are our future. I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it tedious. It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't deal with it from my point of view, did he? If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office. To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making recommendations to me that were not solicited. I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here. I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable. Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it. You say: "It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. " I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have addressed me in the past. You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that. I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an advertisement for "an eye for an eye." Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to positive regard*. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the original post subject title. Kind regards unconditionally, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/796b3129/attachment.html From bazerman@education.ucsb.edu Mon Aug 13 07:56:53 2018 From: bazerman@education.ucsb.edu (Charles Bazerman) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 07:56:53 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: To be clear. Both Sullivan and Vygotsky believed in and acted on positive regard. Sullivan, however, examined anxiety as part of the self-system. BTW, as most of you know, Vygotsky was interested in the depth psychology of Freud and Adler, though he did not agree with everything they saidl Chuck ---- History will judge. On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:10 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Annalisa, > > > thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly appreciate your membership to > this list. > > > But I would like to clarify that I did not make any assumptions about what > you meant to say, but treated your post for what it said; so please, don't > say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is > precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here. Yes, > I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid > assuming this or that when we hear someone say something, but I do not > want to end up in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally" > etc. What I mean is that my assumption, the key in which I read posts > here, is that all posts address all and everyone else in the list, even > when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that > the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but > about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus > on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object, > you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared > goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular, > then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to. > > > So, my concern is with a tendency that you have displayed in several > occasions for admonishing others for having brought up issues of their > concern to a discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also > blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of a post > that you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been > "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was > never asked". I did not think that post contributed to freedom at all, > despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot > rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared > project. Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up > and pursued as topic, and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may > have felt Peter's reaction had been language inappropriately. That is why I > bring up the example about collateral learning and intentions, > another related example is research about teachers asking questions with > the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to > make sure that your and anyone's else integrity is respected, I do not > think that you contribute to anyone's else freedom by blaming others for > not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I > heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this. > > > I hope that everyone following this list recognises that I intervene when > I feel freedom is threatened, and I am sure that you will remember > occasions in which I have intervened in which the person I called attention > for was white and male, while other female participants (including > yourself) had been just as or more rude than Peter S' post at the time. In > those other occasions, I called attention about what I felt was most > relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not > complain then. So, your call to my bias may be after all be biased too. > Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases > when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing > and orienting to our shared project and not any personal. > > > ?Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing > these interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing > dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues, which I see you have > contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for > that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly > hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the > trans-actional mode of collaboration. > > > Best wishes, > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* 13 August 2018 08:52 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day > > > Alfredo, > > > Thank you for your post. > > > I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a > compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not > admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way > that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using > "people" to address him. > > > If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm > my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I > maintain it has to do with gender. > > > If I may quote his post: > > "I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t > know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or > take real people and turn them into philosophical examples." > > > I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to > Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive > aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It > lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot > of assumptions. QED. > > > Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege > to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It > was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what > I'd said. > > > Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, > Alfredo. > > > Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended > him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that > would have been something entirely different, which is always an option > when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one > made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I > received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to > call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and > that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place > for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire > to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't > let anyone talk to you that way. > > > There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do > not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... > how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he > have the right to make those assumptions about me? > > > If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell > out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to > that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of > everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am > responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person > calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out > of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation > about jackasses all about me. > > > A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think > quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that > conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, > and I hope respectful, I am addressing it. > > > I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were > it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it > certainly wasn't for *my* benefit. > > > Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender > sensitivity does not trump what he said? > > > That is a real question. > > > It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that > happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members > not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing > because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to > only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of > worldviews. > > > Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. > Especially with novices, as they are our future. > > > I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly > positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does > *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). > However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is > my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it > tedious. > > > It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that > is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post > whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal > with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel > on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't > deal with it from my point of view, did he? > > > If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include > understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the > pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write > that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking > role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there > before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if > that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I > don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or > offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out > loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office. > > > To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been > better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to > discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making > recommendations to me that were not solicited. > > > I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a > boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to > do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. > I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here. > > > I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest > in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the > dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage > and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable. > > Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you > also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the > conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was > following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up > the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it. > > You say: > "It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true > motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help > when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly > a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would > treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a > better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing > your integrity or identity. " > > I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering > cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me > down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your > accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your > intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have > addressed me in the past. > > You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should > or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to > converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your > intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that. > > I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type > of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* > no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated > others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an > advertisement for "an eye for an eye." > > Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had > very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was > peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I > wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to > positive regard*. > > Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. > > If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with > positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no > one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we > might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the > original post subject title. > > Kind regards unconditionally, > > Annalisa > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/dfe40ac9/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Mon Aug 13 08:54:55 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 15:54:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , , , , <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no>, , Message-ID: <1534175694935.24862@ils.uio.no> Annalisa, I have to admit that I don't fully know the answers to your questions. I do however try to understand some of these issues and I can share some of the main headlines that tend to help me make sense around them. With respect to the issue of whether affect or cognition comes first, this seems to be the debate that Vygosky begun writing extensively about in his unfinished last work, and his critique, I read Vygotsky arguing that the two opposite positions (affect comes first, affect comes later) is based on a wrong dichotomy splitting psychological (meanings, ideas, cognition) from physiological (visceral, bodily, feelings). Arguing for a Spinozist monist position, Vygotsky seem to be pursuing a psycho-physiciological account in which both aspects are accounted for in their unity. A dialectical materialist position, which seeks to understand phenomena as objective and historical, that is, as having emerged in and through history and not prior to or apart from this history, further demands that this unity is accounted for as having emerged in history. Vygotsky took this genetic approach in all other areas of investigation and I would expect him to also pursue this here. That is why I was commenting on the assertion of affect before or after or without cognition, because I think that for Vygotsky, the interesting thing was to examine how the type of affect that characterizes humans, which is one in which such societal concepts as solitude, dignity, etc... determine emotions. How do emotions develop into this more complex societal phenomena? Leont'ev shows this type of genetic explanation in his analysis of how irritability and sensation (basic features of living beings) emerged from the most simple life forms (Leont'ev, Problems of development of the mind, 1981). Yes, Vygotsky did not succeed much in carrying forward this investigation on the affects, despite clear statements that this was his goal. I am very excited to see, however, how there is a raise of interest and awareness on this area, and there are a number of articles on this aspect coming up soon in MCA. We should definitely get to discuss some of them. Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 13 August 2018 09:27 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Alfredo and venerable others, I hoped to respond to this: I had posted > "Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that." Alfredo responded > To me Vygotsky was pursuing a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach to the question of affect, and so I don't think your statement "has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition" would have made any sense to him. What is the relation of affect to thinking and this relation changes would have been closer to the kind of question I would have attributed to Vygotky's line of thinking. Damasio, who was also inspired by Spinoza, found that affect occurs before cognition, and that we require affect in order to think. So Alfredo, does that then mean Vygotsky put thought before affect, if I am understanding you properly in terms of dialectical materialism, with affect arising after? Another way to consider what you say is that he considered the *relation* of affect to thinking, which then could include then that affect does impact thinking (because it happens beforehand), and we certainly can vouch for that when we react before thinking things through. Alfredo, I would appreciate if you might say more what you mean when stating "a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach" I am not sure I understand what you mean. How Spinozist? How dialectical materialist? Remember this has to do in relation to positive regard, that Vygotsky was interested in positive regard BECAUSE OF affect, not because of cognition. I said what I did, perhaps not very clearly, because there is so much on thought and language in Vygotsky's work, but emotions and affect sem peripheral, they don't appear as prominently, and that is why I say it almost seems like something he put off for later. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/ba127e19/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Mon Aug 13 09:07:43 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Personal /Interpersonal / Transactional issues in xmca In-Reply-To: <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> References: , , , , <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no>, , <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <1534176463415.1350@ils.uio.no> Dear Annalisa, all, I am forwarding my last response to Annalisa with the hope of freeing the "Rogers day" discussion from other debate emerging along with it having to do with management of interactions here in xmca. I realize that my last response to Annalisa lends itself to an interpretation as my position being one of patronising and further shutting down a participant in particular, further deepening an asymmetrical and unjust model of discussion/collaboration. Of course, nothing is further from my intentions, but, as I already said, in a way, little matters what my intentions are if we don't get into a shared project of finding out how to move on together. And so, instead of hijacking an otherwise fruitful scholarly discussion on positive/negative affects in cultural historical theory, I thought it would be a good idea to create this space, in case Annalisa or anyone else would like to continue the discussion. The aim is also to move beyond the interpersonal, and getting into the transactional, which I did not mean as way to silence a possible trouble, but rather to turn it into something more like a project than as a back and forth between "I meant, you did not understand" "you meant, I did understand" problem. But other aims are welcome. I used a subject line, but please, feel free to change it. Alfredo ________________________________ From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: 13 August 2018 12:09 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi Annalisa, thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly appreciate your membership to this list. But I would like to clarify that I did not make any assumptions about what you meant to say, but treated your post for what it said; so please, don't say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here. Yes, I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid assuming this or that when we hear someone say something, but I do not want to end up in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally" etc. What I mean is that my assumption, the key in which I read posts here, is that all posts address all and everyone else in the list, even when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object, you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular, then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to. So, my concern is with a tendency that you have displayed in several occasions for admonishing others for having brought up issues of their concern to a discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of a post that you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was never asked". I did not think that post contributed to freedom at all, despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared project. Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up and pursued as topic, and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may have felt Peter's reaction had been language inappropriately. That is why I bring up the example about collateral learning and intentions, another related example is research about teachers asking questions with the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to make sure that your and anyone's else integrity is respected, I do not think that you contribute to anyone's else freedom by blaming others for not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this. I hope that everyone following this list recognises that I intervene when I feel freedom is threatened, and I am sure that you will remember occasions in which I have intervened in which the person I called attention for was white and male, while other female participants (including yourself) had been just as or more rude than Peter S' post at the time. In those other occasions, I called attention about what I felt was most relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not complain then. So, your call to my bias may be after all be biased too. Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing and orienting to our shared project and not any personal. ?Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing these interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues, which I see you have contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the trans-actional mode of collaboration. Best wishes, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 13 August 2018 08:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Alfredo, Thank you for your post. I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using "people" to address him. If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I maintain it has to do with gender. If I may quote his post: "I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples." I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot of assumptions. QED. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what I'd said. Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, Alfredo. Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that would have been something entirely different, which is always an option when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't let anyone talk to you that way. There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he have the right to make those assumptions about me? If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation about jackasses all about me. A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, and I hope respectful, I am addressing it. I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it certainly wasn't for *my* benefit. Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender sensitivity does not trump what he said? That is a real question. It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of worldviews. Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. Especially with novices, as they are our future. I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it tedious. It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't deal with it from my point of view, did he? If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office. To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making recommendations to me that were not solicited. I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here. I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable. Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it. You say: "It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. " I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have addressed me in the past. You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that. I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an advertisement for "an eye for an eye." Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to positive regard*. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the original post subject title. Kind regards unconditionally, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/bb4b53d9/attachment.html From schuckcschuck@gmail.com Mon Aug 13 14:33:02 2018 From: schuckcschuck@gmail.com (Christopher Schuck) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:33:02 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: <1534175694935.24862@ils.uio.no> References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534175694935.24862@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: I have not followed the XMCA discussions all that much this past year (sheer inability to keep up, as opposed to any discomfort with the venue per se), but was glad to see this one since I'm interested in both anxiety and humanistic psychology, and like Annalisa found myself comparing Mr. Rogers to Carl Rogers while watching the movie. Meta-commentary aside, I'm noticing a few different topics that may not be easily addressed at the same time: 1) the nature of unconditional positive regard (or "love" as broadly conceived by Fred Rogers) and its role in development; how essential is it? 2) The role of anxiety in development (whether framed positively or negatively), how does this relate to unconditional positive regard? 3) Were Fred and Carl Rogers trying to do the same thing, and what potentials do their projects hold for personal and social transformation? 4) What would Vygotsky have to say about any of these things, especially as they relate to the "self" - and do some of them show up in the concept (or psychological process) of perezhivanie? Just to pick out a few. I can't speak much to LSV's prospective take on anxiety and/or existential crisis. But there are different kinds of existential threats, and "threat to self" could designate something quite broad (the very idea of existential threat) or quite specific, depending on what we're talking about. I wonder if one way to reconceive it could be as a threat to one's ability to fully engage in social behavior or integrate into society in a liberating way (e.g., if deprived of one's "funds of identity"). If we're talking about perezhivanie, following Adam I would think that threat to self is certainly a part of perezhivanie -- maybe one important stage -- but also not the whole part. I think to do justice to the notion of crisis we must also account for despair, and the struggle to overcome or get beyond that despair. Perhaps this too could be described as a threat broadly speaking, but the two things feel different to me. Charles writes that Vygotsky was interested in "how people could grow under whatever set of conditions they experienced and how others could support that growth." Perhaps one difference between him and psychologists like Maslow and Rogers is that what counts as "growth" must also be understood in terms of the richness of the very culture and history amidst which the person is being supported for growth; that our positive potential most specifically means our potential to take on culture and become part of culture. From Charles's formulation and what others have said, it sounds like he did not directly engage with the notion of unconditional positive regard in the classic Rogerian sense (after all, he was not a psychotherapist or preschool teacher). But perhaps there is a way to reconceive the concept whereby it has less to do with valuing and accepting the self "deep down," than with inclusion: the idea that everyone by virtue of their human nature is worthy of active participation in society and capable of mastering social tasks, which might require require being assisted and supported toward this goal. One way to understand this assisting and supporting of people -- the provision of tools -- could be that it is often bound up in acts of love and fellowship. On Mr. Rogers, when Lady Aberlin reassures Daniel the Tiger that "I like you just the way you are" and they end up having that classic duet juxtaposing Daniel's nebbishy ruminations with Lady Aberlin's steady unconditional affirmations (really quite dialectical in its own way, when you think about it), she is not just saying I like *you *just the way you are; she is saying I'm your *friend *- that you are not alone and there is always a place for you in the world, so even when you don't have the capacity to believe there is someone else right here believing it for you. Or as Mr. Rogers liked to put it, "Will you be my neighbor?" This can be read through the lens of Christianity, but I like to think that maybe Vygotsky would have his own version too: something involving provision of tools and community and scaffolding and transformation and so forth. Perhaps this is a stretch and I'm overanalyzing here. But I also see tensions in the notion of unconditional positive regard, when it comes to the necessary conditions for real growth and transformation (I'll set aside the problems with essentialism about a "true self" and what this means). What if someone says "I like you just the way you are" at a moment when remaining the way you are would be intolerable, and even toxic; is this affirming? Is positive regard so reflective of our real nature? And then there's the question of how we know that the person we approach with positive regard is actually showing us who they really are, or is even aware of alternatives. Billy Joel likes you just the way you are, but presumably this is partly because you still satisfy traditional standards of feminine behavior. There is a fascinating exchange between the existential psychologist Rollo May and Carl Rogers from 1982, in which May (who still had great respect for Rogers) accuses him of ignoring "the problem of evil" and neglecting the vital dialectic between our positive and destructive tendencies that is central to both psychological and spiritual health. Some time earlier, Martin Buber responded to Roger's claim that "man is basically good" with, "man is basically good - and evil." And we saw in the movie how Fred Rogers struggled to find a response to the events of 9/11 that would make sense in his universe. I'm not sure how much it has to do with Vygotsky or CHAT, but the letter's worth reading (attached). May also had a lot to say about the existential value and liberating potential of anxiety, even as it also debilitates; his first book *Meaning of Anxiety *is basically an homage to Kierkegaard's *Concept of Anxiety *and updates many of those insights. Chris On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Annalisa, I have to admit that I don't fully know the answers to your > questions. I do however try to understand some of these issues and I can > share some of the main headlines that tend to help me make sense around > them. > > > With respect to the issue of whether affect or cognition comes first, this > seems to be the debate that Vygosky begun writing extensively about in his > unfinished last work, and his critique, I read Vygotsky arguing that the > two opposite positions (affect comes first, affect comes later) is based on > a wrong dichotomy splitting psychological (meanings, ideas, cognition) > from physiological (visceral, bodily, feelings). Arguing for a Spinozist > monist position, Vygotsky seem to be pursuing a psycho-physiciological > account in which both aspects are accounted for in their unity. A > dialectical materialist position, which seeks to understand phenomena as > objective and historical, that is, as having emerged in and through history > and not prior to or apart from this history, further demands that this > unity is accounted for as having emerged in history. Vygotsky took this > genetic approach in all other areas of investigation and I would expect him > to also pursue this here. That is why I was commenting on the assertion of > affect before or after or without cognition, because I think that for > Vygotsky, the interesting thing was to examine how the type of affect that > characterizes humans, which is one in which such societal concepts as > solitude, dignity, etc... determine emotions. How do emotions develop into > this more complex societal phenomena? Leont'ev shows this type of genetic > explanation in his analysis of how irritability and sensation (basic > features of living beings) emerged from the most simple life forms > (Leont'ev, Problems of development of the mind, 1981). > > Yes, Vygotsky did not succeed much in carrying forward this investigation > on the affects, despite clear statements that this was his goal. I am very > excited to see, however, how there is a raise of interest and awareness on > this area, and there are a number of articles on this aspect coming up soon > in MCA. We should definitely get to discuss some of them. > > Alfredo > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* 13 August 2018 09:27 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day > > Alfredo and venerable others, > > I hoped to respond to this: > > I had posted > "Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening > that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has > to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it > almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I > wrong about that." > > Alfredo responded > To me Vygotsky was pursuing a Spinozist, dialectical > materialist approach to the question of affect, and so I don't think your > statement "has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition" would have > made any sense to him. What is the relation of affect to thinking and this > relation changes would have been closer to the kind of question I would > have attributed to Vygotky's line of thinking. > > Damasio, who was also inspired by Spinoza, found that affect occurs before > cognition, and that we require affect in order to think. So Alfredo, does > that then mean Vygotsky put thought before affect, if I am understanding > you properly in terms of dialectical materialism, with affect arising after? > > Another way to consider what you say is that he considered the *relation* > of affect to thinking, which then could include then that affect does > impact thinking (because it happens beforehand), and we certainly can vouch > for that when we react before thinking things through. > > Alfredo, I would appreciate if you might say more what you mean when > stating "a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach" I am not sure I > understand what you mean. How Spinozist? How dialectical materialist? > > Remember this has to do in relation to positive regard, that Vygotsky was > interested in positive regard BECAUSE OF affect, not because of cognition. > I said what I did, perhaps not very clearly, because there is so much on > thought and language in Vygotsky's work, but emotions and affect sem > peripheral, they don't appear as prominently, and that is why I say it > almost seems like something he put off for later. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/3b68551f/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MayTheProblemofEvilLettertoRogers1982.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1068786 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/3b68551f/attachment-0001.pdf From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Aug 13 17:39:50 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 00:39:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Adam and venerable others, I acknowledge that we are sifting through the interpersonal and attempting to onramp to the transactional, and in that spirit I will set aside the topic of antagonizing emails of the immediate past for now, but I will briefly assert that I have received offlist emails from community members (who are women) who agree with me and my analysis, but tragically they will not post because, as I said earlier, women are expected to defer to the discomfort of others, and their view points are not considered important enough to hear "out loud," but only in an intimate circle of other women. What that means is that these women do not feel safe to post to the list. So those who praise your efforts to ensure this a safe place for discourse, well, respectfully... please don't feel so secure in that belief. Onwards! ...as Helena W signs her emails (She was not one of the women who replied). Adam, perezhivanie was the only Vygotskian concept I could think of that adheres to the emotional aspect of development and I was also reminded of the problem of the environment essay, thanks for bringing that up. I am almost hoping my friend Fernando L will post right about now, because his reading of Vygotskian/CHAT text is impressively encyclopedic and I think he would be able to identify some additional texts that might provide us with answers. I thought that "threat to self" is what Freud would say creates the unconscious, and I'm apologizing but my Freud reading is quite frugal if non-existent. In the Vedanta paradigm of mind, we would say that an obstruction is created in the mind. Just like roads, there can be different kinds of obstructions. There can be too much traffic, something blocks the way, bridges washed away, accidents, flat tires, etc. I'm guessing that Vygotsky's reply would be that the child, based upon the material on hand (i.e, the biological development completed up to that point, ? la Piaget) comes up with a solution of some kind, which may be an appropriately(but also unappropriate) functioning compensation, born from the struggle of the crisis. The danger is that unless a trauma is addressed, children's minds remain distorted until such time a new crisis arises later, perhaps because the initial compensation strategy no longer works, and then a new structure reveals itself. That is, when the child must work without the help of a therapeutic support. This is where and when the function of unconditional positive regard seems so critical. Particularly to a traumatized child. But even in the case that a child hasn't been traumatized there is something about positive regard that allows a kind of relaxation. Metaphorically, I visualize this like taking a wrinkled tablecloth, unfolding and unfurling it and allowing it to float above the table and rest upon it flat and neat and allowing the wrinkles to relax flat. Adam, I'm unsure if I understand what you mean by the unconscious being a symbolic tool. Would you say more about that? Thanks for posting the link and also your contribution. I haven't had the opportunity to check out your article, but I shall. "Funds of identity" Is an interesting phrase. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180814/484e26a1/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Aug 13 19:22:32 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 02:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534175694935.24862@ils.uio.no>, Message-ID: OK Chris, I recall that pathology and its connection to evil is a theme for you. Evil is not a topic that interests me, largely because I find it solipsistic. There is no way out of evil, except to banish it or destroy it, like a fallen angel. It is a Christian term and it is therefore religious, not scientific. It is also linked to the notion of original sin, which I do not find humanistic nor life affirming. I realize the concept of evil is necessary for some as an explanation for social ills, but I don't find it apt to explain anything, it is a term for scapegoating. Let's say there was a germ construct that could be identified as evil. We would want to find it sequester it, prod and poke it until we could find out its essence. The problem is that this does begin a bona fide witch hunt, identical to the Salem trials, The Devil's Hammer and all that jazz. Or, it becomes a pseudo science like phrenology. I might be wrong, but I'm not sure you will find much of an audience here when tossing about evil. It is a loaded term. Whether we want to accept the nature of humans as good vs evil, it is the case that it is quite rare that pathology *generates* from positive regard. Likely because (I assert) that humans are essentially good, and so I share Carl Rogers's stance that people are good and that the culture is what creates the spectacle of pathology and its breakdowns in the human self and spirit. I started to read the letter by May and I had to stop because he said that culture is made up of people, as if to state then the evil is within us. That makes no sense to me. Culture is something transcendent from its members, it doesn't reside IN people, it is something that exists between and among, and any single constituent could drop out (which does happen when generations die off), and the culture continues. True, there is a shift as members might leave, and new ones join, language use shifts, historical events make their mark. Culture is like an affordance, it is neither in the subject nor the environment, but present in both, in a dynamic way that activates when the circumstances are right. Consider the door knob. It is a latent item until such time a human wants to open or close a door. Doorknobs are door culture for humans, but not for domestic pets who become obstructed and rely upon their masters to open the doors for them. I do not think that dogs and cats perceive human door culture as evil, even if they had the cognitive wherewithall for such thoughts, even though closed or slamming doors may create pathologies for them, such as caught tails or bursting bladders. But while human culture may create pathologies for pet animals, if we were to call doorknobs as the loci for evil, it would be a strange assignment to try to eradicate all doorknobs because they are evil to dogs and cats. After all there are such things as cat- and dog-doors, sans doorknobs, and voila evil and its requirement for identification and eradication disappears. I also wanted to comment on something you had written about a "deep-down" self and inclusion. There must be an acceptance of self first before there can be inclusion. Inclusion is important, having been an indirect topic generated from this thread. But the positive regard in the unconditional ideal-sense, is what allows the child(or anyone really) to accept him or herself, and this relaxation into the self creates confidence and engenders curiosity which are necessary components for healthy social ties. Metaphorically it is like the map directory at shopping centers that say "You are here" to allow me a vantage point by which to orient to the environment. If I do not accept myself, then I may think that I am not worthy to be included. If I do not accept myself, I might be inclined to compare myself to others and be more easily aggravated with jealousy or contempt which may provide me a cause to author anti-social behaviors that exclude myself or others. This is why I like what Ellis said: "...he believed [patients] could, and had better, accept themselves and adopt unconditional positive regard of themselves whether or not their therapist or anyone else does." If one can't generate self acceptance in that light of positive regard, which is learned from a knowledgeable, caring other, then one will be caught in the webs of self-doubt and loathing for quite sometime. Thank you for writing such a lot on this. I could only comment on a few and sundry items, but there is a lot in your post, I'll leave for others to comment upon. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Christopher Schuck Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 3:33:02 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day I have not followed the XMCA discussions all that much this past year (sheer inability to keep up, as opposed to any discomfort with the venue per se), but was glad to see this one since I'm interested in both anxiety and humanistic psychology, and like Annalisa found myself comparing Mr. Rogers to Carl Rogers while watching the movie. Meta-commentary aside, I'm noticing a few different topics that may not be easily addressed at the same time: 1) the nature of unconditional positive regard (or "love" as broadly conceived by Fred Rogers) and its role in development; how essential is it? 2) The role of anxiety in development (whether framed positively or negatively), how does this relate to unconditional positive regard? 3) Were Fred and Carl Rogers trying to do the same thing, and what potentials do their projects hold for personal and social transformation? 4) What would Vygotsky have to say about any of these things, especially as they relate to the "self" - and do some of them show up in the concept (or psychological process) of perezhivanie? Just to pick out a few. I can't speak much to LSV's prospective take on anxiety and/or existential crisis. But there are different kinds of existential threats, and "threat to self" could designate something quite broad (the very idea of existential threat) or quite specific, depending on what we're talking about. I wonder if one way to reconceive it could be as a threat to one's ability to fully engage in social behavior or integrate into society in a liberating way (e.g., if deprived of one's "funds of identity"). If we're talking about perezhivanie, following Adam I would think that threat to self is certainly a part of perezhivanie -- maybe one important stage -- but also not the whole part. I think to do justice to the notion of crisis we must also account for despair, and the struggle to overcome or get beyond that despair. Perhaps this too could be described as a threat broadly speaking, but the two things feel different to me. Charles writes that Vygotsky was interested in "how people could grow under whatever set of conditions they experienced and how others could support that growth." Perhaps one difference between him and psychologists like Maslow and Rogers is that what counts as "growth" must also be understood in terms of the richness of the very culture and history amidst which the person is being supported for growth; that our positive potential most specifically means our potential to take on culture and become part of culture. From Charles's formulation and what others have said, it sounds like he did not directly engage with the notion of unconditional positive regard in the classic Rogerian sense (after all, he was not a psychotherapist or preschool teacher). But perhaps there is a way to reconceive the concept whereby it has less to do with valuing and accepting the self "deep down," than with inclusion: the idea that everyone by virtue of their human nature is worthy of active participation in society and capable of mastering social tasks, which might require require being assisted and supported toward this goal. One way to understand this assisting and supporting of people -- the provision of tools -- could be that it is often bound up in acts of love and fellowship. On Mr. Rogers, when Lady Aberlin reassures Daniel the Tiger that "I like you just the way you are" and they end up having that classic duet juxtaposing Daniel's nebbishy ruminations with Lady Aberlin's steady unconditional affirmations (really quite dialectical in its own way, when you think about it), she is not just saying I like you just the way you are; she is saying I'm your friend - that you are not alone and there is always a place for you in the world, so even when you don't have the capacity to believe there is someone else right here believing it for you. Or as Mr. Rogers liked to put it, "Will you be my neighbor?" This can be read through the lens of Christianity, but I like to think that maybe Vygotsky would have his own version too: something involving provision of tools and community and scaffolding and transformation and so forth. Perhaps this is a stretch and I'm overanalyzing here. But I also see tensions in the notion of unconditional positive regard, when it comes to the necessary conditions for real growth and transformation (I'll set aside the problems with essentialism about a "true self" and what this means). What if someone says "I like you just the way you are" at a moment when remaining the way you are would be intolerable, and even toxic; is this affirming? Is positive regard so reflective of our real nature? And then there's the question of how we know that the person we approach with positive regard is actually showing us who they really are, or is even aware of alternatives. Billy Joel likes you just the way you are, but presumably this is partly because you still satisfy traditional standards of feminine behavior. There is a fascinating exchange between the existential psychologist Rollo May and Carl Rogers from 1982, in which May (who still had great respect for Rogers) accuses him of ignoring "the problem of evil" and neglecting the vital dialectic between our positive and destructive tendencies that is central to both psychological and spiritual health. Some time earlier, Martin Buber responded to Roger's claim that "man is basically good" with, "man is basically good - and evil." And we saw in the movie how Fred Rogers struggled to find a response to the events of 9/11 that would make sense in his universe. I'm not sure how much it has to do with Vygotsky or CHAT, but the letter's worth reading (attached). May also had a lot to say about the existential value and liberating potential of anxiety, even as it also debilitates; his first book Meaning of Anxiety is basically an homage to Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety and updates many of those insights. Chris On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: Annalisa, I have to admit that I don't fully know the answers to your questions. I do however try to understand some of these issues and I can share some of the main headlines that tend to help me make sense around them. With respect to the issue of whether affect or cognition comes first, this seems to be the debate that Vygosky begun writing extensively about in his unfinished last work, and his critique, I read Vygotsky arguing that the two opposite positions (affect comes first, affect comes later) is based on a wrong dichotomy splitting psychological (meanings, ideas, cognition) from physiological (visceral, bodily, feelings). Arguing for a Spinozist monist position, Vygotsky seem to be pursuing a psycho-physiciological account in which both aspects are accounted for in their unity. A dialectical materialist position, which seeks to understand phenomena as objective and historical, that is, as having emerged in and through history and not prior to or apart from this history, further demands that this unity is accounted for as having emerged in history. Vygotsky took this genetic approach in all other areas of investigation and I would expect him to also pursue this here. That is why I was commenting on the assertion of affect before or after or without cognition, because I think that for Vygotsky, the interesting thing was to examine how the type of affect that characterizes humans, which is one in which such societal concepts as solitude, dignity, etc... determine emotions. How do emotions develop into this more complex societal phenomena? Leont'ev shows this type of genetic explanation in his analysis of how irritability and sensation (basic features of living beings) emerged from the most simple life forms (Leont'ev, Problems of development of the mind, 1981). Yes, Vygotsky did not succeed much in carrying forward this investigation on the affects, despite clear statements that this was his goal. I am very excited to see, however, how there is a raise of interest and awareness on this area, and there are a number of articles on this aspect coming up soon in MCA. We should definitely get to discuss some of them. Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 13 August 2018 09:27 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Alfredo and venerable others, I hoped to respond to this: I had posted > "Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that." Alfredo responded > To me Vygotsky was pursuing a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach to the question of affect, and so I don't think your statement "has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition" would have made any sense to him. What is the relation of affect to thinking and this relation changes would have been closer to the kind of question I would have attributed to Vygotky's line of thinking. Damasio, who was also inspired by Spinoza, found that affect occurs before cognition, and that we require affect in order to think. So Alfredo, does that then mean Vygotsky put thought before affect, if I am understanding you properly in terms of dialectical materialism, with affect arising after? Another way to consider what you say is that he considered the *relation* of affect to thinking, which then could include then that affect does impact thinking (because it happens beforehand), and we certainly can vouch for that when we react before thinking things through. Alfredo, I would appreciate if you might say more what you mean when stating "a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach" I am not sure I understand what you mean. How Spinozist? How dialectical materialist? Remember this has to do in relation to positive regard, that Vygotsky was interested in positive regard BECAUSE OF affect, not because of cognition. I said what I did, perhaps not very clearly, because there is so much on thought and language in Vygotsky's work, but emotions and affect sem peripheral, they don't appear as prominently, and that is why I say it almost seems like something he put off for later. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180814/15ae4660/attachment.html From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Mon Aug 13 20:33:15 2018 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 21:33:15 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I write now as someone who years ago gave up on xmca?primarily because of my experiences of sexism in responses to women vs. responses to men. My specific expertise in that area is that I began participating as a female-identified contributor. Now that I identify as male, I assume that when I weigh in on xmca I?ll be accorded the higher level of respect and leeway that I often saw accorded to male contributors. But what I want to say is simply this: This thread has smacked of ableism. This isn?t to discount anybody?s experience of sexism, but experiences of sexism don?t serve as an excuse for visiting other forms of prejudice on anybody. I?ve been appalled by how mental health diagnoses are represented and discussed (perhaps even by some folks who don?t live with a mental health diagnosis themselves), and I?m appalled by how someone who identified as holding an Othered mental health-based identity has been treated. I think this thread should end now, and we should move toward the better angels of our nature?or at least away from this topic. --Jacob McWilliams -- Jacob McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hi Adam and venerable others, > > > I acknowledge that we are sifting through the interpersonal and attempting > to onramp to the transactional, and in that spirit I will set aside the > topic of antagonizing emails of the immediate past for now, but I will > briefly assert that I have received offlist emails from community members > (who are women) who agree with me and my analysis, but tragically they will > not post because, as I said earlier, women are expected to defer to the > discomfort of others, and their view points are not considered important > enough to hear "out loud," but only in an intimate circle of other women. > What that means is that these women do not feel safe to post to the list. > So those who praise your efforts to ensure this a safe place for discourse, > well, respectfully... please don't feel so secure in that belief. > > > Onwards! ...as Helena W signs her emails (She was not one of the women who > replied). > > > Adam, perezhivanie was the only Vygotskian concept I could think of that > adheres to the emotional aspect of development and I was also reminded of > the problem of the environment essay, thanks for bringing that up. I am > almost hoping my friend Fernando L will post right about now, because his > reading of Vygotskian/CHAT text is impressively encyclopedic and I think he > would be able to identify some additional texts that might provide us with > answers. > > > I thought that "threat to self" is what Freud would say creates the > unconscious, and I'm apologizing but my Freud reading is quite frugal if > non-existent. In the Vedanta paradigm of mind, we would say that an > obstruction is created in the mind. Just like roads, there can be different > kinds of obstructions. There can be too much traffic, something blocks the > way, bridges washed away, accidents, flat tires, etc. > > > I'm guessing that Vygotsky's reply would be that the child, based upon the > material on hand (i.e, the biological development completed up to that > point, ? la Piaget) comes up with a solution of some kind, which may be an > appropriately(but also unappropriate) functioning compensation, born from > the struggle of the crisis. The danger is that unless a trauma is > addressed, children's minds remain distorted until such time a new crisis > arises later, perhaps because the initial compensation strategy no longer > works, and then a new structure reveals itself. That is, when the child > must work without the help of a therapeutic support. > > > This is where and when the function of unconditional positive regard seems > so critical. Particularly to a traumatized child. But even in the case that > a child hasn't been traumatized there is something about positive regard > that allows a kind of relaxation. Metaphorically, I visualize this like > taking a wrinkled tablecloth, unfolding and unfurling it and allowing it to > float above the table and rest upon it flat and neat and allowing the > wrinkles to relax flat. > > > Adam, I'm unsure if I understand what you mean by the unconscious being a > symbolic tool. Would you say more about that? > > > Thanks for posting the link and also your contribution. I haven't had the > opportunity to check out your article, but I shall. "Funds of identity" Is > an interesting phrase. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/df21ff48/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Aug 13 23:01:23 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 06:01:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Jacob and venerable others, The irony that you must shower your own vitriol and name-calling on a thread having to do with unconditional positive regard and order by grand fiat to shut down this thread is startling. Talk about gendered interactions. I guess you will get what you deserve: a higher level of respect. So... OK. I will share that there have been interactions offlist [in the past] sent to me by "people" that have been untoward and petty. It just doesn't stop does it? I hope "people" are proud for what commenced on a post about Mr. Fred Rogers and its descent into a flame war. I say gee whiz to the higher angels, or is it trolls? Let's just say "people" are not so innocent as they seem. I'm sure there is a great gnashing of teeth while eating popcorn going on. Jacob, there is a history. At some point "people" have to be responsible for themselves and what they say and how it affects others. I include myself and I have taken responsibility, I think I've said what I needed to say, and now I'm ready to move on. I'm guessing you can do that too, but that is on your timescale. I hear you, I respect your post and where it comes from, however the view is not fully informed. It will remain that way because I'm not responsible for the acts of others or to divulge what goes on offlist on the list. I suggest, though you are free to do your own bidding, not to judge quickly what transpires by appearances alone, of what can be seen or known first off. And also, is it too much to ask to not descend into a "suffering contest" of who has disabilities and who doesn't, whose disability is more of a disability, who is other and who isn't and who is more other. And which otherness has more value, or should I say less. I'm not going to fall into that trap. The disabled can make mistakes, be rude, be sexist, show insensitivity, etc, just like anyone who isn't disabled. I initiated a discussion on positive regard, unconditional positive regard, somehow someway there seems to be a force to try to shut that down, unconditionally. Where is this coming from? Am I the only person seeing the weirdness of this? I do thank you for pointing out that there is sexism on this list. You have a unique position. Ableism? I'm not persuaded, and doubt I can be. Not to say it has never happened, but I do not think this is an example of it. Though I believe the outside pressure and appearances to make it so are quite, quite compelling. If you would like to post more on these list-interaction topics, I believe that Alfredo started a thread on that. May I request, and quite respectfully, that if you don't want to participate in discussion concerning unconditional positive regard that you not post off-topic here and post on the other thread? Is that OK with you? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180814/72c9aded/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Mon Aug 13 23:54:29 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 06:54:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: <1534229658321.82971@ils.uio.no> By all means, yes, please, use that other thread for interaction issues and contribute sustaining productive subject-oriented dialogue here. Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 14 August 2018 08:01 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi Jacob and venerable others, The irony that you must shower your own vitriol and name-calling on a thread having to do with unconditional positive regard and order by grand fiat to shut down this thread is startling. Talk about gendered interactions. I guess you will get what you deserve: a higher level of respect. So... OK. I will share that there have been interactions offlist [in the past] sent to me by "people" that have been untoward and petty. It just doesn't stop does it? I hope "people" are proud for what commenced on a post about Mr. Fred Rogers and its descent into a flame war. I say gee whiz to the higher angels, or is it trolls? Let's just say "people" are not so innocent as they seem. I'm sure there is a great gnashing of teeth while eating popcorn going on. Jacob, there is a history. At some point "people" have to be responsible for themselves and what they say and how it affects others. I include myself and I have taken responsibility, I think I've said what I needed to say, and now I'm ready to move on. I'm guessing you can do that too, but that is on your timescale. I hear you, I respect your post and where it comes from, however the view is not fully informed. It will remain that way because I'm not responsible for the acts of others or to divulge what goes on offlist on the list. I suggest, though you are free to do your own bidding, not to judge quickly what transpires by appearances alone, of what can be seen or known first off. And also, is it too much to ask to not descend into a "suffering contest" of who has disabilities and who doesn't, whose disability is more of a disability, who is other and who isn't and who is more other. And which otherness has more value, or should I say less. I'm not going to fall into that trap. The disabled can make mistakes, be rude, be sexist, show insensitivity, etc, just like anyone who isn't disabled. I initiated a discussion on positive regard, unconditional positive regard, somehow someway there seems to be a force to try to shut that down, unconditionally. Where is this coming from? Am I the only person seeing the weirdness of this? I do thank you for pointing out that there is sexism on this list. You have a unique position. Ableism? I'm not persuaded, and doubt I can be. Not to say it has never happened, but I do not think this is an example of it. Though I believe the outside pressure and appearances to make it so are quite, quite compelling. If you would like to post more on these list-interaction topics, I believe that Alfredo started a thread on that. May I request, and quite respectfully, that if you don't want to participate in discussion concerning unconditional positive regard that you not post off-topic here and post on the other thread? Is that OK with you? Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180814/96a2c114/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Aug 17 16:35:56 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 16:35:56 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure Line Faculty Position in Applied Developmental Psychology at George Mason University In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A job. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thalia R Goldstein Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 8:00 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Tenure Line Faculty Position in Applied Developmental Psychology at George Mason University To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" *Tenure-Line Assistant Professor in Applied Developmental Psychology* The George Mason University Psychology Department invites applications for a tenure-track Assistant Professor Position beginning in the Fall 2019 semester. The position is in the Applied Development program, which offers both master?s and doctoral degrees. George Mason University has a strong institutional commitment to the achievement of excellence and diversity among its faculty and staff, and strongly encourages candidates to apply who will enrich Mason?s academic and culturally inclusive environment. The Department of Psychology (https://psychology.gmu.edu/) has nearly 40 faculty, over 1,000 undergraduate majors, and over 200 graduate students. We are one of the largest departments in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, which is the largest academic unit at George Mason. Our department is guided by three primary foci. First, the department is focused on fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion at all levels in our department and, more broadly, in our field. This mission is facilitated by our location in one of the most diverse regions of the country and by George Mason?s status as the most diverse university in Virginia ( https://www2.gmu.edu/about-mason/diversity-mason). Second, in line with George Mason?s Carnegie classification as a Research I university and its strategic goal of conducting research of consequence, our department focuses on being a prominent center for translational research. Faculty and students in our department conduct high quality, rigorous research on pressing problems, and work to disseminate knowledge in both academic and non-academic circles. Third, we focus strongly on our training of doctoral students across all five of our doctoral programs (applied developmental psychology, clinical psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, cognitive and behavioral neuroscience, and human factors and applied cognition). Faculty are highly dedicated to the success of our doctoral students, and our programs have continually increased in rankings over the years. *Responsibilities:* The successful candidate is expected to maintain a highly productive and impactful research program, teach graduate and undergraduate courses in developmental psychology and/or quantitative methods, and direct and advise graduate students. *Required Qualifications:* We are looking for individuals with a Ph.D. in developmental psychology (or a closely related field); a strong research record; and evidence of, or potential for, excellence at teaching/mentoring and obtaining external funding. Candidates who will have a PhD conferred before the start of Fall 2019 classes will be considered eligible for this posting. *Preferred Qualifications:* The area of specialization is open; however, the department is especially interested in applicants whose scholarship centers on conceptually and methodologically rigorous research with diverse children and youth (e.g., stigma, culture, normative development, identities, and inherent strengths), development of basic cognitive processes with an applied bent, development during infancy?toddlerhood or adolescence, and/or human developmental neuroscience. We are open to compelling cases of other research areas that would fit in with the applied nature of our program and the current faculty. All hires in the department are expected to be highly competent in quantitative methods. Additionally, applicants who have a history of extramural funding, a strong publication record, the ability to mentor and teach quantitative methods, and the ability to contribute to a culturally inclusive environment will be given preference. *Special Instructions to Applicants:* For full consideration, applicants must apply for position number F6168z at http://jobs.gmu.edu/; complete and submit the online application; and upload a cover letter, research and teaching statements, and a CV. In addition, three letters of reference should be submitted in one of the following ways: uploaded online, e-mailed to sridley@gmu.edu, or sent via USPS mail to Ms. Susan Ridley, ADP Search Coordinator, George Mason University, MS 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444. The search committee will begin reviewing applications on October 1, 2018, and continue until the position is filled. Women, minority, and international candidates are particularly encouraged to apply. ---- Thalia R. Goldstein, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Applied Developmental Psychology Department of Psychology George Mason University 4400 University Drive, 3F5 Fairfax, VA 22030 USA 703-993-6460 Director, Social Skills, Imagination, and Theatre (SSIT) Lab Editor, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts Blog, The Mind On Stage Twitter, @ThaliaGoldstein _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180817/27e3669a/attachment.html From preiss.xmca@gmail.com Sun Aug 19 11:26:01 2018 From: preiss.xmca@gmail.com (David Preiss) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:26:01 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new and enlarged edition of "Vygotsky and Creativity" has been published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is great news, Ana! Congratulations! David On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:02 PM Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote: > Dear friends and colleagues, > > > > We happy to let you all know that, after a long wait and many unexpected > delays, the second edition was finally published, of ?Vygotsky and > Creativity: A Cultural-historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and the > Arts? ? by M. Cathrene Connery, Vera John-Steiner and Ana > Marjanovic-Shane!! > > > > Check out the flyer I am sending! > > > > The new edition has four more chapters ? including now the following > authors: > > > > Vera John-Steiner, M. Cathrene Connery, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Anna > Stetsenko, Lois Holzman, Biljana C. Fredriksen, Patricia St. John, Artin > G?ncu?, Barry Oreck, Jessica Nicoll, Peter Smagorinsky, Seana Moran, Beth > Ferholt, Carrie Lobman, Michelle Zoss, and Larry and Francine Smolucha. See > the attached Table of Contents! > > > > Take care, > > > > Ana and Cathrene > > > > > > -- > > *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* > > Phone: 267-334-2905 > > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180819/824833f7/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Aug 19 11:32:25 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:32:25 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] An excellent job and an excellent post doc Message-ID: University of Chicago. See attached. mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180819/d3fd058d/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Migration_Multiculturalism_ad_2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 62863 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180819/d3fd058d/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AssistantAssociate Learning&Dev.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57782 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180819/d3fd058d/attachment-0001.pdf From kplakits@gmail.com Sun Aug 19 16:30:59 2018 From: kplakits@gmail.com (Katerina Plakitsi) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 02:30:59 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: A new and enlarged edition of "Vygotsky and Creativity" has been published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow! Congrats! Can?t wait to read it! Katerina Plakitsi ISCAR President ???? ???, 25 ???? 2018 ???? 01:02 ? ??????? Ana Marjanovic-Shane < anamshane@gmail.com> ??????: > Dear friends and colleagues, > > > > We happy to let you all know that, after a long wait and many unexpected > delays, the second edition was finally published, of ?Vygotsky and > Creativity: A Cultural-historical Approach to Play, Meaning Making, and the > Arts? ? by M. Cathrene Connery, Vera John-Steiner and Ana > Marjanovic-Shane!! > > > > Check out the flyer I am sending! > > > > The new edition has four more chapters ? including now the following > authors: > > > > Vera John-Steiner, M. Cathrene Connery, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Anna > Stetsenko, Lois Holzman, Biljana C. Fredriksen, Patricia St. John, Artin > G?ncu?, Barry Oreck, Jessica Nicoll, Peter Smagorinsky, Seana Moran, Beth > Ferholt, Carrie Lobman, Michelle Zoss, and Larry and Francine Smolucha. See > the attached Table of Contents! > > > > Take care, > > > > Ana and Cathrene > > > > > > -- > > *Ana Marjanovic-Shane* > > Phone: 267-334-2905 > > Email: anamshane@gmail.com > > > -- Katerina Plakitsi *ISCAR President* *Professor of Science Education* *Head of the Dept. of E**arly Childhood Education* *School of Education * *University of Ioannina, Greece* *tel. +302651005771* *fax. +302651005842* *mobile.phone +306972898463* *Skype name: katerina.plakitsi3* https://www.iscar.org/ http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits www.epoque-project.eu http://bdfprojects.wixsite.com/mindset http://www.lib.uoi.gr/serp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isZAbefnRmo&t=7s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180820/a27ec70d/attachment.html From djwdoc@yahoo.com Mon Aug 20 01:02:47 2018 From: djwdoc@yahoo.com (Douglas Williams) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:02:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <941964784.9979687.1534752167126@mail.yahoo.com> Hi, everyone-- I'm going to reply to this earlier post, and bypass the others for the time being, which has the look of a misunderstanding. Forgive me if this sounds na?ve or off point, but it is something for which Annalisa's comments struck a chord.? As someone engaged in industrial work practice, and with enough trial and error experience to have seen what worked and what didn't, Kurt Lewin's Action Research seems a practical extension at the adult economic level for what Fred Rogers advocated for children in development: Instead of an autocratic order-and-obedience approach, based on rules and discipline, where the manager "knows," and the worker carries out actions by direction, it is more productive--in quantifiable terms of measurable output and quality--to try to create a system of shared responsibility, in which leaders are mentors who teach, and those who report to them are nurtured, their ideas sought, their opinions respected, as they collectively engage in an exploration of ways to do their work more effectively, more productively. To the extent that I've been able to work in such systems, and help to maintain them, I think there's something important here. Establishing value in the community in which one works, and the things that one is producing, and the quality that one is delivering, in my experience very much is related to the sense that the individuals in that community matter, and that they have a sense that their community has an investment in them, personally. Participation in decision-making comes from the basis of one's ability to understand more fully the technical issues one's group is trying to address. And if the organization is working well, then the leader actually does less direct leading, in the typical forms of monitoring productivity, or ordering subordinates what methods to use, than transmitting the goal, and preserving the ability of the group to engage in team problem-solving to address that goal.? I think charisma, in the form of the response one receives by communicating that you value people as people, and because you value them, you expect them to be successful in ways neither you nor they can yet imagine, is precisely what you need to achieve economically. That doesn't mean that you can't say that people failed, but it does mean that you can't say that they failed because they are stupid people (you wouldn't have hired them if they were), or start micromanaging them prevent them from their inevitable mistakes, because they aren't you. It doesn't mean that you can't provide more mentoring, or more training, or say that someone is taking the wrong approach. But it has to be done in the form of validating of the individual as an agent, a stakeholder in the common goal. And it should ideally be done in discussion and consensus, in an environment in which everyone is learning, not scolding. To the extent that people can find a sense of validation as an agent in the world, helping a community of peers at varying levels of experience and understanding, and mentors, helping the group to engage in the work of understanding and production needed to produce the goal, to that extent work can be emancipating as anything people can engage with in daily life.? The direction of society and industrial practice is full of autocratic strains, of leadership asserted, rather than earned, demanded from others as due rather than extended by others with hope. It seems to me, as someone who sees the tug of war that goes on in many different areas of our common experience together, that it wouldn't hurt to step out of seeing this is a problem of an academic research question, or a work problem, or a question of economics, but as a problem generally of dealing with denial, repression, and exclusion that is happening to families, communities, workplaces, and far too much of the lifeworld these days in which we all live. So I think there is a good deal to be said to go back to first principles, and to think what children need, because adults need it too.? For me, I think this is one of the aspects that has struck me as being an important aspect of the narrative arts, from the ancient Greeks onward, the part that Socrates (or Plato's version of him) rejects in The Republic. The Ancient Greek dramas were a form of social problem-solving. Dante and Milton both discussed the political issues of their day in their religious epics. The problem-describing and solving aspect of narrative an assertion that Shelley makes in saying that poets were the unelected legislators of the world, and William Carlos Williams was getting at in saying that?It is difficult to get the news from poems yet men die every day for lack of what is found there. And in this context, it is the imagination of a kinder neighborhood than one's own that makes children listen to Rogers, and adults, too. It is the ideal of a kinder workplace, that really sees in someone one part of their potential, even if it is not visible now, and maybe just a small part of the vast amount of what could be, that makes work empowering. It is only through interactions in a community that cares that people are able to become whole--really, to come into being as people, rather than shriveled imposters in their own minds, as alas, we see in the current President of the United States. That this nation has such a president is a terrible commentary on the nature of our communities and lifeworld.? So in that sense, I think the narratives of Mr. Rogers imaginary neighborhood are related to the democratic leadership that Lewin talk about--and I would be interested in having references to where they might relate more specifically to things in CHAT theory too, as part of my own development in a world of practice, where I find myself continually in need of learning. ? Regards,Doug On ?Saturday?, ?August? ?11?, ?2018? ?10?:?51?:?40? ?PM? ?PDT, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: Hi Peter and Charles and venerable others, Well first of all I certainly did not mean to be crude myself when I spoke of anxiety as "weakness" which is why I put it in quotes. I understand anxiety can be debilitating, and I did not intend to be flip about it (positive regards to Peter). No one likes to be anxious, it is a very negative feeling, but there is something about the nature of anxiety in which it makes us feel weakened, not strong. If I might point out how universally it is that anxiety is an unwelcomed experience because it seems to obstruct us from performing our best, or just from feeling strong in ourselves, vulnerable. What is the purpose of anxiety? We agree that the virtue of Vygotsky's approaches arises from the ways in which he looked optimistically rather than orient from limitations of deficiencies and pathologies. What can the patient do, not what can the patient not do. His work was not about bell curves nor was he interested in defining what was normal. What I've always admired about the work is that it provides a pathway to consider outliers. But getting back to the Rogers? I was considering in my post the importance of positive regard. There is magic in it. At the same time, is so easy to take it for granted. Whether we are dealing with growing children, as Fred Rogers did, or dealing with unwell patients therapeutically as Carl Rogers did. (I find the title of a work of C Rogers, "On Becoming a Person" to be a very compelling one) Development is much easier when we don't have to deal with the pollution of ridicule or anxiety-producing interactions and I think that is true in the therapeutic relationship too, even experimental democracies. Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that. I understand that he looked to Spinoza to consider the place for emotions, and then there is meaning. If one studies Vygotsky and neglects to understand what meaning means to his work, well...the work would be meaningless ! ? If you see the film Won't You Be My Neighbor and watch how Fred Rogers speaks to children, how they are utterly mesmerized by him, I almost wonder if Vygotsky had that same sort of charisma with the people around him. What is the function of kindness and positive regard? I looked up the wiki page on Roger's "Unconditional positive regard" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard and it mentions at the tippy top: "The central hypothesis of this approach can be briefly stated. It is that the individual has within him or her self vast resources for self-understanding, for altering her or his self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behavior?and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided." and then later: "The main factor in unconditional positive regard is the ability to isolate behaviors from the person who displays them." The section "Criticism" on that page, Ruth Sanford argues how we can't hold unconditional positive regard to everyone we meet (that this quality is dependent upon how deep the relationship is), though I disagree and I believe that we can hold positive and it is a matter of habit and inner persistence to cultivate unconditional positive regard for everyone, including the self. Then Albert Ellis seemed to think there is a conundrum about the "unconditional" in unconditional positive regard, because the idea is that the client cannot learn to have unconditional positive self-regard unless it comes from the therapist first, which is itself a condition. (Of course I'm thinking, but this is also Vygotskian because it is first outside, then inside! It is social! But does that mean it is never there, or does it mean it is latent?) Additionally: "While Ellis strongly supported unconditional positive regard of clients, he believed they could, and had better, accept themselves and adopt unconditional positive regard of themselves whether or not their therapist or anyone else does." Which seems to say that positive regard is necessary for self-growth. And the lack of it is actually an obstruction, which means that positive regard is the necessary condition, it is an engine for growth. (Some might call it love). So when I think about positive regard, whether conditional or not, what is interesting is that it MEANS something, it is?an essential ingredient to our growth and development. WHY IS THAT? What does it do for us? Then, (for contrast) how does positive regard relate to judgement and anxiety? It seems it is the absence of judgement and anxiety. Judgement and anxiety (to me) are products arising after dividing ourselves from something, they diminish us. I don't believe judgement and anxiety can occur if there is unconditional positive (self) regard. There's a thought experiment for you.? Having said that, I am considering Peter's condition, and I don't mean to say that he has no positive self-regard conditional or unconditional or that his anxiety is a product of low-esteem. I don't mean this at all. But certainly there can be a possibility for managing anxious moments through having positive regard and having it unconditionally, whether from a fellow traveler or from within (with self talk). It might be cheaper than medication and more effective in the long run. Though I understand that might not present an immediate solution. Where I'm going is this: What is anodyne of that positive regard? How does it operate? Why does it work (when it does work)? I am not sure if I am quite making my point, but thank you for allowing me the attempt make it. Kind regards, without condition! Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180820/cc78810e/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Aug 20 19:36:03 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 02:36:03 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: <941964784.9979687.1534752167126@mail.yahoo.com> References: , <941964784.9979687.1534752167126@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Douglas, Thank you for re-tindering the flame of original intentions. I would like to add to what you stated "to try to create a system of shared responsibility," there must also be an accord concerning consent as well. Not all people are mentors and not all are mentees, but of course there is a great need for both to bring novices into expertise and for experts to remember what it is like to have beginner's mind, for continuity to exist across knowledge lineages and across generations. These strands are not so visible, and it's much like crashing weddings to participate in that kind of give and take. When you say,"So I think there is a good deal to be said to go back to first principles, and to think what children need, because adults need it too." That was something I intended but perhaps I did not say so easily as you did. Really we each want to be safely vulnerable and feel that we matters, and that when people listen to us, it is with positive regard that I witnessed in documentary footage when Fred Rogers is relating directly to children in the room. There might be a part of us that cringes at the manner that he speaks to children, but I wonder if that says more about our defensive habits to protect our vulnerability than it says about him. That's why I remain convinced that courage and curiosity, two qualities I saw in Fred Rogers during these interactions, are worthwhile qualities to nourish in ourselves. I'm not sure if I am articulating this very well, but it seems that the gaze we participate so readily (perhaps because of today's media literacy we are now inured from the barrage of insults and division in the agora) is to gawk at the victims of hurt and the action of wounding so much easier than we do at the perpetrators who enact the harm (aka victim blaming). With this sort of gaze, the distraction becomes complete, because the flow that would allow something beautiful to emerge has been interrupted and misdirected. That is frequently how children feel silenced and come to feel that what they think and feel are not important. Then, we also suffer a loss because we do not understand the full dimension of lost opportunities (which is impossible to know, really), which I think you faintly captured for me when you said "you expect [those of your community] to be successful in ways neither you nor they can yet imagine." That that opportunity for spontaneity becomes forfeit when there isn't the space or trust for kindness. It's the interrupted daydream, instead of a sensed, relaxed wondering-perceiving that could be done together (in partnership or in community) and in flow. There is so much in your post that I will rest and cogitate more upon it. Thanks. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Douglas Williams Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:02:47 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi, everyone-- I'm going to reply to this earlier post, and bypass the others for the time being, which has the look of a misunderstanding. Forgive me if this sounds na?ve or off point, but it is something for which Annalisa's comments struck a chord. As someone engaged in industrial work practice, and with enough trial and error experience to have seen what worked and what didn't, Kurt Lewin's Action Research seems a practical extension at the adult economic level for what Fred Rogers advocated for children in development: Instead of an autocratic order-and-obedience approach, based on rules and discipline, where the manager "knows," and the worker carries out actions by direction, it is more productive--in quantifiable terms of measurable output and quality--to try to create a system of shared responsibility, in which leaders are mentors who teach, and those who report to them are nurtured, their ideas sought, their opinions respected, as they collectively engage in an exploration of ways to do their work more effectively, more productively. To the extent that I've been able to work in such systems, and help to maintain them, I think there's something important here. Establishing value in the community in which one works, and the things that one is producing, and the quality that one is delivering, in my experience very much is related to the sense that the individuals in that community matter, and that they have a sense that their community has an investment in them, personally. Participation in decision-making comes from the basis of one's ability to understand more fully the technical issues one's group is trying to address. And if the organization is working well, then the leader actually does less direct leading, in the typical forms of monitoring productivity, or ordering subordinates what methods to use, than transmitting the goal, and preserving the ability of the group to engage in team problem-solving to address that goal. I think charisma, in the form of the response one receives by communicating that you value people as people, and because you value them, you expect them to be successful in ways neither you nor they can yet imagine, is precisely what you need to achieve economically. That doesn't mean that you can't say that people failed, but it does mean that you can't say that they failed because they are stupid people (you wouldn't have hired them if they were), or start micromanaging them prevent them from their inevitable mistakes, because they aren't you. It doesn't mean that you can't provide more mentoring, or more training, or say that someone is taking the wrong approach. But it has to be done in the form of validating of the individual as an agent, a stakeholder in the common goal. And it should ideally be done in discussion and consensus, in an environment in which everyone is learning, not scolding. To the extent that people can find a sense of validation as an agent in the world, helping a community of peers at varying levels of experience and understanding, and mentors, helping the group to engage in the work of understanding and production needed to produce the goal, to that extent work can be emancipating as anything people can engage with in daily life. The direction of society and industrial practice is full of autocratic strains, of leadership asserted, rather than earned, demanded from others as due rather than extended by others with hope. It seems to me, as someone who sees the tug of war that goes on in many different areas of our common experience together, that it wouldn't hurt to step out of seeing this is a problem of an academic research question, or a work problem, or a question of economics, but as a problem generally of dealing with denial, repression, and exclusion that is happening to families, communities, workplaces, and far too much of the lifeworld these days in which we all live. So I think there is a good deal to be said to go back to first principles, and to think what children need, because adults need it too. For me, I think this is one of the aspects that has struck me as being an important aspect of the narrative arts, from the ancient Greeks onward, the part that Socrates (or Plato's version of him) rejects in The Republic. The Ancient Greek dramas were a form of social problem-solving. Dante and Milton both discussed the political issues of their day in their religious epics. The problem-describing and solving aspect of narrative an assertion that Shelley makes in saying that poets were the unelected legislators of the world, and William Carlos Williams was getting at in saying that It is difficult to get the news from poems yet men die every day for lack of what is found there. And in this context, it is the imagination of a kinder neighborhood than one's own that makes children listen to Rogers, and adults, too. It is the ideal of a kinder workplace, that really sees in someone one part of their potential, even if it is not visible now, and maybe just a small part of the vast amount of what could be, that makes work empowering. It is only through interactions in a community that cares that people are able to become whole--really, to come into being as people, rather than shriveled imposters in their own minds, as alas, we see in the current President of the United States. That this nation has such a president is a terrible commentary on the nature of our communities and lifeworld. So in that sense, I think the narratives of Mr. Rogers imaginary neighborhood are related to the democratic leadership that Lewin talk about--and I would be interested in having references to where they might relate more specifically to things in CHAT theory too, as part of my own development in a world of practice, where I find myself continually in need of learning. Regards, Doug On ?Saturday?, ?August? ?11?, ?2018? ?10?:?51?:?40? ?PM? ?PDT, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: Hi Peter and Charles and venerable others, Well first of all I certainly did not mean to be crude myself when I spoke of anxiety as "weakness" which is why I put it in quotes. I understand anxiety can be debilitating, and I did not intend to be flip about it (positive regards to Peter). No one likes to be anxious, it is a very negative feeling, but there is something about the nature of anxiety in which it makes us feel weakened, not strong. If I might point out how universally it is that anxiety is an unwelcomed experience because it seems to obstruct us from performing our best, or just from feeling strong in ourselves, vulnerable. What is the purpose of anxiety? We agree that the virtue of Vygotsky's approaches arises from the ways in which he looked optimistically rather than orient from limitations of deficiencies and pathologies. What can the patient do, not what can the patient not do. His work was not about bell curves nor was he interested in defining what was normal. What I've always admired about the work is that it provides a pathway to consider outliers. But getting back to the Rogers? I was considering in my post the importance of positive regard. There is magic in it. At the same time, is so easy to take it for granted. Whether we are dealing with growing children, as Fred Rogers did, or dealing with unwell patients therapeutically as Carl Rogers did. (I find the title of a work of C Rogers, "On Becoming a Person" to be a very compelling one) Development is much easier when we don't have to deal with the pollution of ridicule or anxiety-producing interactions and I think that is true in the therapeutic relationship too, even experimental democracies. Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that. I understand that he looked to Spinoza to consider the place for emotions, and then there is meaning. If one studies Vygotsky and neglects to understand what meaning means to his work, well...the work would be meaningless ! ? If you see the film Won't You Be My Neighbor and watch how Fred Rogers speaks to children, how they are utterly mesmerized by him, I almost wonder if Vygotsky had that same sort of charisma with the people around him. What is the function of kindness and positive regard? I looked up the wiki page on Roger's "Unconditional positive regard" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard and it mentions at the tippy top: "The central hypothesis of this approach can be briefly stated. It is that the individual has within him or her self vast resources for self-understanding, for altering her or his self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behavior?and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided." and then later: "The main factor in unconditional positive regard is the ability to isolate behaviors from the person who displays them." The section "Criticism" on that page, Ruth Sanford argues how we can't hold unconditional positive regard to everyone we meet (that this quality is dependent upon how deep the relationship is), though I disagree and I believe that we can hold positive and it is a matter of habit and inner persistence to cultivate unconditional positive regard for everyone, including the self. Then Albert Ellis seemed to think there is a conundrum about the "unconditional" in unconditional positive regard, because the idea is that the client cannot learn to have unconditional positive self-regard unless it comes from the therapist first, which is itself a condition. (Of course I'm thinking, but this is also Vygotskian because it is first outside, then inside! It is social! But does that mean it is never there, or does it mean it is latent?) Additionally: "While Ellis strongly supported unconditional positive regard of clients, he believed they could, and had better, accept themselves and adopt unconditional positive regard of themselves whether or not their therapist or anyone else does." Which seems to say that positive regard is necessary for self-growth. And the lack of it is actually an obstruction, which means that positive regard is the necessary condition, it is an engine for growth. (Some might call it love). So when I think about positive regard, whether conditional or not, what is interesting is that it MEANS something, it is an essential ingredient to our growth and development. WHY IS THAT? What does it do for us? Then, (for contrast) how does positive regard relate to judgement and anxiety? It seems it is the absence of judgement and anxiety. Judgement and anxiety (to me) are products arising after dividing ourselves from something, they diminish us. I don't believe judgement and anxiety can occur if there is unconditional positive (self) regard. There's a thought experiment for you. Having said that, I am considering Peter's condition, and I don't mean to say that he has no positive self-regard conditional or unconditional or that his anxiety is a product of low-esteem. I don't mean this at all. But certainly there can be a possibility for managing anxious moments through having positive regard and having it unconditionally, whether from a fellow traveler or from within (with self talk). It might be cheaper than medication and more effective in the long run. Though I understand that might not present an immediate solution. Where I'm going is this: What is anodyne of that positive regard? How does it operate? Why does it work (when it does work)? I am not sure if I am quite making my point, but thank you for allowing me the attempt make it. Kind regards, without condition! Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180821/cc2ad593/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Aug 20 20:38:21 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 03:38:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: , <941964784.9979687.1534752167126@mail.yahoo.com>, Message-ID: Hi Douglas, I realize I probably should not have said "re-tinder the flame" because "flaming" is usually considered pejorative in an listserv context. Beg pardon, I should have used a different metaphor! I did not mean it pejoratively at all. "Re-knit the thread?" ? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:36:03 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi Douglas, Thank you for re-tindering the flame of original intentions. I would like to add to what you stated "to try to create a system of shared responsibility," there must also be an accord concerning consent as well. Not all people are mentors and not all are mentees, but of course there is a great need for both to bring novices into expertise and for experts to remember what it is like to have beginner's mind, for continuity to exist across knowledge lineages and across generations. These strands are not so visible, and it's much like crashing weddings to participate in that kind of give and take. When you say,"So I think there is a good deal to be said to go back to first principles, and to think what children need, because adults need it too." That was something I intended but perhaps I did not say so easily as you did. Really we each want to be safely vulnerable and feel that we matters, and that when people listen to us, it is with positive regard that I witnessed in documentary footage when Fred Rogers is relating directly to children in the room. There might be a part of us that cringes at the manner that he speaks to children, but I wonder if that says more about our defensive habits to protect our vulnerability than it says about him. That's why I remain convinced that courage and curiosity, two qualities I saw in Fred Rogers during these interactions, are worthwhile qualities to nourish in ourselves. I'm not sure if I am articulating this very well, but it seems that the gaze we participate so readily (perhaps because of today's media literacy we are now inured from the barrage of insults and division in the agora) is to gawk at the victims of hurt and the action of wounding so much easier than we do at the perpetrators who enact the harm (aka victim blaming). With this sort of gaze, the distraction becomes complete, because the flow that would allow something beautiful to emerge has been interrupted and misdirected. That is frequently how children feel silenced and come to feel that what they think and feel are not important. Then, we also suffer a loss because we do not understand the full dimension of lost opportunities (which is impossible to know, really), which I think you faintly captured for me when you said "you expect [those of your community] to be successful in ways neither you nor they can yet imagine." That that opportunity for spontaneity becomes forfeit when there isn't the space or trust for kindness. It's the interrupted daydream, instead of a sensed, relaxed wondering-perceiving that could be done together (in partnership or in community) and in flow. There is so much in your post that I will rest and cogitate more upon it. Thanks. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Douglas Williams Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:02:47 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi, everyone-- I'm going to reply to this earlier post, and bypass the others for the time being, which has the look of a misunderstanding. Forgive me if this sounds na?ve or off point, but it is something for which Annalisa's comments struck a chord. As someone engaged in industrial work practice, and with enough trial and error experience to have seen what worked and what didn't, Kurt Lewin's Action Research seems a practical extension at the adult economic level for what Fred Rogers advocated for children in development: Instead of an autocratic order-and-obedience approach, based on rules and discipline, where the manager "knows," and the worker carries out actions by direction, it is more productive--in quantifiable terms of measurable output and quality--to try to create a system of shared responsibility, in which leaders are mentors who teach, and those who report to them are nurtured, their ideas sought, their opinions respected, as they collectively engage in an exploration of ways to do their work more effectively, more productively. To the extent that I've been able to work in such systems, and help to maintain them, I think there's something important here. Establishing value in the community in which one works, and the things that one is producing, and the quality that one is delivering, in my experience very much is related to the sense that the individuals in that community matter, and that they have a sense that their community has an investment in them, personally. Participation in decision-making comes from the basis of one's ability to understand more fully the technical issues one's group is trying to address. And if the organization is working well, then the leader actually does less direct leading, in the typical forms of monitoring productivity, or ordering subordinates what methods to use, than transmitting the goal, and preserving the ability of the group to engage in team problem-solving to address that goal. I think charisma, in the form of the response one receives by communicating that you value people as people, and because you value them, you expect them to be successful in ways neither you nor they can yet imagine, is precisely what you need to achieve economically. That doesn't mean that you can't say that people failed, but it does mean that you can't say that they failed because they are stupid people (you wouldn't have hired them if they were), or start micromanaging them prevent them from their inevitable mistakes, because they aren't you. It doesn't mean that you can't provide more mentoring, or more training, or say that someone is taking the wrong approach. But it has to be done in the form of validating of the individual as an agent, a stakeholder in the common goal. And it should ideally be done in discussion and consensus, in an environment in which everyone is learning, not scolding. To the extent that people can find a sense of validation as an agent in the world, helping a community of peers at varying levels of experience and understanding, and mentors, helping the group to engage in the work of understanding and production needed to produce the goal, to that extent work can be emancipating as anything people can engage with in daily life. The direction of society and industrial practice is full of autocratic strains, of leadership asserted, rather than earned, demanded from others as due rather than extended by others with hope. It seems to me, as someone who sees the tug of war that goes on in many different areas of our common experience together, that it wouldn't hurt to step out of seeing this is a problem of an academic research question, or a work problem, or a question of economics, but as a problem generally of dealing with denial, repression, and exclusion that is happening to families, communities, workplaces, and far too much of the lifeworld these days in which we all live. So I think there is a good deal to be said to go back to first principles, and to think what children need, because adults need it too. For me, I think this is one of the aspects that has struck me as being an important aspect of the narrative arts, from the ancient Greeks onward, the part that Socrates (or Plato's version of him) rejects in The Republic. The Ancient Greek dramas were a form of social problem-solving. Dante and Milton both discussed the political issues of their day in their religious epics. The problem-describing and solving aspect of narrative an assertion that Shelley makes in saying that poets were the unelected legislators of the world, and William Carlos Williams was getting at in saying that It is difficult to get the news from poems yet men die every day for lack of what is found there. And in this context, it is the imagination of a kinder neighborhood than one's own that makes children listen to Rogers, and adults, too. It is the ideal of a kinder workplace, that really sees in someone one part of their potential, even if it is not visible now, and maybe just a small part of the vast amount of what could be, that makes work empowering. It is only through interactions in a community that cares that people are able to become whole--really, to come into being as people, rather than shriveled imposters in their own minds, as alas, we see in the current President of the United States. That this nation has such a president is a terrible commentary on the nature of our communities and lifeworld. So in that sense, I think the narratives of Mr. Rogers imaginary neighborhood are related to the democratic leadership that Lewin talk about--and I would be interested in having references to where they might relate more specifically to things in CHAT theory too, as part of my own development in a world of practice, where I find myself continually in need of learning. Regards, Doug On ?Saturday?, ?August? ?11?, ?2018? ?10?:?51?:?40? ?PM? ?PDT, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: Hi Peter and Charles and venerable others, Well first of all I certainly did not mean to be crude myself when I spoke of anxiety as "weakness" which is why I put it in quotes. I understand anxiety can be debilitating, and I did not intend to be flip about it (positive regards to Peter). No one likes to be anxious, it is a very negative feeling, but there is something about the nature of anxiety in which it makes us feel weakened, not strong. If I might point out how universally it is that anxiety is an unwelcomed experience because it seems to obstruct us from performing our best, or just from feeling strong in ourselves, vulnerable. What is the purpose of anxiety? We agree that the virtue of Vygotsky's approaches arises from the ways in which he looked optimistically rather than orient from limitations of deficiencies and pathologies. What can the patient do, not what can the patient not do. His work was not about bell curves nor was he interested in defining what was normal. What I've always admired about the work is that it provides a pathway to consider outliers. But getting back to the Rogers? I was considering in my post the importance of positive regard. There is magic in it. At the same time, is so easy to take it for granted. Whether we are dealing with growing children, as Fred Rogers did, or dealing with unwell patients therapeutically as Carl Rogers did. (I find the title of a work of C Rogers, "On Becoming a Person" to be a very compelling one) Development is much easier when we don't have to deal with the pollution of ridicule or anxiety-producing interactions and I think that is true in the therapeutic relationship too, even experimental democracies. Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that. I understand that he looked to Spinoza to consider the place for emotions, and then there is meaning. If one studies Vygotsky and neglects to understand what meaning means to his work, well...the work would be meaningless ! ? If you see the film Won't You Be My Neighbor and watch how Fred Rogers speaks to children, how they are utterly mesmerized by him, I almost wonder if Vygotsky had that same sort of charisma with the people around him. What is the function of kindness and positive regard? I looked up the wiki page on Roger's "Unconditional positive regard" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard and it mentions at the tippy top: "The central hypothesis of this approach can be briefly stated. It is that the individual has within him or her self vast resources for self-understanding, for altering her or his self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behavior?and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided." and then later: "The main factor in unconditional positive regard is the ability to isolate behaviors from the person who displays them." The section "Criticism" on that page, Ruth Sanford argues how we can't hold unconditional positive regard to everyone we meet (that this quality is dependent upon how deep the relationship is), though I disagree and I believe that we can hold positive and it is a matter of habit and inner persistence to cultivate unconditional positive regard for everyone, including the self. Then Albert Ellis seemed to think there is a conundrum about the "unconditional" in unconditional positive regard, because the idea is that the client cannot learn to have unconditional positive self-regard unless it comes from the therapist first, which is itself a condition. (Of course I'm thinking, but this is also Vygotskian because it is first outside, then inside! It is social! But does that mean it is never there, or does it mean it is latent?) Additionally: "While Ellis strongly supported unconditional positive regard of clients, he believed they could, and had better, accept themselves and adopt unconditional positive regard of themselves whether or not their therapist or anyone else does." Which seems to say that positive regard is necessary for self-growth. And the lack of it is actually an obstruction, which means that positive regard is the necessary condition, it is an engine for growth. (Some might call it love). So when I think about positive regard, whether conditional or not, what is interesting is that it MEANS something, it is an essential ingredient to our growth and development. WHY IS THAT? What does it do for us? Then, (for contrast) how does positive regard relate to judgement and anxiety? It seems it is the absence of judgement and anxiety. Judgement and anxiety (to me) are products arising after dividing ourselves from something, they diminish us. I don't believe judgement and anxiety can occur if there is unconditional positive (self) regard. There's a thought experiment for you. Having said that, I am considering Peter's condition, and I don't mean to say that he has no positive self-regard conditional or unconditional or that his anxiety is a product of low-esteem. I don't mean this at all. But certainly there can be a possibility for managing anxious moments through having positive regard and having it unconditionally, whether from a fellow traveler or from within (with self talk). It might be cheaper than medication and more effective in the long run. Though I understand that might not present an immediate solution. Where I'm going is this: What is anodyne of that positive regard? How does it operate? Why does it work (when it does work)? I am not sure if I am quite making my point, but thank you for allowing me the attempt make it. Kind regards, without condition! Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180821/9f5946b6/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Aug 21 01:22:00 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 18:22:00 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Bacon's Law Message-ID: <6a7e8519-3ef8-44b1-3986-f08c724a2d6a@marxists.org> In https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/self-control.htm, Vygotsky refers to "Bacon's Law." Maybe one can guess from this and the other reference to Bacon what Vygotsky means by "Bacon's Law," but is there anyone who can actually give me the source in Bacon? Andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180821/9fce7b3c/attachment.html From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Tue Aug 21 03:19:16 2018 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:19:16 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law In-Reply-To: <6a7e8519-3ef8-44b1-3986-f08c724a2d6a@marxists.org> References: <6a7e8519-3ef8-44b1-3986-f08c724a2d6a@marxists.org> Message-ID: There should be some sentences by Bacon about theory and practice saying something how he conceives theory and how "by a sloping path" practice becomes conceived. Anyone remembering or knowing it please? Ulvi 21 A?u 2018 11:23 AM tarihinde "Andy Blunden" yazd?: In https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/self-control.htm, Vygotsky refers to "Bacon's Law." Maybe one can guess from this and the other reference to Bacon what Vygotsky means by "Bacon's Law," but is there anyone who can actually give me the source in Bacon? Andy -- ------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180821/fbc91a3f/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Aug 21 03:43:47 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:43:47 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law In-Reply-To: References: <6a7e8519-3ef8-44b1-3986-f08c724a2d6a@marxists.org> Message-ID: Natura non vincitur nisi parendo? (Nature cannot be vanquished until she is obeyed). is Aphorism 3 of Book 1 of Novum Organum Scientiarum. Vygotsky was impressed by this aphorism and wanted to use it as the epigraph for a book on the history of the cultural development of the child, which later became The History of the Development of the Higher Mental Functions. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > There should be some sentences by Bacon about theory and practice saying > something how he conceives theory and how "by a sloping path" practice > becomes conceived. > Anyone remembering or knowing it please? > > Ulvi > > 21 A?u 2018 11:23 AM tarihinde "Andy Blunden" yazd?: > > In https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/self-control.htm, > Vygotsky refers to "Bacon's Law." Maybe one can guess from this and the > other reference to Bacon what Vygotsky means by "Bacon's Law," but is there > anyone who can actually give me the source in Bacon? > > Andy > -- > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180821/adeda438/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Aug 21 05:58:32 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:58:32 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law In-Reply-To: References: <6a7e8519-3ef8-44b1-3986-f08c724a2d6a@marxists.org> Message-ID: Nice aphorism, David, and it is a plausible candidate for Vygotsky's meaning, but Bacon had lots of aphorisms. Do we have a reference to this being referred to as "Bacon's Law"? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 21/08/2018 8:43 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Natura non vincitur nisi parendo? (Nature cannot be > vanquished until she is obeyed). is Aphorism 3 of Book 1 > of Novum Organum Scientiarum. Vygotsky was impressed by > this aphorism and wanted to use it as the epigraph for a > book on the history of the cultural development of the > child, which later became The History of the Development > of the Higher Mental Functions. > > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in /Early Years/, co-authored with Fang Li: > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan > idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue > > Some free e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Ulvi ??il > > wrote: > > There should be some sentences by Bacon about theory > and practice saying something how he conceives theory > and how "by a sloping path" practice becomes conceived. > Anyone remembering or knowing it please? > > Ulvi > > 21 A?u 2018 11:23 AM tarihinde "Andy Blunden" > > yazd?: > > In > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/self-control.htm > , > Vygotsky refers to "Bacon's Law." Maybe one can > guess from this and the other reference to Bacon > what Vygotsky means by "Bacon's Law," but is there > anyone who can actually give me the source in Bacon? > > Andy > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180821/2253e28d/attachment.html From d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 06:07:35 2018 From: d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk (WEBSTER, DAVID S.) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:07:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law In-Reply-To: References: <6a7e8519-3ef8-44b1-3986-f08c724a2d6a@marxists.org> Message-ID: My copy runs ?Nature cannot be commanded?? take your pick From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: 21 August 2018 11:44 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law Natura non vincitur nisi parendo? (Nature cannot be vanquished until she is obeyed). is Aphorism 3 of Book 1 of Novum Organum Scientiarum. Vygotsky was impressed by this aphorism and wanted to use it as the epigraph for a book on the history of the cultural development of the child, which later became The History of the Development of the Higher Mental Functions. David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in Early Years, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Ulvi ??il > wrote: There should be some sentences by Bacon about theory and practice saying something how he conceives theory and how "by a sloping path" practice becomes conceived. Anyone remembering or knowing it please? Ulvi 21 A?u 2018 11:23 AM tarihinde "Andy Blunden" > yazd?: In https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/self-control.htm, Vygotsky refers to "Bacon's Law." Maybe one can guess from this and the other reference to Bacon what Vygotsky means by "Bacon's Law," but is there anyone who can actually give me the source in Bacon? Andy -- ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180821/3f6f9d89/attachment.html From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Aug 21 14:16:29 2018 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 06:16:29 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law In-Reply-To: References: <6a7e8519-3ef8-44b1-3986-f08c724a2d6a@marxists.org> Message-ID: Andy: In the chapter you have up on the marxists.org website, Bacon is cited three times. Seven paragraphs from the end is: "Man is part of nature, his behavior is a natural process, and controlling it forms like all control of nature, according to Macon?s principle that ?nature is overcome by subjection.? Not in vain does Bacon place control of nature and control of intellect in one order; he says that the bare hand and the mind taken in themselves do not mean much ? the deed is done with tools and auxiliary means." "Macon" is obviously a transcription error. So the question is whether "Macon's principle" refers to the same thing as Bacon's law in the nineteenth paragraph. The Russian term for the nineteenth paragraph is ??????? ?. ?????? which could be "law" or "rule" or "principle" or "precept", i.e. aphorism. "Macon's principle" is "???????? ??????", i.e. the "principle"or "aphorism" of Bacon. In the Notebooks, the reference you want is p. 117, an entry dated April 3, 1928. Vygotsky refers to it as his "epigraph". Zavershneva and Van der Veer footnote it as "one of Vygotsky's favorite quotes". But of course there is another quote from Bacon that Vygotsky cites in Thinking and Speech, Chapter 2, p. 76: "(PIaget) forgets Bacon?s familiar argument that true knowledge is knowledge which traces a process back to its cause?" As David says, take your pick! dk David Kellogg Sangmyung University New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue Some free e-prints available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:07 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. < d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk> wrote: > My copy runs ?Nature cannot be commanded?? take your pick > > > > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of *David Kellogg > *Sent:* 21 August 2018 11:44 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law > > > > Natura non vincitur nisi parendo? (Nature cannot be vanquished until she > is obeyed). is Aphorism 3 of Book 1 of Novum Organum Scientiarum. Vygotsky > was impressed by this aphorism and wanted to use it as the epigraph for a > book on the history of the cultural development of the child, which later > became The History of the Development of the Higher Mental Functions. > > > > > David Kellogg > > Sangmyung University > > > > New in *Early Years*, co-authored with Fang Li: > > > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan idiom ? and > maths in the grandmother tongue > > > > Some free e-prints available at: > > > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > There should be some sentences by Bacon about theory and practice saying > something how he conceives theory and how "by a sloping path" practice > becomes conceived. > > Anyone remembering or knowing it please? > > > > Ulvi > > > > 21 A?u 2018 11:23 AM tarihinde "Andy Blunden" yazd?: > > In https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/self-control.htm, > Vygotsky refers to "Bacon's Law." Maybe one can guess from this and the > other reference to Bacon what Vygotsky means by "Bacon's Law," but is there > anyone who can actually give me the source in Bacon? > > Andy > > -- > ------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180822/344800ba/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Tue Aug 21 16:20:55 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:20:55 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law In-Reply-To: References: <6a7e8519-3ef8-44b1-3986-f08c724a2d6a@marxists.org> Message-ID: <5aa22686-7c92-b7d7-ba22-621ad61419cd@marxists.org> Yes, I think on the balance of evidence you are right, David, and I inserted a footnote to this effect. Thank you very much for the suggestion. Thank you also for picking up that typo. I am still proofing and correcting it. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 22/08/2018 7:16 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Andy: > > In the chapter you have up on the marxists.org > website, Bacon is cited three times. > Seven paragraphs from the end is: > > "Man is part of nature, his behavior is a natural process, > and controlling it forms like all control of nature, > according to Macon?s principle that ?nature is overcome by > subjection.? Not in vain does Bacon place control of > nature and control of intellect in one order; he says that > the bare hand and the mind taken in themselves do not mean > much ? the deed is done with tools and auxiliary means." > > "Macon" is obviously a transcription error. So the > question is whether "Macon's principle" refers to the same > thing as Bacon's law in the nineteenth paragraph. The > Russian term for the nineteenth paragraph is ??????? ?. > ?????? which could be "law" or "rule" or "principle" or > "precept", i.e. aphorism. "Macon's principle" is "???????? > ??????", i.e. the "principle"or "aphorism" of Bacon. > > In the Notebooks, the reference you want is p. 117, an > entry dated April 3, 1928. Vygotsky refers to it as his > "epigraph". Zavershneva and Van der Veer footnote it as > "one of Vygotsky's favorite quotes". But of course there > is another quote from Bacon that Vygotsky cites in > Thinking and Speech, Chapter 2, p. 76: > > "(PIaget) forgets Bacon?s familiar argument that true > knowledge is knowledge which traces a process back to its > cause?" > > As David says, take your pick! > > dk > > David Kellogg > Sangmyung University > > New in /Early Years/, co-authored with Fang Li: > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a Hallidayan > idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue > > Some free e-prints available at: > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:07 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. > > wrote: > > My copy runs ?Nature cannot be commanded?? take your pick > > > > *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] *On Behalf > Of *David Kellogg > *Sent:* 21 August 2018 11:44 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Bacon's Law > > > > Natura non vincitur nisi parendo? (Nature cannot be > vanquished until she is obeyed). is Aphorism 3 of Book > 1 of Novum Organum Scientiarum. Vygotsky was impressed > by this aphorism and wanted to use it as the epigraph > for a book on the history of the cultural development > of the child, which later became The History of the > Development of the Higher Mental Functions. > > > > > David Kellogg > > Sangmyung University > > > > New in /Early Years/, co-authored with Fang Li: > > > > When three fives are thirty-five: Vygotsky in a > Hallidayan idiom ? and maths in the grandmother tongue > > > > Some free e-prints available at: > > > > https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7I8zYW3qkEqNBA66XAwS/full > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Ulvi ??il > > wrote: > > There should be some sentences by Bacon about > theory and practice saying something how he > conceives theory and how "by a sloping path" > practice becomes conceived. > > Anyone remembering or knowing it please? > > > > Ulvi > > > > 21 A?u 2018 11:23 AM tarihinde "Andy Blunden" > > > yazd?: > > In > https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1931/self-control.htm > , > Vygotsky refers to "Bacon's Law." Maybe one > can guess from this and the other reference to > Bacon what Vygotsky means by "Bacon's Law," > but is there anyone who can actually give me > the source in Bacon? > > Andy > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180822/fcd21b74/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Aug 21 19:55:03 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:55:03 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant Professor STEM-GSE-UC Berkeley In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Uilani HUNT Date: Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:45 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant Professor STEM-GSE-UC Berkeley To: CC: Alan Schoenfeld Dear Cognitive Development Society: I am writing to share the Graduate School of Education recruitment advertisement in the field/area of learning sciences with an emphasis on math, science, or technology education, or as related to cognitive development, and to request your assistance in soliciting names of potential outstanding candidates whose research, teaching, or service has prepared them to contribute to our goals of diversity and inclusion in higher education. We are particularly interested in learning of talented doctoral students or junior faculty who are women or underrepresented minorities (African Americans, Latin Americans or Hispanics, and Native Americans), as well as candidates with disabilities. As one of the preeminent public universities in the world, UC Berkeley is committed to equity and inclusion through its leadership and promotion of a positive campus climate for all constituents. The University is also committed to addressing the family needs of faculty, including dual career couples and single parents, with excellent family and spouse/partner responsive policies and programs. Thank you in advance for sharing our recruitment advertisement with potential candidates. Please contact the search Chair, Alan Schoenfeld, if you know of individuals who we should contact directly to encourage the submission of an application. *Assistant Professor* *Mathematics, Science, Technology, or Cognitive Development Education* Graduate School of Education UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY The Graduate School of Education (GSE), University of California, Berkeley, seeks applicants for an Assistant Professor (tenure track) in learning sciences with an emphasis on math, science, or technology education, or as related to cognitive development. The expected start date is July 1, 2019. The successful candidate will join the cluster of GSE faculty who merge cognitive, cultural, developmental, and social perspectives with practice in studying cognition, learning, and teaching in mathematics and science. Desirable qualities for this position include a research program merging theory and practice with an emphasis on powerful learning environments that support student thinking, sense making, and agency. We seek candidates with demonstrated attention towards addressing challenges and new possibilities for equity in stem education. Applicants? research contexts might include classrooms, homes, online activities, museums, as well as other informal settings and/or innovative practices that take advantage of contemporary technologies. The successful applicant should be prepared to teach and advise doctoral students specializing in either math, science, or technology education, and to contribute to the GSE?s innovative program in teacher education. Faculty in the GSE also have the opportunity to teach in the School?s popular undergraduate minor. Ph.D. (or equivalent international degree) or enrolled in a Ph.D. (or equivalent international degree) granting program at the time of application. Preferred qualifications include candidates who will contribute to diversity and equal opportunity in higher education through their teaching, research, and service. Competitive applicants will have earned a doctoral degree or equivalent international degree in math, science, cognitive development, the learning sciences, or technology education. Experience teaching courses in math, cognitive development, the learning sciences, or technology education is also preferred. Applicants who conduct research with young children and who could contribute to an emerging interest on campus with a program in early childhood education are encouraged to apply. Candidates who have a record of demonstrated excellence in research in one of these fields consistent with their career stage: math, science, cognitive development, or technology education will be prioritized. Evidence of excellence can be demonstrated in the form of published or in press manuscripts in leading peer reviewed journals; exemplary chapters in edited books; outstanding letters from experts in the field; an exemplary research program to be accomplished in the next 5 years; and/or conference presentations or other forms of professional contributions indicative of strong participation in the research community. UC Berkeley is committed to addressing the family needs of faculty, including dual-career couples and single parents. For information about potential relocation to Berkeley, or career needs of accompanying partners and spouses, please visit: http://ofew.berkeley.edu/new-faculty. Applicants for this tenure-track assistant professor position should submit the following materials for a complete application: ? Curriculum Vitae ? Cover Letter ? Statement of Research ? Statement of Teaching ? Statement of Contributions to Diversity: Statement addressing past and/or potential contributions to diversity through research, teaching, and/or service. ? Two writing samples: A relevant article or book or dissertation chapter, or two short pieces such as conference proceedings ? 3 letters of reference (to be submitted by recommenders ? see more below) Applicants should request letters of recommendation directly through our online application system. Please refer potential recommenders (even when recommenders use a third party for sending letters ?i.e., dossier service or career center), to the UC Berkeley statement of confidentiality: http://apo.berkeley.edu/evalltr.html prior to submitting their letters. All letters of reference will be treated as confidential per University of California policy and California state law. How to apply: Visit https://aprecruit.berkeley.edu/apply/JPF01842 to apply. The deadline date to apply is September 21, 2018. Please contact Lani Hunt at (510) 664-9984 or lanihunt@berkeley.edu with questions. The University of California is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, age or protected veteran status. For the complete University of California nondiscrimination and affirmative action policy see: http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4000376/NondiscrimAffirmAct. Uilani Hunt Academic Personnel Analyst University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Education Dean's Office 2121 Berkeley Way #1670 Berkeley, CA . 94720-1670 PH: 510/664-9984 FAX: 510/643-8904 lanihunt@berkeley.edu _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180821/52a81201/attachment.html From djwdoc@yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 23:48:13 2018 From: djwdoc@yahoo.com (Douglas Williams) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 06:48:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: <941964784.9979687.1534752167126@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2080636226.1344617.1535006893547@mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Annalisa-- Among the core imagistic metaphors that provide the bones to thought, the metaphor of light is good, and shadows fearful, predates the Internet. Fiat lux.? Cheers,Doug On ?Monday?, ?August? ?20?, ?2018? ?08?:?40?:?38? ?PM? ?PDT, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: Hi Douglas, I realize I probably should not have said "re-tinder the flame" because "flaming" is usually considered pejorative in an listserv context. Beg pardon, I should have used a different metaphor! I did not mean it pejoratively at all.? "Re-knit the thread?"?? Kind regards, Annalisa From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:36:03 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day? Hi Douglas, Thank you for re-tindering the flame of original intentions. I would like toadd to what you stated "to try to create a system of shared responsibility," there must also be an accord concerning consent as well. Not all people are mentors and not all are mentees, but of course there is a great need for both to bring novices into expertise and for experts to remember what it is like to have beginner's mind, for continuity to exist across knowledge lineages and across generations. These strands are not so visible, and it's much like crashing weddings to participate in that kind of give and take. When you say,"SoI think there is a good deal to be said to go back to first principles, and to think what children need, because adults need it too." That was something I intended but perhaps I did not say so easily as you did. Really we each want to be safelyvulnerable and feel that we matters, and that when people listen to us, it is with positive regard that I witnessed in documentary footage when Fred Rogers is relating directly to children in the room. There might be a part of us that cringes at the manner that he speaks to children, but I wonder if that says more about our defensive habits to protect our vulnerability than it says about him. That's why I remain convinced that courage and curiosity, two qualities I saw in Fred Rogers during these interactions, are worthwhile qualities to nourish in ourselves.? I'm not sure if I am articulating this very well, but it seems that the gaze we participate so readily (perhaps because of today's media literacy we are now inured from the barrage of insults and division in the agora) is to gawk at the victims of hurt and the action of wounding so much easier than we do at the perpetrators who enact the harm (aka victim blaming). With this sort of gaze, the distraction becomes complete, because the flow that would allow something beautiful to emerge has been interrupted and misdirected. That is frequently how children feel silenced and come to feel that what they think and feel are not important. Then, we also suffer a loss because we do not understandthe full dimension of lost opportunities (which is impossible to know, really), which I think you faintlycaptured for me when you said "you expect [those of your community] to be successful in ways neither you nor they can yet imagine." That that opportunity for spontaneitybecomes forfeit when there isn't the space or trust for kindness. It's the interrupted daydream, instead of a sensed, relaxed wondering-perceiving that could be done together (in partnership or in community) and in flow. There is so much in your post that I will rest and cogitate more upon it. Thanks. Kind regards, Annalisa From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Douglas Williams Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:02:47 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day?Hi, everyone-- I'm going to reply to this earlier post, and bypass the others for the time being, which has the look of a misunderstanding. Forgive me if this sounds na?ve or off point, but it is something for which Annalisa's comments struck a chord.? As someone engaged in industrial work practice, and with enough trial and error experience to have seen what worked and what didn't, Kurt Lewin's Action Research seems a practical extension at the adult economic level for what Fred Rogers advocated for children in development: Instead of an autocratic order-and-obedience approach, based on rules and discipline, where the manager "knows," and the worker carries out actions by direction, it is more productive--in quantifiable terms of measurable output and quality--to try to create a system of shared responsibility, in which leaders are mentors who teach, and those who report to them are nurtured, their ideas sought, their opinions respected, as they collectively engage in an exploration of ways to do their work more effectively, more productively. To the extent that I've been able to work in such systems, and help to maintain them, I think there's something important here. Establishing value in the community in which one works, and the things that one is producing, and the quality that one is delivering, in my experience very much is related to the sense that the individuals in that community matter, and that they have a sense that their community has an investment in them, personally. Participation in decision-making comes from the basis of one's ability to understand more fully the technical issues one's group is trying to address. And if the organization is working well, then the leader actually does less direct leading, in the typical forms of monitoring productivity, or ordering subordinates what methods to use, than transmitting the goal, and preserving the ability of the group to engage in team problem-solving to address that goal.? I think charisma, in the form of the response one receives by communicating that you value people as people, andbecause you value them, you expect them to be successful in ways neither you nor they can yet imagine, is precisely what you need to achieve economically. That doesn't mean that you can't say that people failed, but it does mean that you can't say that they failed because they are stupid people (you wouldn't have hired them if they were), or start micromanaging them prevent them from their inevitable mistakes, because they aren't you. It doesn't mean that you can't provide more mentoring, or more training, or say that someone is taking the wrong approach. But it has to be done in the form of validating of the individual as an agent, a stakeholder in the common goal. And it should ideally be done in discussion and consensus, in an environment in which everyone is learning, not scolding. To the extent that people can find a sense of validation as an agent in the world, helping a community of peers at varying levels of experience and understanding, and mentors, helping the group to engage in the work of understanding and production needed to produce the goal, to that extent work can be emancipating as anything people can engage with in daily life.? The direction of society and industrial practice is full of autocratic strains, of leadership asserted, rather than earned, demanded from others as due rather than extended by others with hope. It seems to me, as someone who sees the tug of war that goes on in many different areas of our common experience together, that it wouldn't hurt to step out of seeing this is a problem of an academic research question, or a work problem, or a question of economics, but as a problem generally of dealing with denial, repression, and exclusion that is happening to families, communities, workplaces, and far too much of the lifeworld these days in which we all live. So I think there is a good deal to be said to go back to first principles, and to think what children need, because adults need it too.? For me, I think this is one of the aspects that has struck me as being an important aspect of the narrative arts, from the ancient Greeks onward, the part that Socrates (or Plato's version of him) rejects in The Republic. The Ancient Greek dramas were a form of social problem-solving. Dante and Milton both discussed the political issues of their day in their religious epics. The problem-describing and solving aspect of narrative an assertion that Shelley makes in saying that poets were the unelected legislators of the world, and William Carlos Williams was getting at in saying that?It is difficult to get the news from poems yet men die every day for lack of what is found there. And in this context, it is the imagination of a kinder neighborhood than one's own that makes children listen to Rogers, and adults, too. It is the ideal of a kinder workplace, that really sees in someone one part of their potential, even if it is not visible now, and maybe just a small part of the vast amount of what could be, that makes work empowering. It is only through interactions in a community that cares that people are able to become whole--really, to come into being as people, rather than shriveled imposters in their own minds, as alas, we see in the current President of the United States. That this nation has such a president is a terrible commentary on the nature of our communities and lifeworld.? So in that sense, I think the narratives of Mr. Rogers imaginary neighborhood are related to the democratic leadership that Lewin talk about--and I would be interested in having references to where they might relate more specifically to things in CHAT theory too, as part of my own development in a world of practice, where I find myself continually in need of learning. ?Regards,Doug On ?Saturday?, ?August? ?11?, ?2018? ?10?:?51?:?40? ?PM? ?PDT, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: Hi Peter and Charles and venerable others, Well first of all I certainly did not mean to be crude myself when I spoke of anxiety as "weakness" which is why I put it in quotes. I understand anxiety can be debilitating, and I did not intend to be flip about it (positive regards to Peter). No one likes to be anxious, it is a very negative feeling, but there is something about the nature of anxiety in which it makes us feel weakened, not strong. If I might point out how universally it is that anxiety is an unwelcomed experience because it seems to obstruct us from performing our best, or just from feeling strong in ourselves, vulnerable. What is the purpose of anxiety? We agree that the virtue of Vygotsky's approaches arises from the ways in which he looked optimistically rather than orient from limitations of deficiencies and pathologies. What can the patient do, not what can the patient not do. His work was not about bell curves nor was he interested in defining what was normal. What I've always admired about the work is that it provides a pathway to consider outliers. But getting back to the Rogers? I was considering in my post the importance of positive regard. There is magic in it. At the same time, is so easy to take it for granted. Whether we are dealing with growing children, as Fred Rogers did, or dealing with unwell patients therapeutically as Carl Rogers did. (I find the title of a work of C Rogers, "On Becoming a Person" to be a very compelling one) Development is much easier when we don't have to deal with the pollution of ridicule or anxiety-producing interactions and I think that is true in the therapeutic relationship too, even experimental democracies. Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that. I understand that he looked to Spinoza to consider the place for emotions, and then there is meaning. If one studies Vygotsky and neglects to understand what meaning means to his work, well...the work would be meaningless ! ? If you see the film Won't You Be My Neighbor and watch how Fred Rogers speaks to children, how they are utterly mesmerized by him, I almost wonder if Vygotsky had that same sort of charisma with the people around him. What is the function of kindness and positive regard? I looked up the wiki page on Roger's "Unconditional positive regard" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_positive_regard and it mentions at the tippy top: "The central hypothesis of this approach can be briefly stated. It is that the individual has within him or her self vast resources for self-understanding, for altering her or his self-concept, attitudes, and self-directed behavior?and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided." and then later: "The main factor in unconditional positive regard is the ability to isolate behaviors from the person who displays them." The section "Criticism" on that page, Ruth Sanford argues how we can't hold unconditional positive regard to everyone we meet (that this quality is dependent upon how deep the relationship is), though I disagree and I believe that we can hold positive and it is a matter of habit and inner persistence to cultivate unconditional positive regard for everyone, including the self. Then Albert Ellis seemed to think there is a conundrum about the "unconditional" in unconditional positive regard, because the idea is that the client cannot learn to have unconditional positive self-regard unless it comes from the therapist first, which is itself a condition. (Of course I'm thinking, but this is also Vygotskian because it is first outside, then inside! It is social! But does that mean it is never there, or does it mean it is latent?) Additionally: "While Ellis strongly supported unconditional positive regard of clients, he believed they could, and had better, accept themselves and adopt unconditional positive regard of themselves whether or not their therapist or anyone else does." Which seems to say that positive regard is necessary for self-growth. And the lack of it is actually an obstruction, which means that positive regard is the necessary condition, it is an engine for growth. (Some might call it love). So when I think about positive regard, whether conditional or not, what is interesting is that it MEANS something, it is?an essential ingredient to our growth and development. WHY IS THAT? What does it do for us? Then, (for contrast) how does positive regard relate to judgement and anxiety? It seems it is the absence of judgement and anxiety. Judgement and anxiety (to me) are products arising after dividing ourselves from something, they diminish us. I don't believe judgement and anxiety can occur if there is unconditional positive (self) regard. There's a thought experiment for you.? Having said that, I am considering Peter's condition, and I don't mean to say that he has no positive self-regard conditional or unconditional or that his anxiety is a product of low-esteem. I don't mean this at all. But certainly there can be a possibility for managing anxious moments through having positive regard and having it unconditionally, whether from a fellow traveler or from within (with self talk). It might be cheaper than medication and more effective in the long run. Though I understand that might not present an immediate solution. Where I'm going is this: What is anodyne of that positive regard? How does it operate? Why does it work (when it does work)? I am not sure if I am quite making my point, but thank you for allowing me the attempt make it. Kind regards, without condition! Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180823/252da301/attachment.html From djwdoc@yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 00:30:22 2018 From: djwdoc@yahoo.com (Douglas Williams) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:30:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Chuck-- That brings up a point that I've wondered about. (Forgive me, I'm out of my depth here, so I'm probably asking questions that aren't so mysterious to others, but read on if you are feeling indulgent.) How precisely would one describe the unconscious in CHAT terms, particularly in the light of recent developments about memory: A web of complex thought, some common to a period, and some idiosyncratic, over which more internalized social narratives and some rationality are imposed? I suspect if I knew more, I would have an answer, but I don't. And what forms of organization and access would this unconscious take?? I'm particularly interested in the shared domains of metaphor and metonymy that underlay a good deal of social interaction, so that I can cite ruby slippers, and bring in the rest of the narrative as a reference domain, or say that the light dawned in my mind, and be understood. And in reference to Freud, while setting aside the idea that the id is forcing us to laugh at a joke because of its sudden release from imprisonment, there are aspects of Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious that strike me as at least very interesting observations. A Russian joke I read recently went something like "How far away is North Korea? Not so far at all. You can see it from your window." That implies an awareness of American politics (Sarah Palen's comment about seeing Russia from her window), North Korea as the paradigm authoritarian state, and an interpretation--subversive, and potentially dangerous to say openly--that is sufficiently within the pattern of Freud's theory of "joke-work," in which the joke "evades restrictions" of internalized patterns of thought and phrases, and perhaps at times relies on deeper shared metaphors to do its work.? I tend to think that there are few things more important than silly narratives and foolish jokes, which probably explains much in my life. But there's something economic going on here, and I think Freud described it well when he said that with jokes, "the yield of pleasure corresponds to the psychical expenditure that is saved." Setting aside the id as the driving force, there is certainly an ongoing conflict of social narratives (internalized, or in social groups conflicting with one another) that can account for psychic organizational tension and repression. I've noticed at large companies, just as with nations, there is a tendency for jokes to express themselves subversively; and even in support of a majority, as in Aristophanes' The Birds, or any number of things one can find on Twitter these days, one can find majorities or large minorities of social groups engaging in humor that is particular to their subsets, which is in the form of subverting a perceived oppression. For Freud's Victorian period, perhaps the quite extreme suppression of sexuality made the expression of the forbidden subject the most common basis. In our period, race and class are more forbidden themes (possibly why film romantic comedy has lost much of its sparkle, outside of comedies of remarriage--those in which couples escape the suppression of bad marriages in favor of good ones.? I wrote a paper about modern remarriage comedy once, and I'd have liked to bring in some fuller explanation of this kind of economy of humor, but as I'm more of a magpie that picks up bright and shiny objects and arranges them in neat patterns in my pile, rather than one of those people who heats the furnace, melts the sand, and labors to turn it into pretty objects, I have not gotten much further than musing at late hours to myself.? And having mused, the sands of time persuade me to muse on in my dreams, and see what shiny XMCA-work might turn up.? Regards,Doug? On ?Monday?, ?August? ?13?, ?2018? ?07?:?59?:?39? ?AM? ?PDT, Charles Bazerman wrote: To be clear. Both Sullivan and Vygotsky believed in and acted on positive regard. Sullivan, however, examined anxiety as part of the self-system.BTW, as most of you know, Vygotsky was interested in the depth psychology of Freud and Adler, though he did not agree with everything they saidl Chuck----History will judge. On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:10 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: Hi Annalisa,? thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly?appreciate your membership to this list.? But?I would like to clarify that I did not make any?assumptions about what you meant to say, but treated your post?for what it said; so please, don't say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here.?Yes, I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid assuming this or that?when we hear someone say something, but?I do not want?to?end up?in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally" etc.?What I mean is that my assumption, the?key in which I read posts here,?is that all posts?address all and everyone else in the list, even when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object, you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular, then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to.? So, my concern is with a?tendency that you have displayed?in several occasions?for?admonishing others for having brought up issues of their concern to a?discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of?a post that?you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was never asked". I did not?think that post?contributed to freedom at all, despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared project.?Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up and pursued as topic,?and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may have felt Peter's reaction had been?language inappropriately.?That is why?I bring?up the?example about collateral learning and intentions, another?related example is research about?teachers asking questions with the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to make sure that your and anyone's else?integrity is respected, I do not think that?you contribute to anyone's else freedom?by?blaming others for not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this.? I hope that everyone following this list?recognises that I intervene when I feel freedom is?threatened, and I am sure that you will remember occasions in which I have intervened?in which the person I?called attention for was white and male, while?other female?participants (including yourself)?had been just as or more rude?than Peter S' post at the time. In those other?occasions, I called attention about what I felt was?most relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not complain then.?So, your call to my bias?may be after all?be?biased too. Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing and orienting to our shared project and not any personal.? ?Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing these?interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues,?which I see you have contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the trans-actional mode of collaboration.? Best wishes,? Alfredo From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 13 August 2018 08:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day? Alfredo, Thank you for your post. I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but?I was not admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using "people" to address him. If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I maintain it has to do with gender. If I may quote his post: "I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples." I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot of assumptions. QED. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what I'd said. Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, Alfredo. Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that would have been something entirely different, which is always an option when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't let anyone talk to you that way. There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he have the right to make those assumptions about me? If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation about jackasses all about me. A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, and I hope respectful, I am addressing it. I suggest?considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it certainly wasn't for *my* benefit. Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender sensitivity does not trump what he said? That is a real question. It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that happens.?I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of worldviews. Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. Especially with novices, as they are our future. I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it tedious. It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't deal with it from my point of view, did he? If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate.?I don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or offensive.I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office. To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making recommendations to me that were not solicited. I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort.?Drawing a boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here. I stand by my assertion that it takes courage?to investigate (and invest in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable. Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was following the change in course.?I did not chastise Charles for bringing up the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it. You say:"It may be?that trying to find out what the real?"intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that?really does not help when?cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not?be about.?Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. " I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have addressed me in the past. You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that. I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an advertisement for "an eye for an eye."? Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to positive regard*. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the original post subject title. Kind regards unconditionally, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180823/bf7b07be/attachment.html From the_yasya@yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 15:54:28 2018 From: the_yasya@yahoo.com (Anton Yasnitsky) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 22:54:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] New book: Yasnitsky, A. (2018). Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography References: <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150@mail.yahoo.com> Dear colleagues, My sincerest apologies for group mail--especially to those, who believe this message has reached them by mistake. My humble gratitude to the rest. I would like to let you know that the new book -- Yasnitsky, A. (2018). Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography -- authored by "the new world leader in doing careful analytic work on Vygotsky?s heritage" (in most flattering opinion of Dr. Jaan Valsiner of Aalborg University, Denmark, the author--with Dr. Ren? Van der Veer--of the classic Understanding Vygotsky, 1991) is available in its entirety in electronic format at: https://rdcu.be/4fov The link directs to a non-downloadable electronic copy of the book (generously provided to the author by the publisher, Routledge/Taylor & Francis) and is valid for the next 60 days only (i.e., roughly, until October 20, 2018). Please note that everyone will be able to explore the full book online, but printing, copying, or downloading will not be available. In addition, a hard copy of the book may be ordered from the publisher's web site:* https://www.routledge.com/Vygotsky-An-Intellectual-Biography/Yasnitsky/p/book/9781138806740 (including an option of? Request Inspection Copy available free of charge for Course Instructors)or at amazon, e.g. here:* https://www.amazon.com/Vygotsky-Intellectual-Biography-Anton-Yasnitsky/dp/1138806749 ?For further information on the author and his work, if interested, feel free to explore the links in the automatically generated signature at the very bottom of this message. Please do not hesitate to further share this message and/or the link to the book with whoever might be concerned. Again, my apologies to those, who have received this email by mistake. All the best,Anton.-- Anton Yasnitsky, Ph.D. http://individual.utoronto.ca/yasnitsky/https://www.amazon.com/author/anton.yasnitsky | | Virus-free. www.avg.com | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180823/dbc7c94b/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Aug 23 18:06:49 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:06:49 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: New book: Yasnitsky, A. (2018). Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography In-Reply-To: <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Long time no hear, Anton. Your message ended up in my spam filter because of something about being an unverifiable account and it contains an address that is a total mystery to me. If you have been following the discussion on the xmca list you know that people are invited to send their new books to Beth Ferholt, the book review editor of MCA, for review. Send it along. I am sure Beth can find an interesting reviewer. Mike Cole On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Anton Yasnitsky wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > My sincerest apologies for group mail--especially to those, who believe > this message has reached them by mistake. My humble gratitude to the rest. > > I would like to let you know that the new book -- > > Yasnitsky, A. (2018). *Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography* -- > > authored by "*the new world leader in doing careful analytic work on > Vygotsky?s heritage*" (in most flattering opinion of Dr. Jaan Valsiner of > Aalborg University, Denmark, the author--with Dr. Ren? Van der Veer--of the > classic *Understanding Vygotsky*, 1991) is available* in its entirety* in > electronic format at: > *https://rdcu.be/4fov * > > The link directs to a* non-downloadable* electronic copy of the book > (generously provided to the author by the publisher, Routledge/Taylor & > Francis) and is valid for the *next 60 days only* (i.e., roughly, until > October 20, 2018). Please note that everyone will be able to explore the > full book online, but printing, copying, or downloading will not be > available. > > In addition, a hard copy of the book may be ordered from the publisher's > web site: > * https://www.routledge.com/Vygotsky-An-Intellectual- > Biography/Yasnitsky/p/book/9781138806740 (including an option of Request > Inspection Copy > available > free of charge for Course Instructors) > or at amazon, e.g. here: > * https://www.amazon.com/Vygotsky-Intellectual- > Biography-Anton-Yasnitsky/dp/1138806749 > > For further information on the author and his work, if interested, feel > free to explore the links in the automatically generated signature at the > very bottom of this message. > > Please do not hesitate to further share this message and/or the link to > the book with whoever might be concerned. > > Again, my apologies to those, who have received this email by mistake. > > All the best, > Anton. > -- > Anton Yasnitsky, Ph.D. > http://individual.utoronto.ca/yasnitsky/ > https://www.amazon.com/author/anton.yasnitsky > > > > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > > <#m_-638341557000059659_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180823/f0c02006/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Aug 23 18:06:49 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 18:06:49 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: New book: Yasnitsky, A. (2018). Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography In-Reply-To: <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Long time no hear, Anton. Your message ended up in my spam filter because of something about being an unverifiable account and it contains an address that is a total mystery to me. If you have been following the discussion on the xmca list you know that people are invited to send their new books to Beth Ferholt, the book review editor of MCA, for review. Send it along. I am sure Beth can find an interesting reviewer. Mike Cole On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Anton Yasnitsky wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > My sincerest apologies for group mail--especially to those, who believe > this message has reached them by mistake. My humble gratitude to the rest. > > I would like to let you know that the new book -- > > Yasnitsky, A. (2018). *Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography* -- > > authored by "*the new world leader in doing careful analytic work on > Vygotsky?s heritage*" (in most flattering opinion of Dr. Jaan Valsiner of > Aalborg University, Denmark, the author--with Dr. Ren? Van der Veer--of the > classic *Understanding Vygotsky*, 1991) is available* in its entirety* in > electronic format at: > *https://rdcu.be/4fov * > > The link directs to a* non-downloadable* electronic copy of the book > (generously provided to the author by the publisher, Routledge/Taylor & > Francis) and is valid for the *next 60 days only* (i.e., roughly, until > October 20, 2018). Please note that everyone will be able to explore the > full book online, but printing, copying, or downloading will not be > available. > > In addition, a hard copy of the book may be ordered from the publisher's > web site: > * https://www.routledge.com/Vygotsky-An-Intellectual- > Biography/Yasnitsky/p/book/9781138806740 (including an option of Request > Inspection Copy > available > free of charge for Course Instructors) > or at amazon, e.g. here: > * https://www.amazon.com/Vygotsky-Intellectual- > Biography-Anton-Yasnitsky/dp/1138806749 > > For further information on the author and his work, if interested, feel > free to explore the links in the automatically generated signature at the > very bottom of this message. > > Please do not hesitate to further share this message and/or the link to > the book with whoever might be concerned. > > Again, my apologies to those, who have received this email by mistake. > > All the best, > Anton. > -- > Anton Yasnitsky, Ph.D. > http://individual.utoronto.ca/yasnitsky/ > https://www.amazon.com/author/anton.yasnitsky > > > > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > > <#m_-638341557000059659_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180823/f0c02006/attachment-0001.html From bferholt@gmail.com Thu Aug 23 20:01:50 2018 From: bferholt@gmail.com (Beth Ferholt) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: New book: Yasnitsky, A. (2018). Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography In-Reply-To: References: <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1400978449.2148381.1535064868150@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Please do, Anton! I ask that all who have books for MCA to review -- your own or a book that is of interest to our community -- email me ASAP. Thank you very much, Beth On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:09 PM mike cole wrote: > Long time no hear, Anton. > Your message ended up in my spam filter because of something about being > an unverifiable account > and it contains an address that is a total mystery to me. > > If you have been following the discussion on the xmca list you know that > people are invited to send their new books to Beth Ferholt, the book review > editor of MCA, for review. Send it along. I am sure > Beth can find an interesting reviewer. > > Mike Cole > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Anton Yasnitsky > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> My sincerest apologies for group mail--especially to those, who believe >> this message has reached them by mistake. My humble gratitude to the rest. >> >> I would like to let you know that the new book -- >> >> Yasnitsky, A. (2018). *Vygotsky: An Intellectual Biography* -- >> >> authored by "*the new world leader in doing careful analytic work on >> Vygotsky?s heritage*" (in most flattering opinion of Dr. Jaan Valsiner >> of Aalborg University, Denmark, the author--with Dr. Ren? Van der Veer--of >> the classic *Understanding Vygotsky*, 1991) is available* in its >> entirety* in electronic format at: >> *https://rdcu.be/4fov * >> >> The link directs to a* non-downloadable* electronic copy of the book >> (generously provided to the author by the publisher, Routledge/Taylor & >> Francis) and is valid for the *next 60 days only* (i.e., roughly, until >> October 20, 2018). Please note that everyone will be able to explore the >> full book online, but printing, copying, or downloading will not be >> available. >> >> In addition, a hard copy of the book may be ordered from the publisher's >> web site: >> * >> https://www.routledge.com/Vygotsky-An-Intellectual-Biography/Yasnitsky/p/book/9781138806740 >> (including an option of Request Inspection Copy >> available >> free of charge for Course Instructors) >> or at amazon, e.g. here: >> * >> https://www.amazon.com/Vygotsky-Intellectual-Biography-Anton-Yasnitsky/dp/1138806749 >> >> For further information on the author and his work, if interested, feel >> free to explore the links in the automatically generated signature at the >> very bottom of this message. >> >> Please do not hesitate to further share this message and/or the link to >> the book with whoever might be concerned. >> >> Again, my apologies to those, who have received this email by mistake. >> >> All the best, >> Anton. >> -- >> Anton Yasnitsky, Ph.D. >> http://individual.utoronto.ca/yasnitsky/ >> https://www.amazon.com/author/anton.yasnitsky >> >> >> >> Virus-free. >> www.avg.com >> >> <#m_6453731064328669297_m_-638341557000059659_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> > > -- Beth Ferholt Associate Professor Department of Early Childhood and Art Education Brooklyn College, City University of New York 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889 Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu Phone: (718) 951-5205 Fax: (718) 951-4816 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180823/2668a9f3/attachment.html From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Aug 23 20:26:43 2018 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:26:43 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Early Childhood Post Doctoral Research Associate Position at Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A job for those with a high EQ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Christina Cipriano Date: Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:29 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Early Childhood Post Doctoral Research Associate Position at Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence To: We are hiring for a Post Doctoral Research Associate Position in Early Childhood at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. I have included the position as an attachment as well as in the body of this email. Thank you! Chris *POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE (8/22/18)* The Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence ?a division of the Yale Child Study Center in the Yale University School of Medicine?seeks a full-time postdoctoral research associate to join the early childhood research team on an IES Goal 3 *Promoting School Readiness through Emotional Intelligence:* *An Efficacy Trial of Preschool RULER*. Preschool RULER is a whole-school approach to promoting emotional intelligence for preschool-aged children (ages 3?5) and the adults in their lives (e.g., early childhood educators). Emotional intelligence is targeted by focusing on five social-emotional (SE) skills remembered using the acronym: RULER (recognizing, understanding, labeling, expressing, and regulating emotions). Preschool RULER provides concrete tools and strategies that support educators in teaching, modeling, and integrating these skills into every aspect of the school day contributing to increased social and behavioral competencies and school readiness. The Postdoctoral Research Associate will have experience in early childhood data collection and assessment as well as management of research projects and will hold a doctorate. The Postdoctoral Research Associate will be responsible for training, managing, and supervising the data collection team of research assistants. In addition, the Postdoctoral Research Associate will develop data collection protocols, create data files and codebooks, code data, run basic summary statistics, check data for irregularities, and provide Dr. Bailey with regular progress reports. The Postdoctoral Research Associate will work closely with Dr. Mashburn and will be supervised by PI Dr. Bailey, Director of Early Childhood and Co-PI Dr. Brackett, Director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. The Postdoctoral Research Associate will be mentored by Dr. Christina Cipriano, Director of Research at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. *RESPONSIBILITIES* ? Managing large-scale data collection with early childhood educators and young children and their families ? Managing trainings, data sets, running analyses, and reporting results ? Contributing to IRB applications and amendments, and future grant proposals ? Using advanced statistical techniques and multilevel and structural equation modeling ? Supervising research assistants and research interns ? Preparing research papers for publication in peer-reviewed journals *SKILLS & QUALIFICATIONS* Competence in (1) early childhood and social and emotional development, (2) managing and analyzing data, and (3) communicating, reporting and disseminating through writing and presenting is expected. Preference will be for candidates with experience: conducting research in schools and/or with young children, including experimental or quasi-experimental designs, proficiency using Mplus/R/Stata, background in psychometrics, and a history of scholarly publications. Qualified candidates will have recently completed a PhD in psychology, education, or a related field. Specialization or demonstrated interest in the study of early childhood SEL is necessary. *TO APPLY* *Applications will be reviewed immediately until the position is filled.* To apply, send your CV, an example of scholarly work, and a one-page cover letter to Dr. Bailey at craig.bailey@yale.edu. Please submit your materials as PDF files and name them *LastName.CV.pdf, LastName.coverletter.pdf*, etc *.* Qualified applicants may be contacted to schedule an interview and asked to submit two letters of recommendation. *ABOUT THE YALE CENTER FOR EMOTIOANL INTELLIGENCE* Emotions drive learning, decision making, creativity, relationships, and health. The Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence uses the power of emotions to create a healthier, and more innovative, productive, and compassionate society. We conduct research and design educational approaches that support people of all ages in developing emotional intelligence and the skills to thrive and contribute to society. RULER, the Center?s signature program, draws on leading pedagogical practices as well as advances in psychology and neuroscience, and it has been honed through years of collaboration, classroom observation, interviews, and the most demanding evaluations. Creating awareness?both of self and others?about emotions and developing the skills of emotional intelligence can improve children?s prospects in life and contribute, in turn, to healthier, more compassionate families, workplaces, and communities. RULER does this by teaching adults and children the skills of emotional intelligence. Since 2005, more than 600 schools have implemented RULER, affecting the lives of over 500,000 students. Accordingly, we integrate emotional intelligence skill building, the basis of RULER, into their everyday practices and into classroom curricula across grade levels. Yale University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. Women, members of minority groups, persons with disabilities, and protected veterans are encouraged to apply. -- Christina Cipriano, Ph.D. Applied Developmental and Educational Psychology christina.cipriano@gmail.com Direct: 617.959.1960 *lets take the moon and make it shine for everyone* *www.drchriscip.com * _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180823/528ee925/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: YCEI_PostDoc_ECRULER.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 673708 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180823/528ee925/attachment-0001.pdf From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Aug 25 16:51:27 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 23:51:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> , <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Douglas, Chuck, and venerable others, After waiting some days for a reply to Douglas's post, I thought to add (perhaps a second time) that I too am curious about the unconscious vis-a-vis CHAT. Is this a taboo topic? I think your segue to metaphor/metonymy is intriguing because I wonder if metaphor and metonymy are indeed a means of memory, a kind of distributed cognition or ROM-embodied-in-the-world, as the world. For example, why is it that memory of our youth springs up when we hear a hit song of that period? Why do smells (a very sublime but material experience-in-the-world) also invoke memory? Certainly this must have an evolutionary explanation. It has been the case that whenever one might invoke metaphor in speech, especially in an intellectual circle, that one was considered a lazy thinker, because metaphors eventually fail, and for that reason they do not have a fail-safe utility to effectively communicate. And so we are supposed to think and speak outside of metaphor to illustrate the power of our rational mind. (Am I wrong to say this?) Of course, people can think differently about this. I'm not attempting to lay down any thinking laws here. Just attempting to make an argument that may have at its joints stronger or weaker connections. Anyway, I used to feel "less-than" for my desire and penchant to use metaphor (and to some degree metonymy, which I also reference with I speak of metaphor herein). But then, then I read "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson, and my guilt and self-consciousness for metaphor usage was diminished and I felt liberated. There in that tome was a scientific explanation for why we use metaphor. But then also after reading Hutchins's "Cognition in the Wild," I also wondered if metaphor is as important to our thinking process as tools are to performing tasks in the material world. And just as writing things down helps us to remember things, perhaps metaphors are affordances for our memory, not just language and thinking. Sort of like the way rhyming helps in mnemonics. Perhaps metaphor is a shorthand that can later be unpacked on an as needed basis. (I am mindful about the many metaphors I have just employed to make various points above). What is the point? I wonder if the reason that metaphors fail is when we aren't able to "reverse engineer" them, that we lose the means to unpack them from their origins. To illustrate: we can make pigs into sausages, but not sausages into pigs. For the vegetarians out there: we can make soybeans into tofu but not tofu into soybeans. Where I'm going with this is to consider that perhaps there is an inherent flaw in the metaphor by which the shorthand that works well descends into a broken stereotype or trope which then distills into simple-minded thinking and then develops into a discourse of malapropisms ? la Archie Bunker (a 70s TV character, from the TV show "All In The Family," who speaks off-the-cuff, much like our fearless leader who also hails from Queens NYC). And OK, maybe that is the danger of the metaphor, however, it's not exactly something one can easily eradicate, the usage of metaphor, that is. Just consider the many ways we use the word "in" and how it holds a different connotation for different contexts. Any proposition really, "off," "through," "by," "under," to name a few things. Then try not to say "in" for a day. I don't think anyone could last an hour. But "in" is a conceptual metaphor of containment that we could not use if we didn't have human bodies who experience inside and outside. That primitive (as in first of) evolves into very nuanced thinking that is superbly human. I suppose the linguists on the list will run circles around this amateur observation of mine. That's OK. I don't mind. Touching upon your observation on jokes, I had always thought jokes come from recognition of something true within an apparent incongruence, which I suppose is a very dry way to explain how jokes work. So when you bring up that jokes are something economic, I presume you are using the word "economy" in terms of thrift-of-utility. Sorry if I am being thick for want of a little clarity. I wonder if the pleasure of a joke is an aesthetic experience, no different from when we see genius (however you might define genius) perform an act of beauty, whether art, prose, dance, math, etc. That there is an elegance present, not just economy. For some strange reason, I'm reminded of the documentary movie "The Aristocrats" in which comedians have a "secret circle" among themselves on how they tell a particular dirty joke that leads to the punchline, "The Aristocrats!" Of course I may not be representing this so well as I saw the movie many years ago (ten? ... IMDB tells me more than that! It came out in 2005. I'm starting to feel old). This cultural-historical lineage for comedians arises from Vaudeville as the film notes indicate. (For anyone with weakness for obscenity, I recommend the movie, but for those who enjoy cleaner humor, well then, please check out a Disney movie for your viewing pleasure and you'll be safe). Douglas, I agree with you that jokes can invoke the taboo usually buried in the unconscious, don't they? But what does it mean when someone jokes at the expense of another? Such as slapstick jokes. And I can bring this back to Mr. Fred Rogers because he felt that the children's television shows were violent and celebrated that violence, and he felt that we owed children a better television experience. I wonder what the jokes present in his television show might reveal, if jokes were to render the taboo in the Land of Make-Believe? But then I'm considering the pornographic as well. I don't want this discussion to descend into that form of content, but more to speak about it historically when you bring up the vehicle of subversion. I'm thinking specifically about the place for libertine literature during the ancient regime of pre-revolutionary France. Someone had to go to a lot of effort to print and distribute etchings about Marie Antoinette and there was a lot of risk doing that. Talk about material taboo. I did enjoy the connection (was it intentional) between The Birds and Twitter? "Turn your minds to our words, our ethereal words, for the words of the birds last forever!" Is Twitter the city in the sky? Given your thoughtful paper on remarriage comedies, I'd be curious to know your take on the comedy series "Divorce" starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Thomas Haden Church. When I first learned about it, I was horrified that anyone would want to produce a comedy about divorce. Divorce is rarely humorous and more often a tragic revenge festival that casts a light upon the deepest of human hurt and betrayal. To me, there was something Jerry-Springer-esque about the idea of such a comedy. But as it happened that evening, I think I'd gone through to last episode of the season for Game of Thrones, and so I thought to sample Divorce's pilot. It ends up the writing is peculiarly feminist. Well, now I'm not sure as I write that. It certainly has swapped roles of the typical divorce story, whereby the wife who nabs alimony on the back of a professional husband to expand her recreational life and financial entitlement for purposes to seek the meaning of life after matrimonial betrayal, because in this case Sarah Jessica Parker is the professional spouse of the couple with the cash, and Tom Haden Church the nabber of alimony and keeper of child custody. It is truly an odd story. Jokes aside. There you go with some shiny objects perhaps. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Douglas Williams Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 1:30:22 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi, Chuck-- That brings up a point that I've wondered about. (Forgive me, I'm out of my depth here, so I'm probably asking questions that aren't so mysterious to others, but read on if you are feeling indulgent.) How precisely would one describe the unconscious in CHAT terms, particularly in the light of recent developments about memory: A web of complex thought, some common to a period, and some idiosyncratic, over which more internalized social narratives and some rationality are imposed? I suspect if I knew more, I would have an answer, but I don't. And what forms of organization and access would this unconscious take? I'm particularly interested in the shared domains of metaphor and metonymy that underlay a good deal of social interaction, so that I can cite ruby slippers, and bring in the rest of the narrative as a reference domain, or say that the light dawned in my mind, and be understood. And in reference to Freud, while setting aside the idea that the id is forcing us to laugh at a joke because of its sudden release from imprisonment, there are aspects of Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious that strike me as at least very interesting observations. A Russian joke I read recently went something like "How far away is North Korea? Not so far at all. You can see it from your window." That implies an awareness of American politics (Sarah Palen's comment about seeing Russia from her window), North Korea as the paradigm authoritarian state, and an interpretation--subversive, and potentially dangerous to say openly--that is sufficiently within the pattern of Freud's theory of "joke-work," in which the joke "evades restrictions" of internalized patterns of thought and phrases, and perhaps at times relies on deeper shared metaphors to do its work. I tend to think that there are few things more important than silly narratives and foolish jokes, which probably explains much in my life. But there's something economic going on here, and I think Freud described it well when he said that with jokes, "the yield of pleasure corresponds to the psychical expenditure that is saved." Setting aside the id as the driving force, there is certainly an ongoing conflict of social narratives (internalized, or in social groups conflicting with one another) that can account for psychic organizational tension and repression. I've noticed at large companies, just as with nations, there is a tendency for jokes to express themselves subversively; and even in support of a majority, as in Aristophanes' The Birds, or any number of things one can find on Twitter these days, one can find majorities or large minorities of social groups engaging in humor that is particular to their subsets, which is in the form of subverting a perceived oppression. For Freud's Victorian period, perhaps the quite extreme suppression of sexuality made the expression of the forbidden subject the most common basis. In our period, race and class are more forbidden themes (possibly why film romantic comedy has lost much of its sparkle, outside of comedies of remarriage--those in which couples escape the suppression of bad marriages in favor of good ones. I wrote a paper about modern remarriage comedy once, and I'd have liked to bring in some fuller explanation of this kind of economy of humor, but as I'm more of a magpie that picks up bright and shiny objects and arranges them in neat patterns in my pile, rather than one of those people who heats the furnace, melts the sand, and labors to turn it into pretty objects, I have not gotten much further than musing at late hours to myself. And having mused, the sands of time persuade me to muse on in my dreams, and see what shiny XMCA-work might turn up. Regards, Doug On ?Monday?, ?August? ?13?, ?2018? ?07?:?59?:?39? ?AM? ?PDT, Charles Bazerman wrote: To be clear. Both Sullivan and Vygotsky believed in and acted on positive regard. Sullivan, however, examined anxiety as part of the self-system. BTW, as most of you know, Vygotsky was interested in the depth psychology of Freud and Adler, though he did not agree with everything they saidl Chuck ---- History will judge. On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:10 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: Hi Annalisa, thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly appreciate your membership to this list. But I would like to clarify that I did not make any assumptions about what you meant to say, but treated your post for what it said; so please, don't say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here. Yes, I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid assuming this or that when we hear someone say something, but I do not want to end up in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally" etc. What I mean is that my assumption, the key in which I read posts here, is that all posts address all and everyone else in the list, even when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object, you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular, then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to. So, my concern is with a tendency that you have displayed in several occasions for admonishing others for having brought up issues of their concern to a discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of a post that you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was never asked". I did not think that post contributed to freedom at all, despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared project. Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up and pursued as topic, and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may have felt Peter's reaction had been language inappropriately. That is why I bring up the example about collateral learning and intentions, another related example is research about teachers asking questions with the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to make sure that your and anyone's else integrity is respected, I do not think that you contribute to anyone's else freedom by blaming others for not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this. I hope that everyone following this list recognises that I intervene when I feel freedom is threatened, and I am sure that you will remember occasions in which I have intervened in which the person I called attention for was white and male, while other female participants (including yourself) had been just as or more rude than Peter S' post at the time. In those other occasions, I called attention about what I felt was most relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not complain then. So, your call to my bias may be after all be biased too. Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing and orienting to our shared project and not any personal. ?Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing these interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues, which I see you have contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the trans-actional mode of collaboration. Best wishes, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 13 August 2018 08:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Alfredo, Thank you for your post. I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using "people" to address him. If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I maintain it has to do with gender. If I may quote his post: "I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples." I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot of assumptions. QED. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what I'd said. Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, Alfredo. Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that would have been something entirely different, which is always an option when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't let anyone talk to you that way. There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he have the right to make those assumptions about me? If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation about jackasses all about me. A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, and I hope respectful, I am addressing it. I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it certainly wasn't for *my* benefit. Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender sensitivity does not trump what he said? That is a real question. It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of worldviews. Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. Especially with novices, as they are our future. I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it tedious. It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't deal with it from my point of view, did he? If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office. To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making recommendations to me that were not solicited. I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here. I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable. Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it. You say: "It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. " I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have addressed me in the past. You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that. I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an advertisement for "an eye for an eye." Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to positive regard*. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the original post subject title. Kind regards unconditionally, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180825/77ac132e/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Sat Aug 25 22:44:10 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 05:44:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> , <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com>, Message-ID: <1535262216939.29766@ils.uio.no> Hi all, there is more in these thoughtful posts that I can react or add to, but I wanted to quickly respond to Annalisa's later remarks on metaphor, which highlight a possible connection between rationality and *not* thinking in metaphor. I agree with the observation that it would seem that, tacit or less tacit in most modern thinking about mind, cognition, etc, there is this idea that metaphors "eventually fail," as Annalisa puts it. As if thinking was some means only externally connected to needs and motives, a "tool" for ?achieving well-defined goals and solving problems. For only when life situations are put in such *formalistic* terms as "problem-solving" that we can say that metaphors "fail". In the post there are already mentions to several exceptions, authors who have taken metaphors to be not just casual artifacts but rather constitutional aspects of the way mind organizes and is organized. Although I must say that when I read Lakoff & Johnson's account, "flesh" was the one thing that seemed to be most absent from it. Anyway, I just wanted to add one more author who also considered metaphor to be not just central but rather foundational to mind, Gregory Bateson. In particular, Bateson has this remarkable chapter in his unfinished book Angels Fear (edited, co-authored, and published by his daughter Mary Catherine), in which he discusses how the "language of metaphor" is more primary and far more present in nature than the language of formal logic that tends to be considered the signature of mind. But of course, for Bateson, Mind, and hence thinking, is something much larger than only "human" thinking (and in this, in my view, he resembles monist historical materialists). I have limited time as I am travelling, but I have time to attach the chapter which I think is revealing to the questions of these thread. Particularly revealing is the comparison he makes between "formal syllogisms" and "syllogisms of metaphor". He uses the following example: Men die; Socrates is a man; Socrates will die. That is plain logic, the one that seems "right" and that will not "fail". The metaphor syllogism goes like this: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass. The syllogism is of course "wrong" if assessed from the formal logic stance. But, from the stance of natural beings, of living creatures, Bateson argues, "these syllogisms are the very stuff of which natural history is made" (need to board a plain, I attach chapter later or upon request) Best, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 26 August 2018 01:51 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi Douglas, Chuck, and venerable others, After waiting some days for a reply to Douglas's post, I thought to add (perhaps a second time) that I too am curious about the unconscious vis-a-vis CHAT. Is this a taboo topic? I think your segue to metaphor/metonymy is intriguing because I wonder if metaphor and metonymy are indeed a means of memory, a kind of distributed cognition or ROM-embodied-in-the-world, as the world. For example, why is it that memory of our youth springs up when we hear a hit song of that period? Why do smells (a very sublime but material experience-in-the-world) also invoke memory? Certainly this must have an evolutionary explanation. It has been the case that whenever one might invoke metaphor in speech, especially in an intellectual circle, that one was considered a lazy thinker, because metaphors eventually fail, and for that reason they do not have a fail-safe utility to effectively communicate. And so we are supposed to think and speak outside of metaphor to illustrate the power of our rational mind. (Am I wrong to say this?) Of course, people can think differently about this. I'm not attempting to lay down any thinking laws here. Just attempting to make an argument that may have at its joints stronger or weaker connections. Anyway, I used to feel "less-than" for my desire and penchant to use metaphor (and to some degree metonymy, which I also reference with I speak of metaphor herein). But then, then I read "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson, and my guilt and self-consciousness for metaphor usage was diminished and I felt liberated. There in that tome was a scientific explanation for why we use metaphor. But then also after reading Hutchins's "Cognition in the Wild," I also wondered if metaphor is as important to our thinking process as tools are to performing tasks in the material world. And just as writing things down helps us to remember things, perhaps metaphors are affordances for our memory, not just language and thinking. Sort of like the way rhyming helps in mnemonics. Perhaps metaphor is a shorthand that can later be unpacked on an as needed basis. (I am mindful about the many metaphors I have just employed to make various points above). What is the point? I wonder if the reason that metaphors fail is when we aren't able to "reverse engineer" them, that we lose the means to unpack them from their origins. To illustrate: we can make pigs into sausages, but not sausages into pigs. For the vegetarians out there: we can make soybeans into tofu but not tofu into soybeans. Where I'm going with this is to consider that perhaps there is an inherent flaw in the metaphor by which the shorthand that works well descends into a broken stereotype or trope which then distills into simple-minded thinking and then develops into a discourse of malapropisms ? la Archie Bunker (a 70s TV character, from the TV show "All In The Family," who speaks off-the-cuff, much like our fearless leader who also hails from Queens NYC). And OK, maybe that is the danger of the metaphor, however, it's not exactly something one can easily eradicate, the usage of metaphor, that is. Just consider the many ways we use the word "in" and how it holds a different connotation for different contexts. Any proposition really, "off," "through," "by," "under," to name a few things. Then try not to say "in" for a day. I don't think anyone could last an hour. But "in" is a conceptual metaphor of containment that we could not use if we didn't have human bodies who experience inside and outside. That primitive (as in first of) evolves into very nuanced thinking that is superbly human. I suppose the linguists on the list will run circles around this amateur observation of mine. That's OK. I don't mind. Touching upon your observation on jokes, I had always thought jokes come from recognition of something true within an apparent incongruence, which I suppose is a very dry way to explain how jokes work. So when you bring up that jokes are something economic, I presume you are using the word "economy" in terms of thrift-of-utility. Sorry if I am being thick for want of a little clarity. I wonder if the pleasure of a joke is an aesthetic experience, no different from when we see genius (however you might define genius) perform an act of beauty, whether art, prose, dance, math, etc. That there is an elegance present, not just economy. For some strange reason, I'm reminded of the documentary movie "The Aristocrats" in which comedians have a "secret circle" among themselves on how they tell a particular dirty joke that leads to the punchline, "The Aristocrats!" Of course I may not be representing this so well as I saw the movie many years ago (ten? ... IMDB tells me more than that! It came out in 2005. I'm starting to feel old). This cultural-historical lineage for comedians arises from Vaudeville as the film notes indicate. (For anyone with weakness for obscenity, I recommend the movie, but for those who enjoy cleaner humor, well then, please check out a Disney movie for your viewing pleasure and you'll be safe). Douglas, I agree with you that jokes can invoke the taboo usually buried in the unconscious, don't they? But what does it mean when someone jokes at the expense of another? Such as slapstick jokes. And I can bring this back to Mr. Fred Rogers because he felt that the children's television shows were violent and celebrated that violence, and he felt that we owed children a better television experience. I wonder what the jokes present in his television show might reveal, if jokes were to render the taboo in the Land of Make-Believe? But then I'm considering the pornographic as well. I don't want this discussion to descend into that form of content, but more to speak about it historically when you bring up the vehicle of subversion. I'm thinking specifically about the place for libertine literature during the ancient regime of pre-revolutionary France. Someone had to go to a lot of effort to print and distribute etchings about Marie Antoinette and there was a lot of risk doing that. Talk about material taboo. I did enjoy the connection (was it intentional) between The Birds and Twitter? "Turn your minds to our words, our ethereal words, for the words of the birds last forever!" Is Twitter the city in the sky? Given your thoughtful paper on remarriage comedies, I'd be curious to know your take on the comedy series "Divorce" starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Thomas Haden Church. When I first learned about it, I was horrified that anyone would want to produce a comedy about divorce. Divorce is rarely humorous and more often a tragic revenge festival that casts a light upon the deepest of human hurt and betrayal. To me, there was something Jerry-Springer-esque about the idea of such a comedy. But as it happened that evening, I think I'd gone through to last episode of the season for Game of Thrones, and so I thought to sample Divorce's pilot. It ends up the writing is peculiarly feminist. Well, now I'm not sure as I write that. It certainly has swapped roles of the typical divorce story, whereby the wife who nabs alimony on the back of a professional husband to expand her recreational life and financial entitlement for purposes to seek the meaning of life after matrimonial betrayal, because in this case Sarah Jessica Parker is the professional spouse of the couple with the cash, and Tom Haden Church the nabber of alimony and keeper of child custody. It is truly an odd story. Jokes aside. There you go with some shiny objects perhaps. Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Douglas Williams Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 1:30:22 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi, Chuck-- That brings up a point that I've wondered about. (Forgive me, I'm out of my depth here, so I'm probably asking questions that aren't so mysterious to others, but read on if you are feeling indulgent.) How precisely would one describe the unconscious in CHAT terms, particularly in the light of recent developments about memory: A web of complex thought, some common to a period, and some idiosyncratic, over which more internalized social narratives and some rationality are imposed? I suspect if I knew more, I would have an answer, but I don't. And what forms of organization and access would this unconscious take? I'm particularly interested in the shared domains of metaphor and metonymy that underlay a good deal of social interaction, so that I can cite ruby slippers, and bring in the rest of the narrative as a reference domain, or say that the light dawned in my mind, and be understood. And in reference to Freud, while setting aside the idea that the id is forcing us to laugh at a joke because of its sudden release from imprisonment, there are aspects of Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious that strike me as at least very interesting observations. A Russian joke I read recently went something like "How far away is North Korea? Not so far at all. You can see it from your window." That implies an awareness of American politics (Sarah Palen's comment about seeing Russia from her window), North Korea as the paradigm authoritarian state, and an interpretation--subversive, and potentially dangerous to say openly--that is sufficiently within the pattern of Freud's theory of "joke-work," in which the joke "evades restrictions" of internalized patterns of thought and phrases, and perhaps at times relies on deeper shared metaphors to do its work. I tend to think that there are few things more important than silly narratives and foolish jokes, which probably explains much in my life. But there's something economic going on here, and I think Freud described it well when he said that with jokes, "the yield of pleasure corresponds to the psychical expenditure that is saved." Setting aside the id as the driving force, there is certainly an ongoing conflict of social narratives (internalized, or in social groups conflicting with one another) that can account for psychic organizational tension and repression. I've noticed at large companies, just as with nations, there is a tendency for jokes to express themselves subversively; and even in support of a majority, as in Aristophanes' The Birds, or any number of things one can find on Twitter these days, one can find majorities or large minorities of social groups engaging in humor that is particular to their subsets, which is in the form of subverting a perceived oppression. For Freud's Victorian period, perhaps the quite extreme suppression of sexuality made the expression of the forbidden subject the most common basis. In our period, race and class are more forbidden themes (possibly why film romantic comedy has lost much of its sparkle, outside of comedies of remarriage--those in which couples escape the suppression of bad marriages in favor of good ones. I wrote a paper about modern remarriage comedy once, and I'd have liked to bring in some fuller explanation of this kind of economy of humor, but as I'm more of a magpie that picks up bright and shiny objects and arranges them in neat patterns in my pile, rather than one of those people who heats the furnace, melts the sand, and labors to turn it into pretty objects, I have not gotten much further than musing at late hours to myself. And having mused, the sands of time persuade me to muse on in my dreams, and see what shiny XMCA-work might turn up. Regards, Doug On ?Monday?, ?August? ?13?, ?2018? ?07?:?59?:?39? ?AM? ?PDT, Charles Bazerman wrote: To be clear. Both Sullivan and Vygotsky believed in and acted on positive regard. Sullivan, however, examined anxiety as part of the self-system. BTW, as most of you know, Vygotsky was interested in the depth psychology of Freud and Adler, though he did not agree with everything they saidl Chuck ---- History will judge. On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:10 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: Hi Annalisa, thanks for keeping the dialogue up. I truly appreciate your membership to this list. But I would like to clarify that I did not make any assumptions about what you meant to say, but treated your post for what it said; so please, don't say that I accuse you for taking the "wrong" assumptions, for it is precisely my point that we should not be assuming personal intentions here. Yes, I know we always hear stuff the way we hear it, that we cannot avoid assuming this or that when we hear someone say something, but I do not want to end up in an infinite regress arguing cannot be read "literally" etc. What I mean is that my assumption, the key in which I read posts here, is that all posts address all and everyone else in the list, even when they are motivated by and respond to someone in particular, and that the assumption needs to be not about what one or other "meant" to say, but about the topics, themes, ideas, etc... As a collective, we need to focus on our shared projects; when someone is not focusing on that shared object, you are always welcome to help her or him cooperate towards that shared goal. If your post was about personal issues with someone in particular, then it was just as inappropriate as the post it was responding to. So, my concern is with a tendency that you have displayed in several occasions for admonishing others for having brought up issues of their concern to a discussion that you had opened. You did not long ago also blame David K. for having brought up a story on that occasion of a post that you shared about Sakharov, saying that your thread had been "kidnapped" and that you had found "an answer to a question that was never asked". I did not think that post contributed to freedom at all, despite my certainty that that was your "intention". But again, I cannot rely on intentions, we need to rely on what we do for our shared project. Here, you complained that the issue of anxiety had been brought up and pursued as topic, and I reacted to that, not to the fact that you may have felt Peter's reaction had been language inappropriately. That is why I bring up the example about collateral learning and intentions, another related example is research about teachers asking questions with the "known answer" (Mehan, 1979, etc). While I appreciate that you try to make sure that your and anyone's else integrity is respected, I do not think that you contribute to anyone's else freedom by blaming others for not posting in one or another direction. If others think differently, I heartedly invite them to participate and help us get better at this. I hope that everyone following this list recognises that I intervene when I feel freedom is threatened, and I am sure that you will remember occasions in which I have intervened in which the person I called attention for was white and male, while other female participants (including yourself) had been just as or more rude than Peter S' post at the time. In those other occasions, I called attention about what I felt was most relevant for maintaining the list's freedom and integrity. You did not complain then. So, your call to my bias may be after all be biased too. Still, I thank you for helping me and everyone else identify such biases when they come to happen, now and always, as long as you do so addressing and orienting to our shared project and not any personal. ?Finally, Annalisa, I thank you for always being capable of managing these interpersonal issues while also and at the same time continuing dialogue on the substantial (topics) issues, which I see you have contributed to in subsequent posts, with Adam and others. So thanks for that, I look forward to continuing that interesting discussion. I truly hope we can reduce this inter-personal e-mails and get more into the trans-actional mode of collaboration. Best wishes, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 13 August 2018 08:52 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Alfredo, Thank you for your post. I do not think you understand, but I appreciate that you make a compassionate effort to settle things down. Forgive me, but I was not admonishing the list. I was merely using the term "people" in the same way that Peter S was, which was really to address me, and so, I was using "people" to address him. If you wish to admonish me, then what of Peter S? Alfredo, you only affirm my complaint that there is an unequal manner of sorting this out, and I maintain it has to do with gender. If I may quote his post: "I strongly recommend that people not psychoanalyze people they don?t know, or form opinions about neurological issues they don?t understand, or take real people and turn them into philosophical examples." I might be wrong, but I am guessing Peter S's post wasn't directed to Charles, or the list, but to me. I found it hostile, and passive aggressive. It lacks courage because he did not address me directly. It lacks curiosity because he did not ask me what I meant, he just made a lot of assumptions. QED. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, and also the privilege to suffer the consequences. The nature of his post was to shut me down. It was an emotional and reactionary post, completely out of proportion to what I'd said. Respectfully, I am surprised that you are not at all seeing your own bias, Alfredo. Had Peter S emailed me privately, to object or to indicate how I offended him, we could have worked it out that way and not involved the list; that would have been something entirely different, which is always an option when having disputes. Because he wanted to post through the list (no one made him do it), I too choose to do the same, to make it clear how I received his unsolicited recommendation, because, intentionally, I hope to call attention how women are frequently treated, as a teaching moment, and that doesn't make it about me, but about making this list a better place for *positive regard* of all members of the community who have the desire to amenably participate on this listserv. To the venerable others, don't let anyone talk to you that way. There were a few wrong assumptions made on his part. Yet Alfredo, you do not say anything about that. You accuse me of wrong assumptions. Well... how does he know that I do not understand neurological issues? Why does he have the right to make those assumptions about me? If I walk into a room of people and someone I do not know seems to yell out to no one in particular, "Hey you jackass!" and I take exception to that and begin arguing with that person about their address in front of everyone then I am the one taking on that label of jackass. I am responsible for my reaction, not the person yelling out. Yes the person calling out might be rude, but it could *also be* a conversation taken out of context and I might actually be butting in and making that conversation about jackasses all about me. A few times I tried to bring the topic back to positive regard, I think quite politely, and with humor. I still am invested in having that conversation, but this tiny conflagration has come up and to be sensitive, and I hope respectful, I am addressing it. I suggest considering how you yourself would have taken Peter's post were it directed to you. It was controlling and intended to shut me down, it certainly wasn't for *my* benefit. Why does Peter S's condition somehow trump what I said, but my gender sensitivity does not trump what he said? That is a real question. It is frequently the case that threads gets derailed. I understand that happens. I think it happens too much, and it might cause community members not to initiate a post nor to participate. I find this disappointing because then this list becomes nothing but a clique for a few people to only post about a limited number of topics with a limited number of worldviews. Like you indicated, I am with you when I say let's hope it can change. Especially with novices, as they are our future. I apologize to you and this list for being strident (which is not exactly positive regard, I admit, but it is passionate in its intention and it does *not* arise from a desire to hurt, it is to discuss the matter at hand). However, this is a real challenge and it should be taken seriously. That is my reason for deconstructing this ever so carefully. Sorry if you find it tedious. It was never my intention to malign Peter S, but he took offense, and that is not in my control. I don't see anything cooperative about his post whatsoever. Given the way he addressed me, he gave me no way in to deal with the real issue that bothered him, so I'm dealing with it in parallel on my terms from my point of view, what else can I do? He certainly didn't deal with it from my point of view, did he? If everyone could understand gendered interactions, it would include understanding that frequently women are *expected* to defer to the pain/discomfort of others, as if we are responsible for it. As I write that, I might say that of all oppressed people. I refuse that care-taking role, nor am I a therapist. I'm not responsible for the pain that was there before I came along, though I can certainly be compassionate, especially if that were solicited. I actually thought I was being compassionate. I don't believe my prior posts concerning anxiety were untoward or offensive. I was discussing what interested me and I was thinking out loud. It is a discussion on a listserv, not the therapist's office. To participate amicably has always been my orientation. It might have been better received if Peter were to accept his own vulnerability and to discuss what I said that actually bothered him, rather than making recommendations to me that were not solicited. I believe he was shooting the messenger for his discomfort. Drawing a boundary is different from telling, excuse me, recommending people what to do. It is also true that people make mistakes in how they address and post. I certainly am guilty of that, but I did not find it to be the case here. I stand by my assertion that it takes courage to investigate (and invest in) positive regard. It also takes curiosity to want to understand the dynamics of positive regard, even if it causes discomfort. It takes courage and curiosity because both mean being vulnerable. Additionally, Charles's post about anxiety caused me no regret, which you also accuse me of, Alfredo. I was saying that I didn't bring it into the conversation, and that I had intended to discuss something else, yet I was following the change in course. I did not chastise Charles for bringing up the topic of anxiety, I welcomed it. You say: "It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity. " I disagree entirely that intention doesn't matter when considering cooperation. I am going to presume that your intention is not to shut me down, but to do something other than that. Largely, despite your accusations, I find this because of your tone and what I believe your intention to be which includes your history of posts and how you have addressed me in the past. You say it doesn't help telling others what exactly a conversation should or shouldn't be about, but isn't that you just now telling me how to converse?? Or does your admonishment include Peter S too? Was that your intention? Or was it directed solely to me? I'm not clear about that. I do agree entirely with your statement that treating others in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, but then *also* no one should be surprised when they are treated as they have treated others, especially when positive regard has been absent. That isn't an advertisement for "an eye for an eye." Last, I just want to make clear that my "philosophizing" about anxiety had very little to do with Peter S. Although I mentioned him, he was peripheral. Sorry, Peter S, it was not about you. Believe it or not, I wrote what I actually think about the topic of anxiety *in relation to positive regard*. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If anyone would like to continue on the topic of positive regard (with positive regard) and the 2 Rogers, Vygotsky, Sullivan, and so on, and no one feels anxious to include the topic of anxiety in the mix, I'm sure we might have a very rich discussion. I plan to resume on that tack with the original post subject title. Kind regards unconditionally, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180826/e9a2db21/attachment.html From jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br Mon Aug 27 12:09:49 2018 From: jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br (Joao Martins) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:09:49 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Book Asmolov Message-ID: <003301d43e39$885ef710$991ce530$@sercomtel.com.br> Dear Colleagues I'm looking for the book by Alexander Asmolov - Vygotsky Today: On The Verge of Non-Classical Psychology. I don't find it to buy, so I would like to know if anyone has the book in PDF and if can share it. Thanks Joao --- Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antiv?rus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180827/e9567ff6/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Aug 27 22:05:28 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:05:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: <1535262216939.29766@ils.uio.no> References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> , <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com>, , <1535262216939.29766@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi Alfredo and venerable others who continue to peruse the thread, Thanks for your verdant post! I must say that in regard to your syllogism: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass. I would reply: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass cut down by the grim reaper; but grass grows back if watered by mother nature; A mother who lives forever. Just to give a feminist twist, though I hope not too essentialist. However, I was taken by surprise on your take on Lakoff and Johnson, and I had to think a little before I replied, so that I respond more thoughtfully (I hope). For me, the "flesh" part of the book's content references embodied thinking, which I may have already said, and I hope I'm not repeating myself. The assertion being, we can't think without a body and also that we are not robots with brains for our CPUs. I wish I had the book at my fingertips right now to say more on that. It took me a little bit to consider what embodied thinking actually meant while reading the book, because looking back I see how many Cartesian assumptions I had to unlearn when thinking about mind. Also reading David Kirsh's work on dancers and how they mark with their bodies when learning new sequences of steps helped me to understand. Using a bookmark is a form of embodied thinking (real books not digital browsers!) The problem with thinking about thinking is that we forget that we have a body already in place sitting in a soup of evolution, culture, history, etc, and how there is an illusion that we are bubbles of consciousness thinking like Rodin's thinker on a stool. That pose has become the shorthand for mainstream conceptions of a thinker. I'm even remembering how the documentary of Hannah Arendt shows her laying on a couch smoking a cigarette while contemplating evil (which might just a postmodern cinematic redo of David's Madame Recamier perhaps?). Anyway, there was also something Kirsh wrote in another paper about metacognition about libraries that I found illuminating, and I'm not referencing green-shaded lamps. Recalling from memory... it was something like: how if not for size and height of the tables (horizontal) we could not read the books stored on the shelves (vertically) because sometimes we want to lay many books open at once and compare them, and how we might use a finger to keep our place while checking and comparing texts. So environment has a lot of power in how we digest our tools for thinking as well. How could we conceive of vertical and horizontal without bodies (and without gravity and a horizon). Also, that the way we see, which the eyes only have a small part in, also has to do with our bodies, because sometimes we have to walk around things to know about them, something the eyes can't do alone. Or how the organs of perception work in unison, such as smoke and fire may mean danger when we see flames, smell burning wood and our skin feels heat. But when we have one of those faux fireplaces with digital flickering flames, we just feel coziness (or an aversion to the kitsch)! Anyway, Bateson was an inspiration to Hutchins, and his work assisted in Hutchins's development of his approach to distributed cognition (Bateson is someone on my reading list). I also feel that there is a connection to what you offer about Bateson's observation of metaphor as a "primary" language to Levi-Straus's Science of the Concrete, as described in the first chapter of Le Pens?e Sauvage whose connotation, I might add, is lost when translated to English's "The Savage Mind" because in the French (as I understand) is a double ent?ndre of savage mind and wild pansy at the same time. I take that to be a wonderful reference to the wisdom of the natural world inherent in what we used to call "primitive" or "uncivilized" cultures. It is a beautiful, embodied metaphor which is far more meaningful than the English, which ironically seems more idealized, or Cartesian (who was French!) I would enjoy to look at that chapter you almost attached if not for want of a plane to board. With regard to the metaphor and how it fails, is that metaphor is aspectual. Just like a tool might have a proper and improper application, so does a metaphor. In Vedanta, for example, there is a drshtanta (sanskrit for "teaching-illustration") for the dehatma-buddhi, which translates roughly to the "mind-body-sense complex," (and also references that the dehatma-buddhi is the self and the self is the dehatma-buddhi as 1:1 equivalence and how this equivalence is an illusion), anyway, the drshtanta of the red-hot iron ball is a very old metaphor used to explain something very hard to explain rationally. It is used to show how one might perceive that the attributes of iron might associate to the fire and vice versa, because they are indeed at that moment in time inseparably presenting in the same loci. It would take for one to have prior knowledge of the attributes of fire to know that the roundness and heaviness of the ball does not belong to fire but to iron, and likewise the knowledge of iron to know that the heat and the redness belong actually to fire not to iron. It is impossible to physically differentiate the red-hot from the iron ball, say by pulling them apart into smaller pieces (which Descartes tries to do: to see a thing in parts adding into a whole). It is a beautiful metaphor for explaining how the self takes on attributes of the body and the body takes attributes of the self. And yet the drshtanta fails if someone from the peanut gallery says, "Just dunk it in a pool of water like any old blacksmith and you'll figure that one out," and the peanut thrower would be right, but the metaphor, if used in a surgical way, is very apt to show the illusion of the location of consciousness (self). So the metaphor, when used with precision, is a useful tool. One doesn't get far with a screwdriver if everything seems a screw, especially if the screw is a nail. I think with a metaphor (as a cognitive tool) it's the same. Of course there is danger if we mix our metaphors inappropriately, which is another way they can fail. I feel compelled to find an example in which metaphors help problem-solving in life situation...perhaps it is a job for Superman or some other superhero. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180828/1abf7f98/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Mon Aug 27 23:19:12 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 06:19:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> , <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com>, , <1535262216939.29766@ils.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1535437116303.13701@ils.uio.no> oh yes, the chapter! Here it is :) Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 28 August 2018 07:05 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi Alfredo and venerable others who continue to peruse the thread, Thanks for your verdant post! I must say that in regard to your syllogism: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass. I would reply: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass cut down by the grim reaper; but grass grows back if watered by mother nature; A mother who lives forever. Just to give a feminist twist, though I hope not too essentialist. However, I was taken by surprise on your take on Lakoff and Johnson, and I had to think a little before I replied, so that I respond more thoughtfully (I hope). For me, the "flesh" part of the book's content references embodied thinking, which I may have already said, and I hope I'm not repeating myself. The assertion being, we can't think without a body and also that we are not robots with brains for our CPUs. I wish I had the book at my fingertips right now to say more on that. It took me a little bit to consider what embodied thinking actually meant while reading the book, because looking back I see how many Cartesian assumptions I had to unlearn when thinking about mind. Also reading David Kirsh's work on dancers and how they mark with their bodies when learning new sequences of steps helped me to understand. Using a bookmark is a form of embodied thinking (real books not digital browsers!) The problem with thinking about thinking is that we forget that we have a body already in place sitting in a soup of evolution, culture, history, etc, and how there is an illusion that we are bubbles of consciousness thinking like Rodin's thinker on a stool. That pose has become the shorthand for mainstream conceptions of a thinker. I'm even remembering how the documentary of Hannah Arendt shows her laying on a couch smoking a cigarette while contemplating evil (which might just a postmodern cinematic redo of David's Madame Recamier perhaps?). Anyway, there was also something Kirsh wrote in another paper about metacognition about libraries that I found illuminating, and I'm not referencing green-shaded lamps. Recalling from memory... it was something like: how if not for size and height of the tables (horizontal) we could not read the books stored on the shelves (vertically) because sometimes we want to lay many books open at once and compare them, and how we might use a finger to keep our place while checking and comparing texts. So environment has a lot of power in how we digest our tools for thinking as well. How could we conceive of vertical and horizontal without bodies (and without gravity and a horizon). Also, that the way we see, which the eyes only have a small part in, also has to do with our bodies, because sometimes we have to walk around things to know about them, something the eyes can't do alone. Or how the organs of perception work in unison, such as smoke and fire may mean danger when we see flames, smell burning wood and our skin feels heat. But when we have one of those faux fireplaces with digital flickering flames, we just feel coziness (or an aversion to the kitsch)! Anyway, Bateson was an inspiration to Hutchins, and his work assisted in Hutchins's development of his approach to distributed cognition (Bateson is someone on my reading list). I also feel that there is a connection to what you offer about Bateson's observation of metaphor as a "primary" language to Levi-Straus's Science of the Concrete, as described in the first chapter of Le Pens?e Sauvage whose connotation, I might add, is lost when translated to English's "The Savage Mind" because in the French (as I understand) is a double ent?ndre of savage mind and wild pansy at the same time. I take that to be a wonderful reference to the wisdom of the natural world inherent in what we used to call "primitive" or "uncivilized" cultures. It is a beautiful, embodied metaphor which is far more meaningful than the English, which ironically seems more idealized, or Cartesian (who was French!) I would enjoy to look at that chapter you almost attached if not for want of a plane to board. With regard to the metaphor and how it fails, is that metaphor is aspectual. Just like a tool might have a proper and improper application, so does a metaphor. In Vedanta, for example, there is a drshtanta (sanskrit for "teaching-illustration") for the dehatma-buddhi, which translates roughly to the "mind-body-sense complex," (and also references that the dehatma-buddhi is the self and the self is the dehatma-buddhi as 1:1 equivalence and how this equivalence is an illusion), anyway, the drshtanta of the red-hot iron ball is a very old metaphor used to explain something very hard to explain rationally. It is used to show how one might perceive that the attributes of iron might associate to the fire and vice versa, because they are indeed at that moment in time inseparably presenting in the same loci. It would take for one to have prior knowledge of the attributes of fire to know that the roundness and heaviness of the ball does not belong to fire but to iron, and likewise the knowledge of iron to know that the heat and the redness belong actually to fire not to iron. It is impossible to physically differentiate the red-hot from the iron ball, say by pulling them apart into smaller pieces (which Descartes tries to do: to see a thing in parts adding into a whole). It is a beautiful metaphor for explaining how the self takes on attributes of the body and the body takes attributes of the self. And yet the drshtanta fails if someone from the peanut gallery says, "Just dunk it in a pool of water like any old blacksmith and you'll figure that one out," and the peanut thrower would be right, but the metaphor, if used in a surgical way, is very apt to show the illusion of the location of consciousness (self). So the metaphor, when used with precision, is a useful tool. One doesn't get far with a screwdriver if everything seems a screw, especially if the screw is a nail. I think with a metaphor (as a cognitive tool) it's the same. Of course there is danger if we mix our metaphors inappropriately, which is another way they can fail. I feel compelled to find an example in which metaphors help problem-solving in life situation...perhaps it is a job for Superman or some other superhero. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180828/31f5fec9/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bateson & Bateson 1987 Chapter 2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2794569 bytes Desc: Bateson & Bateson 1987 Chapter 2.pdf Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180828/31f5fec9/attachment-0001.pdf From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Aug 28 01:56:47 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:56:47 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: <1535437116303.13701@ils.uio.no> References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com> <1535262216939.29766@ils.uio.no> <1535437116303.13701@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: After taking twenty or so exceptions to "The now-classic, Metaphors We Live By" in the first fifty pages, my copy now resides in a pile of books the only use of which is to refer to errors. One of the basic errors seems to be Lackoff's assumption that we only have one conceptual system. Rather, I would commend Donald Schon's "Displacement of Concepts". The use of homology (by Bateson) is also systematically (and simply) presented by Stafford Beer in his text on "Decision and Control". Best, Huw On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 07:31, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > oh yes, the chapter! Here it is :) > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > *Sent:* 28 August 2018 07:05 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day > > > Hi Alfredo and venerable others who continue to peruse the thread, > > > Thanks for your verdant post! I must say that in regard to your syllogism: > > > Grass dies; > Men die; > Men are grass. > > > I would reply: > > > Grass dies; > Men die; > Men are grass cut down by the grim reaper; > but grass grows back if watered by mother nature; > A mother who lives forever. > > Just to give a feminist twist, though I hope not too essentialist. > > > However, I was taken by surprise on your take on Lakoff and Johnson, and I > had to think a little before I replied, so that I respond more thoughtfully > (I hope). > > > For me, the "flesh" part of the book's content references embodied > thinking, which I may have already said, and I hope I'm not repeating > myself. The assertion being, we can't think without a body and also that we > are not robots with brains for our CPUs. I wish I had the book at my > fingertips right now to say more on that. > > > It took me a little bit to consider what embodied thinking actually meant > while reading the book, because looking back I see how many Cartesian > assumptions I had to unlearn when thinking about mind. Also reading David > Kirsh's work on dancers and how they mark with their bodies when learning > new sequences of steps helped me to understand. Using a bookmark is a form > of embodied thinking (real books not digital browsers!) > > > The problem with thinking about thinking is that we forget that we have a > body already in place sitting in a soup of evolution, culture, history, > etc, and how there is an illusion that we are bubbles of consciousness > thinking like Rodin's thinker on a stool. That pose has become the > shorthand for mainstream conceptions of a thinker. > > > I'm even remembering how the documentary of Hannah Arendt shows her laying > on a couch smoking a cigarette while contemplating evil (which might just a > postmodern cinematic redo of David's Madame Recamier perhaps?). > > > Anyway, there was also something Kirsh wrote in another paper about > metacognition about libraries that I found illuminating, and I'm not > referencing green-shaded lamps. Recalling from memory... it was something > like: how if not for size and height of the tables (horizontal) we could > not read the books stored on the shelves (vertically) because sometimes > we want to lay many books open at once and compare them, and how we might > use a finger to keep our place while checking and comparing texts. So > environment has a lot of power in how we digest our tools for thinking as > well. > > > How could we conceive of vertical and horizontal without bodies (and > without gravity and a horizon). > > > Also, that the way we see, which the eyes only have a small part in, also > has to do with our bodies, because sometimes we have to walk around things > to know about them, something the eyes can't do alone. Or how the organs of > perception work in unison, such as smoke and fire may mean danger when we > see flames, smell burning wood and our skin feels heat. But when we have > one of those faux fireplaces with digital flickering flames, we just feel > coziness (or an aversion to the kitsch)! > > > Anyway, Bateson was an inspiration to Hutchins, and his work assisted in > Hutchins's development of his approach to distributed cognition (Bateson is > someone on my reading list). I also feel that there is a connection to what > you offer about Bateson's observation of metaphor as a "primary" language > to Levi-Straus's Science of the Concrete, as described in the first chapter > of Le Pens?e Sauvage whose connotation, I might add, is lost when > translated to English's "The Savage Mind" because in the French (as I > understand) is a double ent?ndre of savage mind and wild pansy at the same > time. I take that to be a wonderful reference to the wisdom of the natural > world inherent in what we used to call "primitive" or "uncivilized" > cultures. It is a beautiful, embodied metaphor which is far more meaningful > than the English, which ironically seems more idealized, or Cartesian (who > was French!) > > > I would enjoy to look at that chapter you almost attached if not for want > of a plane to board. > > > With regard to the metaphor and how it fails, is that metaphor is > aspectual. Just like a tool might have a proper and improper application, > so does a metaphor. > > > In Vedanta, for example, there is a drshtanta (sanskrit for > "teaching-illustration") for the dehatma-buddhi, which translates roughly > to the "mind-body-sense complex," (and also references that the > dehatma-buddhi is the self and the self is the dehatma-buddhi as 1:1 > equivalence and how this equivalence is an illusion), anyway, the drshtanta > of the red-hot iron ball is a very old metaphor used to explain something > very hard to explain rationally. > > > It is used to show how one might perceive that the attributes of iron > might associate to the fire and vice versa, because they are indeed at that > moment in time inseparably presenting in the same loci. It would take for > one to have prior knowledge of the attributes of fire to know that the > roundness and heaviness of the ball does not belong to fire but to iron, > and likewise the knowledge of iron to know that the heat and the redness > belong actually to fire not to iron. It is impossible to physically > differentiate the red-hot from the iron ball, say by pulling them apart > into smaller pieces (which Descartes tries to do: to see a thing in parts > adding into a whole). It is a beautiful metaphor for explaining how the > self takes on attributes of the body and the body takes attributes of the > self. And yet the drshtanta fails if someone from the peanut gallery says, > "Just dunk it in a pool of water like any old blacksmith and you'll figure > that one out," and the peanut thrower would be right, but the metaphor, if > used in a surgical way, is very apt to show the illusion of the location of > consciousness (self). So the metaphor, when used with precision, is a > useful tool. > > > One doesn't get far with a screwdriver if everything seems a screw, > especially if the screw is a nail. > > > I think with a metaphor (as a cognitive tool) it's the same. Of course > there is danger if we mix our metaphors inappropriately, which is another > way they can fail. > > > I feel compelled to find an example in which metaphors help > problem-solving in life situation...perhaps it is a job for Superman or > some other superhero. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180828/0acd0f92/attachment.html From sebastien.lerique@normalesup.org Wed Aug 29 02:01:17 2018 From: sebastien.lerique@normalesup.org (=?UTF-8?Q?S=c3=a9bastien_Lerique?=) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:01:17 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamic Land Message-ID: Dear XMCA list, I have been following the activity here with much interest for a few years now (although not always able to keep up with all the extensive threads), originally discovering this list through the Tim Ingold articles that are hosted on the Research paper archive (here and here , both of which initiated somewhat of a revolution for me, so I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for hosting them!). This is my first post. I recently stumbled upon dynamicland.org , and have been wondering since then if any of you would have thoughts about such a place/system. If you are not familiar with Bret Victor 's work, it is very much inspired by Seymour Papert's Mindstorms : it revolves around the idea that computers and computing in general will probably dramatically change the way we learn and think, from birth into adulthood (as the printing press did), and that there is now an opportunity to make that a move towards more humane things, instead of developing devices that physically and mentally isolate us from one another by having us stare at screens most of the day. That idea is not new -- the interesting part is that it is being concretely explored in new implementations: real places such as Dynamic Land are currently emerging based on these ideas, also rehashing other creative developments that occurred around the birth of the personal computer in the late seventies but fell into oblivion in tech communities (see The Future of Programming ). You can find a 1 hour presentation of what led to Dynamic Land here: The Humane Representation of Thought . They also published a zine with more concrete details about the place. After inserting so many links I feel I should point out that I am not affiliated in any way or even in contact with the Dynamic Land people! They simply figured out a way of concretely exploring a theme that became central to me after reading Ingold, namely the materiality of thought, meaning and interaction. So I would be very interested in your thoughts about all this! Best, S?bastien -- slvh.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180829/62739ae7/attachment.html From a.j.gil@ils.uio.no Wed Aug 29 04:40:12 2018 From: a.j.gil@ils.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:40:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamic Land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1535542776098.71128@ils.uio.no> Dear S?bastian, really nice to read a new voice! And rich text is richer, so go ahead and give us fortune sharing as many links as you feel worth sharing. I am a big fun of Ingold, by the way, always opening horizons for thinking (although seldom showing paths, a task you really have to take up if the inspiring metaphors are to become more than text). When I begun studying/working at InterMedia in Oslo, a research center focused on technology in and for formal and informal learning, some of us were very excited to be designing and exploring "technology-enhanced learning environments", and did so (and still do) cooperating with science museums, art galleries architects, etc, exploring how different tangible, motion-based, and visual ??technologies could be integrated in space to facilitate the creation of places (we've been using the notion of "place-making" in a couple of works, some co-authored with Rolf Steier, a colleague and member of this list who continues doing great work with VR and other tech in art galleries. However, as an early member and scholar, specially when working on the "educational" side, I found it increasingly challenging to try out some of what I considered more risky ideas by those who, as Bret Victor says in one the presentation, was trying to design without having idea of what they were trying... On the one hand, I always ?felt the pressure to "experiment" in ways in which "learning" should be made visible as an outcome somewhere before actually going for pursuing the idea. Specially working in collaboration with school teachers and school researchers, the learning outcomes, and the publish-ability of the findings of those outcomes in educational (technology) research journals was a condition. Also, to be addressing whatever idea was hot in the literature on learning with technology seemed important. On the other hand, there was the pressure to work with certain technologies, independently of the aimed "outcomes", for catching up with whatever trend that was being made available and marketable seemed important too, so that, specially from the tech side, there was eagerness to embrace given gadgets, and see what it could be made with them. This seems to be a fundamental dichotomy in any creative enterprise, for you always deal with a tension between "ends" and "means"... All this to say that I find the postulation of "designing more humane things" a beautiful and promising "end" or aim, and I would be very interesting to learn more about how you create cultures in which a fine balance between that end and the ?production of means is achieved (may this be connected to Annalisa's thread on Carl Rogers' positive psychology and positive regard?). In connection to the latter, Jean Luc Nancy is inspiring to me, precisely because he is proposing to take another turn to the idea of "ends", which seems to be often interpreted in a problem-solving rational key (like the one that has the "learning outcome" in mind when designing technology-enhanced spaces), and treat it ends as endless: "The kingdom of ends is the kingdom without end, not in the sense of meaningless absurdity, but as thought removed from goals, from orientation. When we love, when we drink, when we write, when we sing, we are not directed by goals: we expose ourselves to the finitude of love, of drunkenness, of text, of song" (Nancy in "Davis & Turpin 2015, Art in the Antrhopocene). That looks like a very human end, at least one to put an end to this rambling post. Surely many other tech savvy and passionate in this list who will have your post stimulating. Cheers, Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of S?bastien Lerique Sent: 29 August 2018 11:01 To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamic Land Dear XMCA list, I have been following the activity here with much interest for a few years now (although not always able to keep up with all the extensive threads), originally discovering this list through the Tim Ingold articles that are hosted on the Research paper archive (here and here, both of which initiated somewhat of a revolution for me, so I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for hosting them!). This is my first post. I recently stumbled upon dynamicland.org, and have been wondering since then if any of you would have thoughts about such a place/system. If you are not familiar with Bret Victor's work, it is very much inspired by Seymour Papert's Mindstorms: it revolves around the idea that computers and computing in general will probably dramatically change the way we learn and think, from birth into adulthood (as the printing press did), and that there is now an opportunity to make that a move towards more humane things, instead of developing devices that physically and mentally isolate us from one another by having us stare at screens most of the day. That idea is not new -- the interesting part is that it is being concretely explored in new implementations: real places such as Dynamic Land are currently emerging based on these ideas, also rehashing other creative developments that occurred around the birth of the personal computer in the late seventies but fell into oblivion in tech communities (see The Future of Programming). You can find a 1 hour presentation of what led to Dynamic Land here: The Humane Representation of Thought. They also published a zine with more concrete details about the place. After inserting so many links I feel I should point out that I am not affiliated in any way or even in contact with the Dynamic Land people! They simply figured out a way of concretely exploring a theme that became central to me after reading Ingold, namely the materiality of thought, meaning and interaction. So I would be very interested in your thoughts about all this! Best, S?bastien -- slvh.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180829/ea9d96c4/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Aug 29 12:09:45 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 19:09:45 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com> <1535262216939.29766@ils.uio.no> <1535437116303.13701@ils.uio.no>, Message-ID: Gosh, all this time I thought it was the model of rational thought that had been considered the one true conceptual model, and a model for only the civilized, which might not be so civilized after all, looking back. I would not mind to know the 20 exceptions of the first 50 pages. The idea Lakoff felt we had one conceptual system was not my understanding at all, but more that embodied thinking (my handle for it, not his... I think he calls it conceptual metaphor) is the basis for many conceptual systems, it's where the mapping transfer starts because it is were we start (as individuals) as embodied beings. Language bootstraps the rest. I mean, gee whiz we do need a body to think and we don't just think with a brain. There are a lot of people who believe the payload is solely the brain, maybe because of the status it affords on how skilled one is to argue rationally, but still; science is science, and argument need not be a war. Otherwise, why poetry? Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Huw Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:56:47 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day After taking twenty or so exceptions to "The now-classic, Metaphors We Live By" in the first fifty pages, my copy now resides in a pile of books the only use of which is to refer to errors. One of the basic errors seems to be Lackoff's assumption that we only have one conceptual system. Rather, I would commend Donald Schon's "Displacement of Concepts". The use of homology (by Bateson) is also systematically (and simply) presented by Stafford Beer in his text on "Decision and Control". Best, Huw On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 07:31, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: oh yes, the chapter! Here it is :) Alfredo ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 28 August 2018 07:05 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day Hi Alfredo and venerable others who continue to peruse the thread, Thanks for your verdant post! I must say that in regard to your syllogism: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass. I would reply: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass cut down by the grim reaper; but grass grows back if watered by mother nature; A mother who lives forever. Just to give a feminist twist, though I hope not too essentialist. However, I was taken by surprise on your take on Lakoff and Johnson, and I had to think a little before I replied, so that I respond more thoughtfully (I hope). For me, the "flesh" part of the book's content references embodied thinking, which I may have already said, and I hope I'm not repeating myself. The assertion being, we can't think without a body and also that we are not robots with brains for our CPUs. I wish I had the book at my fingertips right now to say more on that. It took me a little bit to consider what embodied thinking actually meant while reading the book, because looking back I see how many Cartesian assumptions I had to unlearn when thinking about mind. Also reading David Kirsh's work on dancers and how they mark with their bodies when learning new sequences of steps helped me to understand. Using a bookmark is a form of embodied thinking (real books not digital browsers!) The problem with thinking about thinking is that we forget that we have a body already in place sitting in a soup of evolution, culture, history, etc, and how there is an illusion that we are bubbles of consciousness thinking like Rodin's thinker on a stool. That pose has become the shorthand for mainstream conceptions of a thinker. I'm even remembering how the documentary of Hannah Arendt shows her laying on a couch smoking a cigarette while contemplating evil (which might just a postmodern cinematic redo of David's Madame Recamier perhaps?). Anyway, there was also something Kirsh wrote in another paper about metacognition about libraries that I found illuminating, and I'm not referencing green-shaded lamps. Recalling from memory... it was something like: how if not for size and height of the tables (horizontal) we could not read the books stored on the shelves (vertically) because sometimes we want to lay many books open at once and compare them, and how we might use a finger to keep our place while checking and comparing texts. So environment has a lot of power in how we digest our tools for thinking as well. How could we conceive of vertical and horizontal without bodies (and without gravity and a horizon). Also, that the way we see, which the eyes only have a small part in, also has to do with our bodies, because sometimes we have to walk around things to know about them, something the eyes can't do alone. Or how the organs of perception work in unison, such as smoke and fire may mean danger when we see flames, smell burning wood and our skin feels heat. But when we have one of those faux fireplaces with digital flickering flames, we just feel coziness (or an aversion to the kitsch)! Anyway, Bateson was an inspiration to Hutchins, and his work assisted in Hutchins's development of his approach to distributed cognition (Bateson is someone on my reading list). I also feel that there is a connection to what you offer about Bateson's observation of metaphor as a "primary" language to Levi-Straus's Science of the Concrete, as described in the first chapter of Le Pens?e Sauvage whose connotation, I might add, is lost when translated to English's "The Savage Mind" because in the French (as I understand) is a double ent?ndre of savage mind and wild pansy at the same time. I take that to be a wonderful reference to the wisdom of the natural world inherent in what we used to call "primitive" or "uncivilized" cultures. It is a beautiful, embodied metaphor which is far more meaningful than the English, which ironically seems more idealized, or Cartesian (who was French!) I would enjoy to look at that chapter you almost attached if not for want of a plane to board. With regard to the metaphor and how it fails, is that metaphor is aspectual. Just like a tool might have a proper and improper application, so does a metaphor. In Vedanta, for example, there is a drshtanta (sanskrit for "teaching-illustration") for the dehatma-buddhi, which translates roughly to the "mind-body-sense complex," (and also references that the dehatma-buddhi is the self and the self is the dehatma-buddhi as 1:1 equivalence and how this equivalence is an illusion), anyway, the drshtanta of the red-hot iron ball is a very old metaphor used to explain something very hard to explain rationally. It is used to show how one might perceive that the attributes of iron might associate to the fire and vice versa, because they are indeed at that moment in time inseparably presenting in the same loci. It would take for one to have prior knowledge of the attributes of fire to know that the roundness and heaviness of the ball does not belong to fire but to iron, and likewise the knowledge of iron to know that the heat and the redness belong actually to fire not to iron. It is impossible to physically differentiate the red-hot from the iron ball, say by pulling them apart into smaller pieces (which Descartes tries to do: to see a thing in parts adding into a whole). It is a beautiful metaphor for explaining how the self takes on attributes of the body and the body takes attributes of the self. And yet the drshtanta fails if someone from the peanut gallery says, "Just dunk it in a pool of water like any old blacksmith and you'll figure that one out," and the peanut thrower would be right, but the metaphor, if used in a surgical way, is very apt to show the illusion of the location of consciousness (self). So the metaphor, when used with precision, is a useful tool. One doesn't get far with a screwdriver if everything seems a screw, especially if the screw is a nail. I think with a metaphor (as a cognitive tool) it's the same. Of course there is danger if we mix our metaphors inappropriately, which is another way they can fail. I feel compelled to find an example in which metaphors help problem-solving in life situation...perhaps it is a job for Superman or some other superhero. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180829/81b98b62/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Thu Aug 30 02:43:51 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:43:51 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamic Land In-Reply-To: <1535542776098.71128@ils.uio.no> References: <1535542776098.71128@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: There is more to these consideration than "learning outcomes", otherwise they would not be interesting and would be simply relegated to a conventional institutional curriculum. Intentionality rather than merely goals offers a wider canvas of consideration. The images convey some mixed messages about the intentions at play with the project. People are participating, yes, but how did they come together for this, where is their initiative? Have they encountered ideas, ruminated on them, and then come together to realise them, or have they simply fallen into some sphere of activity in which they can fiddle about with things and maybe add to someone else's partially gleaned plan that has convenient blanks to be filled in? The Mindstorms/Xerox parc/Squeak projects have depth to them which often isn't fully realised. In programming it is actually quite (perhaps very) rare to find people who are able and willing to implement software according to their awareness of how they think about or engage with objects/ideas. Even if you look at recent squeak projects you will find it polluted with a mentality typified with Java programming (which, incidentally, is what universities focused upon last time I looked). These things are always rolling downhill until people who have developed capabilities in themselves come together to realise something richer and more holistic. I began exploring and articulating one facet of this with respect to working with a "hidden" aspect of using pencil and paper in considering geometric problems, rather than working within the constraints presented by a programming environment and programming paradigm. It is incomplete and hopefully I will find the time to return to it sometime soon: https://www.academia.edu/28762664/The_Idea_of_Cell-like_Objects_in_Object-Oriented_Programming Best, Huw On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 12:42, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Dear S?bastian, really nice to read a new voice! And rich text is richer, > so go ahead and give us fortune sharing as many links as you feel worth > sharing. I am a big fun of Ingold, by the way, always opening horizons > for thinking (although seldom showing paths, a task you really have to > take up if the inspiring metaphors are to become more than text). > > > When I begun studying/working at InterMedia in Oslo, a research center > focused on technology in and for formal and informal learning, some of us > were very excited to be designing and exploring "technology-enhanced > learning environments", and did so (and still do) cooperating with science > museums, art galleries architects, etc, exploring how different tangible, > motion-based, and visual ??technologies could be integrated in space to > facilitate the creation of *places *(we've been using the notion of > "place-making" in a couple of works, some co-authored with Rolf Steier, a > colleague and member of this list who continues doing great work with VR > and other tech in art galleries. > > > However, as an early member and scholar, specially when working on the > "educational" side, I found it increasingly challenging to try out some of > what I considered more risky ideas by those who, as Bret Victor says in one > the presentation, was trying to design without having idea of what they > were trying... On the one hand, I always ?felt the pressure to "experiment" > in ways in which "learning" should be made visible as an outcome somewhere > before actually going for pursuing the idea. Specially working in > collaboration with school teachers and school researchers, the learning > outcomes, and the publish-ability of the findings of those outcomes in > educational (technology) research journals was a condition. Also, to be > addressing whatever idea was hot in the literature on learning with > technology seemed important. On the other hand, there was the pressure to > work with certain technologies, independently of the aimed "outcomes", for > catching up with whatever trend that was being made available and > marketable seemed important too, so that, specially from the tech side, > there was eagerness to embrace given gadgets, and see what it could be made > with them. > > > This seems to be a fundamental dichotomy in any creative enterprise, for > you always deal with a tension between "ends" and "means"... All this to > say that I find the postulation of "designing more humane things" a > beautiful and promising "end" or aim, and I would be very interesting to > learn more about how you create cultures in which a fine balance between > that end and the ?production of means is achieved (may this be connected to > Annalisa's thread on Carl Rogers' positive psychology and positive > regard?). > > > In connection to the latter, Jean Luc Nancy is inspiring to me, precisely > because he is proposing to take another turn to the idea of "ends", which > seems to be often interpreted in a problem-solving rational key (like the > one that has the "learning outcome" in mind when designing > technology-enhanced spaces), and treat it ends as endless: > > "The kingdom of ends is the kingdom without end, not in the sense of > meaningless absurdity, but as thought removed from goals, from orientation. > When we love, when we drink, when we write, when we sing, we are not > directed by goals: we expose ourselves to the finitude of love, of > drunkenness, of text, of song" (Nancy in "Davis & Turpin 2015, Art in the > Antrhopocene). > > > That looks like a very human end, at least one to put an end to this > rambling post. Surely many other tech savvy and passionate in this list who > will have your post stimulating. > > Cheers, > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of S?bastien Lerique > *Sent:* 29 August 2018 11:01 > *To:* 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Dynamic Land > > > Dear XMCA list, > > I have been following the activity here with much interest for a few years > now (although not always able to keep up with all the extensive threads), > originally discovering this list through the Tim Ingold articles that are > hosted on the Research paper archive (here > and here > , both of which > initiated somewhat of a revolution for me, so I would like to take the > opportunity to thank you for hosting them!). This is my first post. > > I recently stumbled upon dynamicland.org, and have been wondering since > then if any of you would have thoughts about such a place/system. If you > are not familiar with Bret Victor 's work, it is > very much inspired by Seymour Papert's Mindstorms > : > it revolves around the idea that computers and computing in general will > probably dramatically change the way we learn and think, from birth into > adulthood (as the printing press did), and that there is now an opportunity > to make that a move towards more humane things, instead of developing > devices that physically and mentally isolate us from one another by having > us stare at screens most of the day. > > That idea is not new -- the interesting part is that it is being > concretely explored in new implementations: real places such as Dynamic > Land are currently emerging based on these ideas, also rehashing other > creative developments that occurred around the birth of the personal > computer in the late seventies but fell into oblivion in tech communities > (see The Future of Programming > ). > > You can find a 1 hour presentation of what led to Dynamic Land here: The > Humane Representation of Thought . They also > published a zine > > with more concrete details about the place. > > After inserting so many links I feel I should point out that I am not > affiliated in any way or even in contact with the Dynamic Land people! They > simply figured out a way of concretely exploring a theme that became > central to me after reading Ingold, namely the materiality of thought, > meaning and interaction. So I would be very interested in your thoughts > about all this! > > Best, > > S?bastien -- slvh.fr > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180830/73e4864c/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Thu Aug 30 07:12:36 2018 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 19:42:36 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Views are requested. Message-ID: Dear All, This is with reference to the article ?The Working Class Strikes Back? by Chris Wright. (Link: https://www.academia.edu/37306144/The_Working_Class_Strikes_Back) USSR and China were the two countries that passed through the revolution and socialist rule prevailed there. Both the countries faced hard time initially, achieved progress also and ultimately they had to bring some compromise, somewhere in between capitalism and Socialism perhaps. I think there must be impartial study and review in this matter i. e. where the things went wrong. I have tried at my level and I put my views as follow, Generally, if a fresh and impartial young person goes through the socialist literature in books, articles, speeches and correspondences, he will surely get one impression. If I narrate the impression in one sentence, it might read as?., ?The capitalistic society is constituted in two tents named ?bourgeois tent? and ?proletariat tent?. The bourgeois are the root cause of grief and peril of this society. Proletariat should take over the rule of the society in their hand and they should regulate and control the social system in compliance with socialist policy and principles.? Personally I am neither in favor of bourgeois nor opponent of proletariat, I have studied the nature, choices and intentions of proletariat, they are good people but they are not immune from capitalistic mind set. I do not criticize them for that because it has to be that only. Likewise, bourgeois are exploitative and moral less people but both (bourgeois and proletariat) are product of social evolution. It is the great mistake forefathers of socialism did and that is exclusively concentrating on the above two tents. In fact reasons of social peril lie elsewhere. Existence of two tents of bourgeois and proletariat is the resultant product of social evolution. Even if proletariat successfully take over the rule of a society in their hand, the fundamental reasons of the root cause of the social peril still remains there. When socialism does not have knowledge of these reasons, how they will be able to establish a social structure that they dream. Your views will support to arrive near to the fact finding. With true regards, Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180830/d28d0ec4/attachment.html From djwdoc@yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 00:57:54 2018 From: djwdoc@yahoo.com (Douglas Williams) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 07:57:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com> <1535262216939.29766@ils.uio.no> <1535437116303.13701@ils.uio.no> Message-ID: <165250840.1351931.1535702274150@mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Huw-- Coincidentally, I spent a term at UCB to study with Lakoff, and he took about twenty or so exceptions to my exceptions, though I was thinking they were questions. It would be interesting to see you debate, as I was not up to the challenge (my main radicalism was to note parallels between things in the Cognitive Linguistics model and thinking in complexes (LSV), and Whorf/Sapir, GH Mead, Dewey, and so on, and wondering if there could be some cross-disciplinary unity that would improve on all of them. Not interesting questions for him, at the time, at least.? Barring the debate, I'd be interested in seeing your take on the flaws of the cognitive metaphor approach, or do Schon or Beer happen to address themselves to Lakoff in particular?? I find Cognitive Linguistics quite interesting. Even if some of the explanations are wrong (as is certainly true with Freud's hydraulic cathexes and repression of the id relating to jokes--seeking, like water, the way of least resistance to the sea), the observations are interesting, and well worth pursuing deeper. I also looked a bit into Ronald Langacker, which is the more austere form of embodied language, relating to an embodied basis for grammar, which is also quite interesting, though more calculus to Lakoff's algebra, at least to me. But this is an area of study that is expanding its adherents,? Mark Turner's More Than Cool Reason and Death is the Mother of Beauty are the better places to begin from a literary appreciation standpoint.? And for Alfredo and Annalisa--I think one needn't go terribly far into anthropology to find that embodied imagery clothed and complicated with words is the foundation of all kinds of complex interactive imagery and behaviors, from Balinese cockfights to "Christian" leopards in Ethiopia, to the mono no aware--the awareness of the infinite sadness and beauty of the cycle of life--which is evoked by the sakura, the cherry blossom.? The Meaning of Cherry Blossoms in Japan: Life, Death and Renewal | | | | | | | | | | | The Meaning of Cherry Blossoms in Japan: Life, Death and Renewal Japanese sakura are not only sublime to look at, they're deeply revered for their symbolism. Find out the true m... | | | Cherry blossoms as the image of human life, or autumn leaves, or winter snows, or the return of the salmon--very commonly, mixtures of renewal or restoral, mixed with death and decay, and other emblems of seasonal cycles--is a constant imagistic theme across many cultures, related specifically to humans--so that these things are humans, unconsciously, at least, as we have put off . The rituals in Japan around the sakura are in concert with the theme of ancestor worship, another kind of day of the dead, and consistent? with much more wordy expressions of something embodied in the imagery--this from Stevens' "Sunday Morning:" Death is the mother of beauty; hence from her, Alone, shall come fulfilment to our dreams And our desires. a common theme... Qui beaut? eut trop plus qu'humaine? Mais o? sont les neiges d'antan! (Villon)? Each Morn a thousand Roses brings, you say: Yes, but where leaves the Rose of Yesterday? And this first Summer month that brings the Rose Shall take Jamsh?d and Kaikob?d away.(Khayyam) But one step deeper: What really strikes me as the core of metaphor and analogy--see, here was my idea of a multidisciplinary research project that was always beyond my abilities or means--is the fixation of memory and associations and emotional associations in dreams. They are metaphoric and metonymic through blending of imagery--for we remake past and present memory in dreams--and in dreams, which was a radical idea 25 years ago, but emerging as the dominant paradigm now--we form and reshape the past and present in sequences that develop through recalling and associating past fixed memories with newer ones. All mammals (except the echidna, a very primitive group of mammals) dream, emphasizing the essential adaptive nature of dreams, which we have known heuristically, and increasingly scientifically, are associated with memory. And what do animals dream? According to Temple Grandin, mammals think (and dream) predominantly in images. They think in pictures. We think in pictures too, but words and internalized schemas and phrases overwhelm the imagery. But it is in dreams that we come relatively closer to the more common mammalian world of imagistic cognition--though even there, we bring in sociocultural schemas. Images are less mediated in words, more direct to our own perceptions. Part of the appeal to poetry, surely, is in the way that a good poem can reach into imagery, and evoke sensations and sounds of the sort that are closer to a pre-verbal sensory and narrative world. It is precisely the power of imagery that struck people about the early cinema. We have learned to take cinematic narratives for granted now, but they continue to have social effects that are probably underexamined.? For narratives to seem most numinous to us, most self-evident or profound, it would make sense that they probably typically evoke the imagistic thinking our words and socially internalized narratives often convey implicitly, concealed behind words, and that we perceive in our own embodied world of imagery.? Which leads us back to the unconscious. One part of it, which I draw from Grandin, is that perception of raw sensory data is still what we do, all the time. Though it is mediated by words and social narratives, and to some extent shaped by them, the extreme perception that enables dogs or cats to perceive narratives of the sensory world we don't notice, are still there. They tug at us, and we react unconsciously (preconsciously) to them. Emotive associations with imagery (the evolutionary benefit of fear, anger, pleasure and pain), evoked in the background of our mind through words, and schemas that touch on these strings of preconscious perception and memory would give a sense of how a cinematic narrative is constructed literally to play on common sensory experience, mediated through shared sociocultural themes--and how some of these themes that are universal to human experience, would be so similar in their imagery in human culture.? But that's a lot (obviously some bottled-up thought--and probably less interesting to you than to me), and it's time for me to sleep, perchance to dream...? Regards,Doug On ?Tuesday?, ?August? ?28?, ?2018? ?01?:?57?:?45? ?AM? ?PDT, Huw Lloyd wrote: After taking twenty or so exceptions to "The now-classic, Metaphors We Live By" in the first fifty pages, my copy now resides in a pile of books the only use of which is to refer to errors. One of the basic errors seems to be Lackoff's assumption that we only have one conceptual system. Rather, I would commend Donald Schon's "Displacement of Concepts". The use of homology (by Bateson) is also systematically (and simply) presented by Stafford Beer in his text on "Decision and Control". Best,Huw On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 07:31, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: oh yes, the chapter! Here it is?:)? Alfredo From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 28 August 2018 07:05 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day? Hi Alfredo and venerable others who continue to peruse the thread, Thanks for your verdant post! I must say that in regard to your syllogism: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass. I would reply: Grass dies; Men die; Men are grass cut down by the grim reaper;but grass grows back if watered by mother nature; A mother who lives forever. Just to give a feminist twist, though I hope not too essentialist. However, I was taken by surprise on your take on Lakoff and Johnson, and I had to think a little before I replied, so that I respond more thoughtfully (I hope).? For me, the "flesh" part of the book's content references embodied thinking, which I may have already said, and I hope I'm not repeating myself. The assertion being, we can't think without a body and also that we are not robots with brains for our CPUs. I wish I had the book at my fingertips right now to say more on that. It took me a little bit to consider what embodied thinking actually meant while reading the book, because looking back I see how many Cartesian assumptions I had to unlearn when thinking about mind. Also reading David Kirsh's work on dancers and how they mark with their bodies when learning new sequences of steps helped me to understand. Using a bookmark is a form of embodied thinking (real books not digital browsers!) The problem with thinking about thinking is that we forget that we have a body already in place sitting in a soup of evolution, culture, history, etc, and how there is an illusion that we are bubbles of consciousness thinking like Rodin's thinker on a stool. That pose has become the shorthand for mainstream conceptions of a thinker. I'm even remembering how the documentary of Hannah Arendt shows her laying on a couch smoking a cigarette while contemplating evil (which might just a postmodern cinematic redo of David's Madame Recamier perhaps?). Anyway, there was also something Kirsh wrote in another paper about metacognition about libraries that I found illuminating, and I'm not referencing green-shaded lamps. Recalling from memory... it was something like: how if not for size and height of the tables (horizontal) we could not read the books stored on the shelves(vertically) because sometimes we want to lay many books open at once and compare them, and how we might use a finger to keep our place while checking and comparing texts. So environment has a lot of power in how we digest our tools for thinking as well. How could we conceive of vertical and horizontal without bodies (and without gravity and a horizon). Also, that the way we see, which the eyes only have a small part in, also has to do with our bodies, because sometimes we have to walk around things to know about them, something the eyes can't do alone. Or how the organs of perception work in unison, such as smoke and fire may mean danger when we see flames, smell burning wood and our skin feels heat. But when we have one of those faux fireplaces with digital flickering flames, we just feel coziness (or an aversion to the kitsch)! Anyway, Bateson?was an inspiration to Hutchins, and his work assisted in Hutchins's development of his approach to distributed cognition (Bateson is someone on my reading list). I also feel that there is a connection to what you offer about Bateson's observation of metaphor as a "primary" language to Levi-Straus's Science of the Concrete, as described in the first chapter of Le Pens?e Sauvage whose connotation, I might add, is lost when translated to English's "The Savage Mind" because in the French (as I understand) is a double ent?ndre of savage mind and wild pansy at the same time. I take that to be a wonderful reference to the wisdom of the natural world inherent in what we used to call "primitive" or "uncivilized" cultures. It is a beautiful, embodied metaphor which is far more meaningful than the English, which ironically seems more idealized, or Cartesian (who was French!) I would enjoy to look at that chapter you almost attached if not for want of a plane to board. With regard to the metaphor and how it fails, is that metaphor is aspectual. Just like a tool might have a proper and improper application, so does a metaphor. In Vedanta, for example, there is a drshtanta (sanskrit for "teaching-illustration") for the dehatma-buddhi, which translates roughly to the "mind-body-sense complex," (and also references that the dehatma-buddhi is the self and the self is the dehatma-buddhi as 1:1 equivalence and how this equivalence is an illusion), anyway, the drshtanta of the red-hot iron ball is a very old metaphor used to explain something very hard to explain rationally. It is used to show how one might perceive that the attributes of iron might associate to the fire and vice versa, because they are indeed at that moment in time inseparably presenting in the same loci. It would take for one to have prior knowledge of the attributes of fire to know that the roundness and heaviness of the ball does not belong to fire but to iron, and likewise the knowledge of iron to know that the heat and the redness belong actually to fire not to iron. It is impossible to physically differentiate the red-hot from the iron ball, say by pulling them apart into smaller pieces (which Descartes tries to do: to see a thing in parts adding into a whole). It is a beautiful metaphor for explaining how the self takes on attributes of the body and the body takes attributes of the self. And yet the drshtanta fails if someone from the peanut gallery says, "Just dunk it in a pool of water like any old blacksmith and you'll figure that one out," and the peanut thrower would be right, but the metaphor, if used in a surgical way, is very apt to show the illusion of the location of consciousness (self). So the metaphor, when used with precision, is a useful tool. One doesn't get far with a screwdriver if everything seems a screw, especially if the screw is a nail. I think with a metaphor (as a cognitive tool) it's the same. Of course there is danger?if we mix our metaphors inappropriately, which is another way they can fail. I feel compelled to find an example in which metaphors help problem-solving in life situation...perhaps it is a job for Superman or some other superhero. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180831/bb182046/attachment.html From lsmolucha@hotmail.com Fri Aug 31 02:16:31 2018 From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com (Larry Smolucha) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:16:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working Class Strikes Back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Message from Francine Smolucha: Dave, One of the complications has been the third 'tent' that has emerged - the 'welfare' class (on the dole to use the British term). The working class proletariats are oppressed on two sides -by the bourgeios and by the 'welfare' class. The 'welfare' class has grown to include a mass of unemployed people who collect entitlements such as welfare, social security, and medicaid. This is why blue collar workers (the original proletariats for Marx) have turned to billionaire capitalist Donald Trump to create an economy where they can work and keep more of their earned money. The working class has come to view the 'welfare' class as their major oppressor not the capitalist bourgeois. Every able bodied man, woman, and teen-ager were supposed to work in a socialist state according to Marx's axiom "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs." Also, one's career path was determined by the work that needed to be done not by one's personal aspirations. ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Harshad Dave Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:12 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Views are requested. Dear All, This is with reference to the article ?The Working Class Strikes Back? by Chris Wright. (Link: https://www.academia.edu/37306144/The_Working_Class_Strikes_Back) USSR and China were the two countries that passed through the revolution and socialist rule prevailed there. Both the countries faced hard time initially, achieved progress also and ultimately they had to bring some compromise, somewhere in between capitalism and Socialism perhaps. I think there must be impartial study and review in this matter i. e. where the things went wrong. I have tried at my level and I put my views as follow, Generally, if a fresh and impartial young person goes through the socialist literature in books, articles, speeches and correspondences, he will surely get one impression. If I narrate the impression in one sentence, it might read as?., ?The capitalistic society is constituted in two tents named ?bourgeois tent? and ?proletariat tent?. The bourgeois are the root cause of grief and peril of this society. Proletariat should take over the rule of the society in their hand and they should regulate and control the social system in compliance with socialist policy and principles.? Personally I am neither in favor of bourgeois nor opponent of proletariat, I have studied the nature, choices and intentions of proletariat, they are good people but they are not immune from capitalistic mind set. I do not criticize them for that because it has to be that only. Likewise, bourgeois are exploitative and moral less people but both (bourgeois and proletariat) are product of social evolution. It is the great mistake forefathers of socialism did and that is exclusively concentrating on the above two tents. In fact reasons of social peril lie elsewhere. Existence of two tents of bourgeois and proletariat is the resultant product of social evolution. Even if proletariat successfully take over the rule of a society in their hand, the fundamental reasons of the root cause of the social peril still remains there. When socialism does not have knowledge of these reasons, how they will be able to establish a social structure that they dream. Your views will support to arrive near to the fact finding. With true regards, [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B18Z0b6DY4fWbkFHN3I1cEhYUTg&revid=0B18Z0b6DY4fWWVFVOWZiaWVaYmhLNXZOUHp6MEpzT3IxUHFnPQ] Harshad Dave Email: hhdave15@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180831/d813e598/attachment.html From andyb@marxists.org Fri Aug 31 04:43:34 2018 From: andyb@marxists.org (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 21:43:34 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Views are requested. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dave, this is not a list where you can get a coherent answer to your question - there are very many different answers, I suggest you browse the various views that historically have been put forward here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/selected-marxists.htm Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 31/08/2018 12:12 AM, Harshad Dave wrote: > > Dear All, > This is with reference to the article ?The Working Class > Strikes Back? by Chris Wright. > > (Link: https://www.academia.edu/37306144/The_Working_Class_Strikes_Back) > > USSR and China were the two countries that passed through > the revolution and socialist rule prevailed there. Both > the countries faced hard time initially, achieved progress > also and ultimately they had to bring some compromise, > somewhere in between capitalism and Socialism perhaps. I > think there must be impartial study and review in this > matter i. e. where the things went wrong. I have tried at > my level and I put my views as follow, > Generally, if a fresh and impartial young person goes > through the socialist literature in books, articles, > speeches and correspondences, he will surely get one > impression. If I narrate the impression in one sentence, > it might read as?., > ?The capitalistic society is constituted in two tents > named ?bourgeois tent? and ?proletariat tent?. The > bourgeois are the root cause of grief and peril of this > society. Proletariat should take over the rule of the > society in their hand and they should regulate and control > the social system in compliance with socialist policy and > principles.? > Personally I am neither in favor of bourgeois nor opponent > of proletariat, I have studied the nature, choices and > intentions of proletariat, they are good people but they > are not immune from capitalistic mind set. I do not > criticize them for that because it has to be that only. > Likewise, bourgeois are exploitative and moral less people > but both (bourgeois and proletariat) are product of social > evolution. > It is the great mistake forefathers of socialism did and > that is exclusively concentrating on the above two tents. > In fact reasons of social peril lie elsewhere. Existence > of two tents of bourgeois and proletariat is the resultant > product of social evolution. Even if proletariat > successfully take over the rule of a society in their > hand, the fundamental reasons of the root cause of the > social peril still remains there. When socialism does not > have knowledge of these reasons, how they will be able to > establish a social structure that they dream. > Your views will support to arrive near to the fact finding. > With true regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > Email: hhdave15@gmail.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180831/56d4e6ae/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Fri Aug 31 04:59:22 2018 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:29:22 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Views are requested. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andy, Thanks for your help. I shall open the site and study them. I shall revert back, if I find points of further discussion. Harshad Dave On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 5:15 PM Andy Blunden, wrote: > Dave, this is not a list where you can get a coherent answer to your > question - there are very many different answers, > > I suggest you browse the various views that historically have been put > forward here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/selected-marxists.htm > > Andy > ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 31/08/2018 12:12 AM, Harshad Dave wrote: > > > Dear All, > This is with reference to the article ?The Working Class Strikes Back? by > Chris Wright. > > (Link: > https://www.academia.edu/37306144/The_Working_Class_Strikes_Back) > > USSR and China were the two countries that passed through the revolution > and socialist rule prevailed there. Both the countries faced hard time > initially, achieved progress also and ultimately they had to bring some > compromise, somewhere in between capitalism and Socialism perhaps. I think > there must be impartial study and review in this matter i. e. where the > things went wrong. I have tried at my level and I put my views as follow, > Generally, if a fresh and impartial young person goes through the > socialist literature in books, articles, speeches and correspondences, he > will surely get one impression. If I narrate the impression in one > sentence, it might read as?., > ?The capitalistic society is constituted in two tents named ?bourgeois > tent? and ?proletariat tent?. The bourgeois are the root cause of grief and > peril of this society. Proletariat should take over the rule of the society > in their hand and they should regulate and control the social system in > compliance with socialist policy and principles.? > Personally I am neither in favor of bourgeois nor opponent of proletariat, > I have studied the nature, choices and intentions of proletariat, they are > good people but they are not immune from capitalistic mind set. I do not > criticize them for that because it has to be that only. Likewise, bourgeois > are exploitative and moral less people but both (bourgeois and proletariat) > are product of social evolution. > It is the great mistake forefathers of socialism did and that is > exclusively concentrating on the above two tents. In fact reasons of social > peril lie elsewhere. Existence of two tents of bourgeois and proletariat is > the resultant product of social evolution. Even if proletariat successfully > take over the rule of a society in their hand, the fundamental reasons of > the root cause of the social peril still remains there. When socialism does > not have knowledge of these reasons, how they will be able to establish a > social structure that they dream. > Your views will support to arrive near to the fact finding. > With true regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > Email: hhdave15@gmail.com > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180831/3f57a939/attachment.html From hhdave15@gmail.com Fri Aug 31 06:08:01 2018 From: hhdave15@gmail.com (Harshad Dave) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 18:38:01 +0530 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Working Class Strikes Back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francine (if I may), Thanks for your view. I have used the word "bourgeoise" just representing all those who exploite, and it should be taken in that way only. My point is... "Is it sure that taking rule under control of working class will solve all social issues that we face today and blame bourgeoise responsible for that? Is it realistic that working class will costitute a social net work that will not permit any exploitation and retain productivity in line with present capitalistic society? I think you need to cotemplate on it. Harshad Dave On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 2:48 PM Larry Smolucha, wrote: > Message from Francine Smolucha: > > Dave, > > One of the complications has been the third 'tent' that has emerged - > the 'welfare' class (on the dole to use the British term). The working > class proletariats are oppressed on two sides -by the bourgeios and by > the 'welfare' class. The 'welfare' class has grown to include a mass of > unemployed people who collect entitlements such as welfare, social > security, and medicaid. This is why blue collar workers (the original > proletariats for Marx) have turned to billionaire capitalist Donald Trump > to > create an economy where they can work and keep more of their earned money. *The > working class has come to view the 'welfare' class as their major oppressor > not the capitalist bourgeois.* > > Every able bodied man, woman, and teen-ager were supposed to work in a > socialist state according to Marx's axiom* "From each according to his > ability to each according to his needs." *Also, one's career path was > determined by the work that needed to be done not by one's personal > aspirations. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Harshad Dave > *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:12 AM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Views are requested. > > > Dear All, > This is with reference to the article ?The Working Class Strikes Back? by > Chris Wright. > > (Link: https://www.academia.edu/37306144/The_Working_Class_Strikes_Back) > > USSR and China were the two countries that passed through the revolution > and socialist rule prevailed there. Both the countries faced hard time > initially, achieved progress also and ultimately they had to bring some > compromise, somewhere in between capitalism and Socialism perhaps. I think > there must be impartial study and review in this matter i. e. where the > things went wrong. I have tried at my level and I put my views as follow, > Generally, if a fresh and impartial young person goes through the > socialist literature in books, articles, speeches and correspondences, he > will surely get one impression. If I narrate the impression in one > sentence, it might read as?., > ?The capitalistic society is constituted in two tents named ?bourgeois > tent? and ?proletariat tent?. The bourgeois are the root cause of grief and > peril of this society. Proletariat should take over the rule of the society > in their hand and they should regulate and control the social system in > compliance with socialist policy and principles.? > Personally I am neither in favor of bourgeois nor opponent of proletariat, > I have studied the nature, choices and intentions of proletariat, they are > good people but they are not immune from capitalistic mind set. I do not > criticize them for that because it has to be that only. Likewise, bourgeois > are exploitative and moral less people but both (bourgeois and proletariat) > are product of social evolution. > It is the great mistake forefathers of socialism did and that is > exclusively concentrating on the above two tents. In fact reasons of social > peril lie elsewhere. Existence of two tents of bourgeois and proletariat is > the resultant product of social evolution. Even if proletariat successfully > take over the rule of a society in their hand, the fundamental reasons of > the root cause of the social peril still remains there. When socialism does > not have knowledge of these reasons, how they will be able to establish a > social structure that they dream. > Your views will support to arrive near to the fact finding. > With true regards, > > > > Harshad Dave > Email: hhdave15@gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180831/7e7b9a2d/attachment.html From billkerr@gmail.com Fri Aug 31 06:43:20 2018 From: billkerr@gmail.com (Bill Kerr) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 23:13:20 +0930 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamic Land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi S?bastien, Thank you very much for this. I wasn't aware of Bret Victor but have looked at Seymour and Alan Kay in some depth previously. I've now read a few of BV articles and looked at a few videos and see that he continues and develops in that tradition. I'll be promoting his material with enthusiam. For those not familiar with this lineage perhaps Bret Victor's article about the hand would be a good place to start since that correlates well with the Engels essay on the hand which would be familiar to many here: http://worrydream.com/#!/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign >From a digital world behind a screen we are emerging into tangible, haptic or physical computing with more varied human inputs and interactions becoming available. Bret Victor's examples of a more intuitive user interface for programmers are breathtaking. eg. Inventing on Principle https://vimeo.com/36579366 (History aside: Seymour Papert co-authored logo programming / turtle geometry as a way to make powerful maths ideas more accessible to those who found them difficult). Following some technical wizardry at 35:40 of that video he begins to explain his motivation to his audience of software engineers: "Ideas are very precious to me and when I see ideas dying it hurts. I see a tragedy. It feels like a moral wrong, an injustice. If there is something I can about it then it feels like a responsibility for me to do so. Not an opportunity but a responsibility" The computer is now emerging from being a relatively expensive, large closed box and transforming into a miniature capable of interacting with a variety of sensors to create the internet of things. BV goes beyond the predictable and usually mundane commercial hype (Apple watch etc.) and informs us how a more intuitive user interface (?One of the greatest user interface design minds in the world today.? ? Alan Kay) can promote creativity. ie. he explains how creativity can be enhanced, not just uses it as a nebulous hype word. The principle he argues for is *immediate connection* between the creative process and its visualisation or appearance. He has the skill and knowledge to implement that principle, as part of a team, in the real world. I've been developing a curriculum around the BBC micro:bit and was looking for a theorist who continues to develop the Papert / Kay tradition. You have pointed him out to me, so thanks again! I'm also impressed by the Yin / Yang sidebar of his Bio: http://worrydream.com/#!/Bio Cheers On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:33 PM S?bastien Lerique < sebastien.lerique@normalesup.org> wrote: > Dear XMCA list, > > I have been following the activity here with much interest for a few years > now (although not always able to keep up with all the extensive threads), > originally discovering this list through the Tim Ingold articles that are > hosted on the Research paper archive (here > and here > , both of which > initiated somewhat of a revolution for me, so I would like to take the > opportunity to thank you for hosting them!). This is my first post. > > I recently stumbled upon dynamicland.org, and have been wondering since > then if any of you would have thoughts about such a place/system. If you > are not familiar with Bret Victor 's work, it is > very much inspired by Seymour Papert's Mindstorms > : > it revolves around the idea that computers and computing in general will > probably dramatically change the way we learn and think, from birth into > adulthood (as the printing press did), and that there is now an opportunity > to make that a move towards more humane things, instead of developing > devices that physically and mentally isolate us from one another by having > us stare at screens most of the day. > > That idea is not new -- the interesting part is that it is being > concretely explored in new implementations: real places such as Dynamic > Land are currently emerging based on these ideas, also rehashing other > creative developments that occurred around the birth of the personal > computer in the late seventies but fell into oblivion in tech communities > (see The Future of Programming > ). > > You can find a 1 hour presentation of what led to Dynamic Land here: The > Humane Representation of Thought . They also > published a zine > > with more concrete details about the place. > > After inserting so many links I feel I should point out that I am not > affiliated in any way or even in contact with the Dynamic Land people! They > simply figured out a way of concretely exploring a theme that became > central to me after reading Ingold, namely the materiality of thought, > meaning and interaction. So I would be very interested in your thoughts > about all this! > > Best, > > S?bastien -- slvh.fr > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180831/2a773c2a/attachment.html From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Aug 31 09:28:27 2018 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:28:27 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamic Land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think you would need to be cautious about how imagination (both insight and application) are fostered in an educational setting, rather than slipping into use of a yet another more flashy interface. In that context, one could argue for the primacy of experiencing the problem (if there was some idea one wished to share), not necessarily gaining immediate feedback -- though allowing for constructions that employ feedback is obviously a good thing. Immediacy of feedback is also highly contingent upon the intensive aspects one wishes to expose, extensive aspects being more amenable. Although re-working one's environment to enable that is commendable. Best, Huw On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 14:46, Bill Kerr wrote: > hi S?bastien, > Thank you very much for this. I wasn't aware of Bret Victor but have > looked at Seymour and Alan Kay in some depth previously. I've now read a > few of BV articles and looked at a few videos and see that he continues and > develops in that tradition. I'll be promoting his material with enthusiam. > > For those not familiar with this lineage perhaps Bret Victor's article > about the hand would be a good place to start since that correlates well > with the Engels essay on the hand which would be familiar to many here: > http://worrydream.com/#!/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign > > From a digital world behind a screen we are emerging into tangible, haptic > or physical computing with more varied human inputs and interactions > becoming available. Bret Victor's examples of a more intuitive user > interface for programmers are breathtaking. eg. Inventing on Principle > https://vimeo.com/36579366 (History aside: Seymour Papert co-authored > logo programming / turtle geometry as a way to make powerful maths ideas > more accessible to those who found them difficult). > > Following some technical wizardry at 35:40 of that video he begins to > explain his motivation to his audience of software engineers: > "Ideas are very precious to me and when I see ideas dying it hurts. I see > a tragedy. It feels like a moral wrong, an injustice. If there is something > I can about it then it feels like a responsibility for me to do so. Not an > opportunity but a responsibility" > > The computer is now emerging from being a relatively expensive, large > closed box and transforming into a miniature capable of interacting with a > variety of sensors to create the internet of things. BV goes beyond the > predictable and usually mundane commercial hype (Apple watch etc.) and > informs us how a more intuitive user interface (?One of the greatest user > interface design minds in the world today.? ? Alan Kay) can promote > creativity. ie. he explains how creativity can be enhanced, not just uses > it as a nebulous hype word. The principle he argues for is *immediate > connection* between the creative process and its visualisation or > appearance. He has the skill and knowledge to implement that principle, as > part of a team, in the real world. > > I've been developing a curriculum around the BBC micro:bit and was looking > for a theorist who continues to develop the Papert / Kay tradition. You > have pointed him out to me, so thanks again! > > I'm also impressed by the Yin / Yang sidebar of his Bio: > http://worrydream.com/#!/Bio > > Cheers > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:33 PM S?bastien Lerique < > sebastien.lerique@normalesup.org> wrote: > >> Dear XMCA list, >> >> I have been following the activity here with much interest for a few >> years now (although not always able to keep up with all the extensive >> threads), originally discovering this list through the Tim Ingold articles >> that are hosted on the Research paper archive (here >> and here >> , both of which >> initiated somewhat of a revolution for me, so I would like to take the >> opportunity to thank you for hosting them!). This is my first post. >> >> I recently stumbled upon dynamicland.org, and have been wondering since >> then if any of you would have thoughts about such a place/system. If you >> are not familiar with Bret Victor 's work, it is >> very much inspired by Seymour Papert's Mindstorms >> : >> it revolves around the idea that computers and computing in general will >> probably dramatically change the way we learn and think, from birth into >> adulthood (as the printing press did), and that there is now an opportunity >> to make that a move towards more humane things, instead of developing >> devices that physically and mentally isolate us from one another by having >> us stare at screens most of the day. >> >> That idea is not new -- the interesting part is that it is being >> concretely explored in new implementations: real places such as Dynamic >> Land are currently emerging based on these ideas, also rehashing other >> creative developments that occurred around the birth of the personal >> computer in the late seventies but fell into oblivion in tech communities >> (see The Future of Programming >> ). >> >> You can find a 1 hour presentation of what led to Dynamic Land here: The >> Humane Representation of Thought . They >> also published a zine >> >> with more concrete details about the place. >> >> After inserting so many links I feel I should point out that I am not >> affiliated in any way or even in contact with the Dynamic Land people! They >> simply figured out a way of concretely exploring a theme that became >> central to me after reading Ingold, namely the materiality of thought, >> meaning and interaction. So I would be very interested in your thoughts >> about all this! >> >> Best, >> >> S?bastien -- slvh.fr >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180831/f2a1df67/attachment.html From annalisa@unm.edu Fri Aug 31 23:08:50 2018 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 06:08:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day In-Reply-To: <165250840.1351931.1535702274150@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1534121857228.33038@ils.uio.no> <1534154956936.24314@ils.uio.no> <327924767.1354073.1535009422886@mail.yahoo.com> <1535262216939.29766@ils.uio.no> <1535437116303.13701@ils.uio.no> , <165250840.1351931.1535702274150@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lovely thread spinning Douglas! (Am taking my time reading the Bates chapter Alfredo so generously added to this topic discussion.) I don't know if this is fair game, but I always got the sense that Lakoff has thought, perhaps too long, on the metaphor, with the idea that his tenure on the topic would mandate wrapping anyone else's exceptions into questions, just to not seem priggish. And Huw, we await the throwing of your exceptions into the ring; all 20 of them! Also to Douglas, I had an insight that perhaps is already obvious to some experienced thinkers about it (including yourself), whether percepts might be stored imagistically (as a base container of thought among all animals for it being an embodied copy, like a shadow is a copy of a thing in silhouette), except for humans who have developed language possess an alternative option to abbreviate a percept into a word-meaning, such that word-meaning becomes something of a jack-in-the-box upon usage, then to be packed up for the next usage (and may be why word-meanings change over time). Additionally, that metaphor works alongside word-meaning as an engine for economy so that instead of image to word-meaning to image, or word-meaning to image to word-meaning, the connection is image to image or, word-meaning to word-meaning, or word-meaning to image or image to word-meaning, which makes cognition more efficient (at least by a third). When I say "to" I mean more a mapping connection, rather than a 1:1 connection. Like a Venn diagram is a mapping (though overlap) a group with another group (like Late Wittgenstein's family resemblances), and that this is different than the connection extending between a trunk and a leaf connected with a branch. We wouldn't say that a trunk is a leaf, but that there is an association and their connection is via a branch. I'm not sure I'm making all that much sense and that's OK because I'm just thinking out loud. We know for example that inner speech can be abbreviated. Virginia Woolf would have very telegraphic writing as she developed her stories, and then she would elaborate to "unpack" this code she had captured through exercising her inner speech, to herself. Kind of like an algebra of storywriting/storythinking And so to be stored in memory, the percept is made fast with the image/word-meaning but then unpacked upon usage. And I'm also thinking that this isn't a symbol, because a metaphor is far richer than a symbol because a metaphor by its very nature has a lived context (otherwise, how could be map it?) whereas a symbol might not, just a representative or reference in a two-dimensional sense. And this may explain why analytical logic is so unpopular among the human beasts because the symbols appear to be so arbitrary. While a metaphor extends to the world, and so the cognitive load is offloaded to the environment (and not the mind, so much) so all that is required is the imagistic reference (or word reference) pointing to the world. Everything represented in a very small box. A firefly in a glass jar. This overlap (mapping) creates the layers of depth-of-meaning (with patterns) that might not so readily adhere to a logical symbol, which has a more mechanical interaction symbol to symbol. I also had an insight that this referential mapping to the world could explain why there are different forms of learning and different forms of cognition and conceptualization, which would explain different sorts of intelligences (no one intelligence being better than any other, just different). Then, with regard to dreams, I had always thought of dreaming as the brain's garbage collection during sleep, and that collection is based upon what the mind was preoccupied with during waking hours. Nightmares would be an instance of brain constipation, holding onto things too long that are best let go. It is fascinating that we can never dream about anything that we do not already know about in the waking world. We can make things up, like the horns of a rabbit, which do not exist, but such a thing is a complex of objects we have witnessed in the world. We don't tend to dream about things that have a strange logic, such as the son of a barren woman. Which sort of works with my hypothesis above about mapping and overlapping. I did also have to laugh, because how do we know whether animals dream? Did someone host an interview with Dick Cavett or something? Anyway, given that we have the basis of imagistic cognition (in the animal kingdom) and word-meaning cognition (in humans because of language), as a human, since a human is still an animal, though a very polluting one, could do both, one or neither, and this lends to add many variations of thinking across a population. Then a word more about the unconscious. Given what I've said so far, perhaps the unconscious is just like misplacing our keys. We record something and we know we've got it stored away in the same way we might distractedly set down our keys, but we've forgotten where we left them until such time we stumble across them while looking for something else. What is also intriguing is that cinema seems to go in reverse, because it is image to word-meaning to image as word-meaning, since there is more language-like structures, syntaxes, and grammars to cinema construction, which of course does also change over time. Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180901/6b1b1448/attachment.html