[Xmca-l] Re: Trying to frame studies of the web through perezhivanie
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Wed Sep 26 20:28:51 PDT 2018
Henry, I think that deploying concepts like /"perezhivanie"
/or "experiences" in social and historical analysis just
entails recognition that transformative experiences are
collective, shared experiences; movements are formed and
transformed by shared experiences (this idea goes back to
Herder) and consequently, so are nations. Having recently
read an oral history of the 1968 events in France (events
which my generation shared whatever country you were in at
the time), this is very clear. Experiences not only create
and transform social movements, they transform the
individual people at the same time. I think Vygotsky is
widely interpreted as seeing perezhivaniya as happening
"between people" but this is not yet quite the same thing.
But I am not aware that either Vygotsky or Dewey explicitly
treated this theme. Are you?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 27/09/2018 12:50 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
> Thanks, Mike!
> For sure analog/digital is a sidebar. Got lost in the weeds.
>
> But I do have something that I think germane to the
> subject line, a question really: How does Dewey connect
> experience and democracy? And how about Vygotsky? In fact,
> would anyone point me to ways in which Dewey and Vygotsky
> connect experience/perrizhvanie (mass/countable) and
> democracy, or whatever form of government applies? I
> despair sometimes about the future of democracy. Has it
> ever had a present? I hope I’m not getting into weeds
> where no one wants to go. Or maybe it’s so obvious, it
> doesn’t bear wasting words?
> Henry
>
>
>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Greg Mcverry
>> <jgregmcverry@gmail.com <mailto:jgregmcverry@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes sorry my use of analog v digital sidetracked thread.
>>
>> I spent some time considering how drastic a change to my
>> methodology I would have to make to for switch to Dewey
>> and experiencing.
>>
>> I really don't consider the web, for those who inhabit
>> it, as an artifact. it is both the act of identity
>> creation and identity itself. A dance of the selves in a
>> networked world. A living part of who many people are.
>>
>> A piece of my MEs that is shaped by me and outside interest.
>>
>> I
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:30 PM Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I found "Having an experience" the most useful.
>>
>> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 27/09/2018 10:52 AM, mike cole wrote:
>>> I would be helped in following this interesting
>>> discussion if people brought it back to
>>> /perezhivanie /. It is my reading of the recent
>>> special issue on perezhivanie that there is no firm
>>> agreement on its meaning. My unease was evoked when
>>> I read a note where the word perezhivanie had been
>>> replaced by the word experience. When I read the
>>> word experience I think Dewey, not Vygotsky, not
>>> Stanislavsky, not Vsiliuk.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> PS
>>> What is the best discussion of experience and
>>> perezhivanie that covers a lot of Dewey,
>>> particularly “/Art and Experience” ? Deweyites out
>>> there, speak up!/
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:11 PM Edward Wall
>>> <ewall@umich.edu <mailto:ewall@umich.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>> Interesting subject. I have always thought
>>> Newton somewhat more ‘digital’ and Leibnitz
>>> somewhat more ‘analog’ (he used infinitesimals
>>> which Robinson much latter put on a firm
>>> mathematical basis) in how they, in essence,
>>> treat something like a point. I’ve seen a few
>>> calculus texts that do use Leibnitz’s method and
>>> there are some arguments that, mathematically
>>> speaking, extensions of his method (due, in
>>> part, to Robinson) bring some things into view
>>> that may be hard to see otherwise.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 4:52 PM, HENRY SHONERD
>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It took me a long time to understand the
>>>> calculus, because I couldn’t "get" the limit
>>>> theorem, which allows for a way to use digital
>>>> means to arrive quickly at
>>>> as-precise-as-you-like approximations of rates
>>>> of change (in differential calculus) and sums
>>>> (in integral calculus) than would be possible
>>>> and/or practical with analog means of counting
>>>> and measuring. Without such quickly gotten
>>>> precision, modern engineering would be
>>>> impossible. I thought that Newton and Leibnitz
>>>> discovered the calculs independently and at the
>>>> same time, but a quick look at the wiki on the
>>>> calculus is much more complex than that. It’s a
>>>> history, it seems, that adds to the issue of
>>>> concept and a word for the concept.
>>>> Henry
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 7:53 AM, Glassman, Michael
>>>>> <glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a kind of interesting topic, including
>>>>> from a cultural perspective. My knowledge on
>>>>> this is relatively superficial. Bruce
>>>>> Robinson made a really good point to me – also
>>>>> in your message – that analog computers were
>>>>> better for things like differential equations
>>>>> and more pure mathematic stuff (I think). But
>>>>> that when it came to information processing
>>>>> digital was far superior. My thinking though
>>>>> from the cultural perspective is that analog
>>>>> thinking is more representative of the way
>>>>> humans actually think, at least the way I
>>>>> believe they think. The big argument I have
>>>>> with information processing is that the
>>>>> argument is that the way the computer works
>>>>> (mostly software) is isomorphic to the human
>>>>> mind. But I wonder how much of the direction
>>>>> our society has gone in the last thirty years,
>>>>> with the timed testing using multiple choice
>>>>> questions, if we are attempting to make the
>>>>> human mind isomorphic to the computer. As a
>>>>> friend who has worked at IBM for a lot of
>>>>> years told me recently, they are beginning to
>>>>> wonder if the computer is not training the
>>>>> human. I had wondered if we had gone the
>>>>> analog route (and right now I think I’m
>>>>> agreeing with Bruce, but I change quickly) if
>>>>> we might have gone in another direction, a
>>>>> more pure human-computer symbiosis. Just
>>>>> rambling on a Tuesday morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Edward Wall
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:11 PM
>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trying to frame
>>>>> studies of the web through perezhivanie
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t know if my comments are germane
>>>>> to your discussion of digital and analog, but
>>>>> I was involved in the 60s towards the tail end
>>>>> of the ‘competition'. Your reading makes sense
>>>>> to me; however from where I was sitting there
>>>>> were some nuances. In those years there were,
>>>>> in effect, two kinds of computing using
>>>>> ‘computers’: information processing and
>>>>> scientific computing. Both of these had an
>>>>> analog history stretching far back.
>>>>> Information processing was, in a sense,
>>>>> initially mechanical, a mechanical that became
>>>>> driven by electronics and eventually with the
>>>>> advent of various graphic devices (I include
>>>>> printers of various kinds) became what we see
>>>>> today. The situation with scientific computing
>>>>> was a little different as it has even a richer
>>>>> analog history. Initially, electronic analog
>>>>> devices had the upper hand because they could,
>>>>> in effect, operate in real time. However, as
>>>>> the digital devices became faster and faster,
>>>>> it became possible to, in effect, simulate an
>>>>> analog device on a digital machine and
>>>>> pragmatically the simulation was “good
>>>>> enough.” Thus for, in a sense, economic
>>>>> reasons digital ‘computers’ won the ‘battle.’
>>>>> In a way the evolution is reminiscent of that
>>>>> of audio reproduction or using mathematics to
>>>>> model physical reality; it is amazingly
>>>>> effective. The battle, by the way, is still
>>>>> going on. If I tell the Amazon Alexa to play
>>>>> music a little louder, the increase is done in
>>>>> a digital fashion. If I turn the volume
>>>>> control on one of the original versionsit is
>>>>> done in an analog fashion. So I think you are
>>>>> right, the digital path doesn’t completely
>>>>> reproduce the analog path.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 22, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Glassman,
>>>>> Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Greg and Andy,
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if, based on what Andy has said,
>>>>> is might be more worthwhile to focus on
>>>>> the Web as (Dewey’s ideas on) experience
>>>>> rather than perezhivaniye. I don’t really
>>>>> have a good grasp on perezhivaniye, can’t
>>>>> even really spell it. But if you used
>>>>> Dewey’s ideas on experience the Web
>>>>> becomes both artefact and event in our
>>>>> actions. Dewey makes the argument
>>>>> multiple times I think that we cannot
>>>>> really know our tools outside of our
>>>>> experience in using them, and that in
>>>>> attempting to separate them we are
>>>>> diminishing the meaning of both in our
>>>>> lives. So I think experience actually
>>>>> would be a good way to describe what you
>>>>> are trying to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, also another take on analog and
>>>>> digital. There was a battle between
>>>>> digital and analogous in computing but my
>>>>> own reading of the history is that had
>>>>> more to do with how we treated how
>>>>> computers processed information and solved
>>>>> problems. I believe the crux of the
>>>>> battle was a bit earlier than the 1960s.
>>>>> Actually Vannevar Bush who some (me
>>>>> included) consider the father of both the
>>>>> Internet and the Web (well maybe a more
>>>>> distant father but the actual name web is
>>>>> based on one of his ideas I think, web of
>>>>> trails) was working on the idea of an
>>>>> analogous computer in the late forties. I
>>>>> am sure others were as well. The
>>>>> difference as I understand it is whether
>>>>> we wanted to treat the processing of
>>>>> information as analogous (sort of a linear
>>>>> logic) where one piece of information
>>>>> built off another piece working towards an
>>>>> answer or whether we wanted to treat
>>>>> information as a series of yes no
>>>>> questions leading to a solution (digital
>>>>> referring to the use of 0 and one as yes
>>>>> and no, although I always mix that up.
>>>>> Digital became dominant for a lot of
>>>>> reasons, not the least of which is because
>>>>> it is more precise and efficient but it is
>>>>> also far more limited. I often wonder
>>>>> what would have happened if we had
>>>>> followed Bush’s intuition). There are
>>>>> analog and digital circuits of course, but
>>>>> at least in the early history of the
>>>>> computer I don’t believe that was the
>>>>> primary discussion in the use of these
>>>>> terms. Of course that’s just my reading.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Andy Blunden
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 21, 2018 9:46 PM
>>>>> *To:* <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trying to frame
>>>>> studies of the web through perezhivanie
>>>>>
>>>>> A few comments Greg.
>>>>> It seems to me that the web (i.w., www,
>>>>> yes?) is an *artefact *not events; each
>>>>> unit is a trace of perezhivaniya not a
>>>>> perezhivaniye as such; it is important not
>>>>> to conflate events and artefacts; just as
>>>>> an historian has to know that what they
>>>>> see are traces of real events, not the
>>>>> events as such. What you do with that
>>>>> evidence is something again.
>>>>> Just by-the-by, "analog" does not mean
>>>>> "original" or "real"; it means the
>>>>> opposite of reality. The terms "digital"
>>>>> and "analog" originate from the 1960s when
>>>>> there were two types of computer. Analog
>>>>> computers emulate natural processes by
>>>>> representing natural processes in
>>>>> analogous electronic circuits based on the
>>>>> calculus. In the end digital computers won
>>>>> an almost complete victory, but for
>>>>> example, if I'm not mistaken, the bionic
>>>>> ear uses analog computing to achieve
>>>>> real-time coding of speech, or at least it
>>>>> did when I knew it in the 1980s.
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>> On 22/09/2018 12:57 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been spending time this summer
>>>>> reading up on the concept of
>>>>> perezhivanie after our article
>>>>> discussion on identify of funds.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to share a draft of my
>>>>> theoretical perspectie for feedback.
>>>>> Granted due to word count it will
>>>>> probably be reduced to a paragraph or
>>>>> two with drive by citations but I am
>>>>> trying to think this through to inform
>>>>> my design.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://checkoutmydomain.glitch.me/theoretical.html>https://checkoutmydomain.glitch.me/theoretical.html
>>>>>
>>>>> -I got a little feedback but from
>>>>> Russian scholars in other fields
>>>>> (literature mainly) that I missed the
>>>>> meaning by being too neutral and I
>>>>> needed to get at "growing from one's
>>>>> misery" or another person said
>>>>> "brooding over the bad stuff that
>>>>> happened that makes you who you are"
>>>>> So I want to make sure I capture the
>>>>> struggle.
>>>>>
>>>>> -I am not diving into this now but I
>>>>> am also considering the identify and
>>>>> culture of a local web and how that
>>>>> plays out into how we shapes funds of
>>>>> identity as we create online spaces.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Finally is applying this lens with
>>>>> adult learners not appropriate? What
>>>>> does it mean when you actively want to
>>>>> tweak the environment of learners to
>>>>> reduce experiencing as struggle and
>>>>> increase experience as contemplation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180927/8be7e12d/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list