[Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Tue Aug 18 19:13:47 PDT 2020
Martin, how would you respond to a Behaviourist or a "brain
scientist" who responded to what you have just said by
saying: "At last you agree with me! Mind does not exist! It
is an illusion!"?
andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYxASIfGVw$ >
Home Page <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYyxVPFOdA$ >
On 19/08/2020 11:45 am, Martin Packer wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I can’t quite tell from your message whether "Mind is the
> Body's Idea of Itself” comes from Vygotsky or from 17th
> century Dutch painting, but I love it! I’ve been working
> unsuccessfully for years trying to convince psychologists
> that trying to study ‘mind’ is a fruitless endeavor.
>
> But the statement must be Vygotsky's because it is so
> consistent with his metaphor in Crisis: to believe that
> mind exists and can be studied is like thinking the
> reflection of a candle in a mirror is a second real
> candle, and trying to study it while paying no attention
> to either the mirror or the real candle.
>
> Sorry not to have been paying attention: which text is
> this from?
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>> On Aug 18, 2020, at 5:46 PM, David Kellogg
>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Henry:
>>
>> As far as I know, there are many different schools of
>> Kabuki, including a 'social realist' one and a much more
>> stylized one. But like Stanislavsky's method, all of them
>> are "depth" approaches which seek out inner truth by
>> deep-diving into something called 'character'. For me,
>> Noh is a much more "heights" approach, and like Brecht it
>> involves holding character at a distance and trying to
>> form overall judgements about it rather than getting lost
>> in the details of a personality. There is a similar
>> tension in Chinese opera, between Shanghai Opera
>> (deep-diving) and Beijing (stylized). I'm not sure
>> I could call that a grammar; it looks more like
>> granularity on stage (consider, for example, the use of
>> make-up, the importance of costume, and place of recitative).
>>
>> Michael probably knows more than I do about Stanislavsky.
>> But when you are in a conversation and somebody says
>> something like "You've completely lost me", there are
>> three possibilities. One is just interpersonal--I'm not
>> very interested in what you are saying and I've got other
>> things to do. Another possibility is more ideational--I
>> can't follow what you are saying--maybe because of the
>> lexicogrammar you use or because of the unfamiliar ideas
>> you have--and I need some other way of understanding
>> it, like a familiar example or a story. A third is
>> textual: I am interested in what you say and I recognize
>> the setting and the characters you are referring to, but
>> I can't really get my arms around the interpretative
>> frame. Usually the problems I have communicating are of
>> the textual type--not always, but more often than not.
>>
>> We're having a similar problem with our new book, which
>> is about the emotions: Vygotsky has left us a fragment,
>> and it's long, circuitous and assumes a very thorough
>> knowledge of seventeenth century philosophy. So we want
>> to turn it into a kind of comic book, using seventeenth
>> century Dutch paintings, which include a lot of the ideas
>> that I think are most troublesome (e.g. "Deus Sive
>> Natura", "Mind is the Body's Idea of Itself", "Freedom is
>> an illusion, but recognition of necessity is real"). That
>> format in itself can create an interpretive frame that
>> people have trouble with (can I take this seriously--it's
>> a comic book!). I was looking forward to mansplaining in
>> a face to face meeting with our readers this Saturday,
>> but that's now been cancelled because of the spike we are
>> having in Seoul (like our first one, incubated by a
>> religious sect owing fealty to the remnants of the former
>> military dictatorship and to Donald Trump).
>>
>> If you compare Cognitive Grammar to Systemic-Functional
>> Grammar, you'll notice three differences right away.
>>
>> a) Cognitive Grammar assumes a COGNITIVE semantics.
>> Systemic-Functional Grammar treats 'cognitive processes'
>> as a black box and studies visible social-semiotic
>> processes instead.
>> b) Cognitive Grammar has, as you say, TWO strata--form
>> and meaning. Systemic-Functional grammar has three, and
>> allows for coupling all three in different ways, because
>> a two stratal model, particularly one that emphasizes
>> fixed units of redounding elements, is essentially
>> replicative and cannot account for development.
>> c) Cognitive Grammar is, as we have said before,
>> speculative. Systemic-Functional Grammar depends on a
>> dialectic of research into empirical facts in many
>> languages and theoretical generalizations, all of which
>> (to date, anyway) avoid universalization.
>>
>> I remember asking Ruqaiya Hasan about Langacker and
>> cognitive grammar. She told me that when they were in
>> Singapore together, Langacker complained that his
>> cognitive grammar was being largely ignored. "And what
>> about Halliday?" Ruqaiya asked. Fortunately, MCA is NOT
>> ignoring Halliday! (See link below!)
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Sangmyung University
>>
>> New article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
>> Realizations: non-causal but real relationships in and
>> between Halliday, Hasan, and Vygotsky
>>
>> Some free e-prints today available at:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYxRvZeb0Q$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!WzhE4UmkZC17BnEoGQS1fRQ5ws_X1EarH5Yqn8YDscsZhL7pAkoHazqpRwBbKJIMxdHi6w$>
>>
>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: L.S. Vygotsky's
>> Pedological Works Volume One: Foundations of Pedology"
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYyJeyU36Q$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!WzhE4UmkZC17BnEoGQS1fRQ5ws_X1EarH5Yqn8YDscsZhL7pAkoHazqpRwBbKJIh1AzN2g$>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:21 AM HENRY SHONERD
>> <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> David,
>> I am guessing that your apochyphal story and analysis
>> has something to do with how languaging works.
>> Langacker--a proponent of what he calls Cognitive
>> Grammar,--asserts that a/grammar/, is a structured
>> inventory of conventional linguistic units, a
>> linguistic unit being a symbolic coupling of form and
>> meaning for linguistic purposes. I find that
>> definition useful. How does that relate, if at all,
>> to what you have been trying to explain to Michael G?
>>
>> And yes, believe it or not,I was wondering about Noh
>> theater. To be honest, what I saw could have been
>> Noh, but I am pretty sure my parents told me it was
>> Kabuki. I can’t ask them now, but I think they would
>> have remembered when they were living. So back to my
>> question in the first paragraph: Do
>> Kabuki/Stanislavsky and/or Noh/Brecht draw on any
>> theatrical grammar? Keeping in mind that any grammar
>> in theater would have to draw massively on gesture,
>> in ways that written language would not. And gesture
>> may have its own grammar.
>>
>> I should add that Langacker recognizes that grammars
>> are built through use and are as much in the context
>> of language usage as in the head(s) of the user(s).
>> Though he also recognizes that Cognitive Grammar is
>> short on the analysis of real language in context.
>> This is an old conversation I have had with you, but
>> it seems relevant here. I am thinking now about
>> improvisation, which we assume is mostly true of
>> “natural” language use, though Langacker argues that
>> much language use is based on the use of common
>> phrases, rather than being very “creative", like my
>> first phrase in the first paragraph of this post: “I
>> am guessing…” and “believe it or not” that starts the
>> second paragraph, and the “I should add” that starts
>> this paragraph. These are all over-learned linguistic
>> units
>>
>> I think what I am getting to is the distinction
>> between grammar and discourse, how they bleed into
>> one another and how every use of language is in some
>> sense staged.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 17, 2020, at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg
>>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a completely apocryphal story in China
>>> about Stanislavsky and Brecht. They are both
>>> visiting a liberated area in my wife's home province
>>> of Shaanxi. There is a village production of the
>>> White Haired Girl, in which the heroine is raped by
>>> the landlord's son, Huang Shiren. To prevent the
>>> rape, a peasant in the audience draws a pistol and
>>> shoots the actor through the heart. Since the whole
>>> village has been reading Chairman's Mao's essay on
>>> the necessity of holding funerals for martyrs, "In
>>> Memory of Dr. Norman Bethune", there is a funeral
>>> the next day. Stanislavskky presents a wreath of
>>> white carnations with the legend, "To the greatest
>>> actor in China, a martyr to his art". Brecht's envoy
>>> reads "To the worst actor in the world, on a
>>> particularly bad night."
>>>
>>> Isaiah Berlin argued that romanticism was a great
>>> shift from enlightenment rationalism: for the
>>> romantic, it doesn't matter what you believe so long
>>> as you sincerely believe it (this is why German
>>> romanticism produced both communists and fascists).
>>> For the romantic actor, it doesn't matter what you
>>> feel so long as the feeling is deeply felt. The
>>> anti-romantic view--and Brecht was an
>>> anti-romantic--is that it doesn't matter whether you
>>> deeply feel the feeling or not; the only thing that
>>> matters is what people learn from it and whether it
>>> will help or harm them.
>>>
>>> Why do we despise or pity a teacher or a politican
>>> who is merely a showman? Because a communication
>>> that fails to communicate an idea, or which
>>> communicates only the pulchritude of the
>>> communcator, is simply off topic. If Anthony takes
>>> away from my video "Spinoza, Chess, and Other Magic
>>> Gateways" only the story about the Danish chess
>>> grandmaster in Beijing, I have done nothing but
>>> entertain or enthrall him.So for example if you read
>>> the little story about Brecht and Stanislavsky as a
>>> biographical account, or a colorful anecdote that
>>> has nothing to do with my argument, I have failed as
>>> a communicator (Alas, I often do!).
>>>
>>> A good friend of mine is a well-known novelist in
>>> the USA. She told me once that she became a novelist
>>> because she learned that words can not only report
>>> an experience but reproduce it. I must have wrinkled
>>> my nose at that, because we got off into a
>>> discussion on whether inner speech can actually be
>>> written down or not (which is essentially the point
>>> that divides Woolf and Joyce). As a novelist, she
>>> said it could; as a linguist, I said it couldn't.
>>>
>>> If we take Stanislavsky's annotated scripts
>>> literally, then the emotional subtext attributed to
>>> Chatskii and Sophia are a kind of mentalese: their
>>> external language is simply an editing or a
>>> translation of the inner subtext. But that's not
>>> what verbal thinking is at all; it is entirely
>>> predicative, and incomprehensible without its
>>> internal context.
>>>
>>> (Henry--compare Kabuki with Noh. Kabuki is
>>> Stanislavsky. Noh is Brecht.)
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>> New article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
>>> Realizations: non-causal but real relationships in
>>> and between Halliday, Hasan, and Vygotsky
>>>
>>> Some free e-prints today available at:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYxRvZeb0Q$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!XgGKXuGHbf-4OH_o5GvbFeTXs47ccHePHKYFG8MHBzAxxDUiIJk2_bjxgY7zjfrVE7ftQA$>
>>>
>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: L.S.
>>> Vygotsky's Pedological Works Volume One: Foundations
>>> of Pedology"
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYyJeyU36Q$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XgGKXuGHbf-4OH_o5GvbFeTXs47ccHePHKYFG8MHBzAxxDUiIJk2_bjxgY7zjfo9s_ZqtA$>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:28 AM Glassman, Michael
>>> <glassman.13@osu.edu <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> You completely lost me.
>>>
>>> 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 *David Kellogg
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2020 6:44 PM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness
>>> enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>> I think we all tend to read our current opinions
>>> into our Vygotsky, Michael. The only real
>>> advantage I claim for my own reading of "The
>>> Psychology of the Actor's Creative Work" is that
>>> it is unpopular, eccentric,
>>> counter-conventional, or at least stridently
>>> anti-romantic, and it will serve as a tonic or
>>> at least a foil for people on this list.
>>>
>>> So this is a late work, if we are to believe the
>>> textological note. It belongs to the period
>>> Vygotsky is writing "Teaching on the Emotions",
>>> where he uses the actor's paradox as evidence
>>> against Lange and James (1999: 117) and where he
>>> seems to be developing a theory of higher
>>> emotions consistent with Spinoza's distinction
>>> between emotions that are passions (caused by
>>> the environment) and those which are active
>>> (self-caused), by which he means caused by
>>> understanding and knowledge (and not by acts of
>>> recall and imitation).
>>>
>>> Vygotsky counterposes Stanislavsky's system to
>>> the system of psychotechnical selection
>>> ('talent-scouting, acting-aptitude tests, your
>>> comparison with Ribot is one that Vygotsky
>>> himself makes, and it is very a propos). He
>>> seems to wish a plague upon both, because both
>>> conflate the actor's own emotions with the
>>> shareable, social emotions that actors have to
>>> build on stage. You are of course right that
>>> this is what gives that emotion a conditional,
>>> historically specific, and even class specific
>>> character--and you are right that Stanislavsky,
>>> but not Craig, was convinced of this, even if
>>> Stanislavsky developed a technique that
>>> eventually ran directly counter to it (the
>>> excesses of "method" acting in Hollywood).
>>>
>>> I prefer to think of art as a special social
>>> technique of sharing ideas--similar to academic
>>> discourse--and not a form of self-deception. But
>>> I'll admit that this is the direct result of my
>>> own artistic training: we don't try to reproduce
>>> what we see when we paint: we try to communicate
>>> what we are thinking about it. I was an actor
>>> once too, and we were trained to be very careful
>>> not to do snuff porn on stage, not even in our
>>> heads. It is basically the same mistake that we
>>> all commit when we conflate our current opinions
>>> with Vygotsky's.
>>>
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>>
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>> New article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
>>>
>>> Realizations: non-causal but real relationships
>>> in and between Halliday, Hasan, and Vygotsky
>>>
>>> Some free e-prints today available at:
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYxRvZeb0Q$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!W8PZ43eu4LC1xSAffVdIDqmaRIq4PDLOb-P4KTvfV_DUJXqxOtYGf2tEuR4oh4ukrPPgQg$>
>>>
>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: L.S.
>>> Vygotsky's Pedological Works Volume One:
>>> Foundations of Pedology"
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYyJeyU36Q$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!W8PZ43eu4LC1xSAffVdIDqmaRIq4PDLOb-P4KTvfV_DUJXqxOtYGf2tEuR4oh4ut7JrDdw$>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:15 PM Glassman,
>>> Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> I honestly don’t know why Stanislavski’s
>>> nephew was sent to Siberia. It just seems to
>>> have spooked him. I never read Selenick’s
>>> book. Everything I have read about the 1912
>>> production I have read has been from
>>> Stanislavski’s perspective, primarily
>>> Bennedetti so it would be an interesting read.
>>>
>>> As for Diderot. Why would you say that
>>> Vygotsky sided with Diderot (actually sided
>>> with directors who followed Diderot and
>>> avoided lived experience). This seems almost
>>> the opposite of what Vygotsky was after in
>>> his later writings. Diderot in an Actor’s
>>> Paradox claimed the actor had to make the
>>> choice to avoid emotion/affect. It was
>>> genuine but it was disorganized and
>>> performances became too volatile. I was
>>> recently watching a movie about actor
>>> auditions (Every Little Step She Takes).
>>> There was one episode that speaks directly
>>> to Diderot. An actress gives a great,
>>> emotional reading. She gets called back and
>>> reads again. The director asks he to do what
>>> she did the first time. She screams, I don’t
>>> know what I did the first time, I don’t know
>>> why it was good. That is the Actor’s Paradox
>>> in a nutshell. Stanislavski was I think the
>>> first to try and solve this paradox. The
>>> combine affective memory with text. I see
>>> Vygotsky trying to do much the same thing in
>>> development, and I think it gives us a
>>> window into the relationship between
>>> spontaneous concepts and scientific concepts
>>> (did you know Ribot called emotional memory
>>> spontaneous. I wonder if it was the same word).
>>>
>>> I also disagree with your interpretation of
>>> Stanislavski and inner speech. I would call
>>> him anything from mentalese. As a matter of
>>> fact I think you could make a really good
>>> argument that Vygotsky took his idea of
>>> inner speech directly from the first few
>>> chapters of An Actor’s Work. The
>>> similarities are uncanny. Now before you
>>> write back that An Actor’s work was not
>>> published until 1938, there were chapters in
>>> circulation as early as 1928. What I find
>>> important is that Gurevich, who was acting
>>> as his editor (I begin to wonder how much
>>> she actually wrote) was worried about
>>> Stanislavski’s use of psychological phrases.
>>> Even though Stanislavski seemed to be
>>> allergic to read anything but plays he
>>> thought of himself as a psychologist.
>>> According to Bennedetti, Gurevich gave the
>>> manuscript to three psychologists to look
>>> over. Is it logical to make the argument
>>> that Vygotsky might have been one of those
>>> psychologists? The reason for my original
>>> query. But there are so many similarities
>>> between those early chapters of an Actor’s
>>> Work and especially chapters six and seven
>>> of Thinking and Speech.
>>>
>>> I don’t know if Vygotsky’s ideas on affect
>>> evolved. Again, I think he might have read
>>> Stanislavski and found a way in to
>>> discussing this. Perhaps the most
>>> influential thing (for me) I have read in
>>> this second reading of Vygotsky is Mike’s
>>> introduction to the special issue of MCA on
>>> Spinoza. I think it is right on point except
>>> I would replace the cryptic and opaque
>>> Spinoza with the over the top Stanislavski.
>>>
>>> Okay, enough for now. Got to get back to
>>> salt mines.
>>>
>>> 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 *David Kellogg
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2020 4:45 AM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness
>>> enters through the gate" (a Participation
>>> Question)
>>>
>>> Michael--
>>>
>>> There's a good book on the 1912 production
>>> (you've probably read it).
>>>
>>> Senelick, L (1982) Gordon Craig's Moscow
>>> Hamlet. Westport, CN and London: Greenwood.
>>>
>>> I have a chapter on it in my own book, 'The
>>> Great Globe and All Who It Inherit" (Sense:
>>> 2014). My impression is that the stage
>>> version Vygotsky is hard on in Psychology of
>>> Art is actually the Second Moscow Art
>>> Theatre production of 1924, which is one of
>>> the revivals of Stanislavsky/Craig you are
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> Stanislavsky was from a very wealthy family,
>>> and most wealthy families were active
>>> counter-revolutionaries during the Civil
>>> War. The Alekseivs were certainly what you
>>> could call conservative, and they were all
>>> quite displeased with Constantin's acting
>>> career. Are you sure that the nephew was
>>> sent to Siberia for artistic reasons?
>>>
>>> (I have always felt that Vygotsky was more
>>> inclined to Diderot than Stanislavsky, and
>>> would have supported Brecht and Olivier
>>> against Stanislavsky and Mel Gibson. But
>>> maybe we need to ask WHICH Vygotsky, because
>>> his views on emotion certainly evolve a lot,
>>> and he is only inclined to view higher
>>> emotions as the product of reflection in the
>>> sense of ideation than as reflection in the
>>> sense of reproduction in the 1930s, when he
>>> writes the actor essay. I think the main
>>> problem with his use of Stanislavsky's
>>> method in Thinking and Speech is that it
>>> assumes a kind of 'mentalese' which is only
>>> a description of emotion. Vygotsky would
>>> really require at least three
>>> planes--volitional affective impulse,
>>> non-verbal thought, and verbal thinking.
>>> Only the last one could be put into words,
>>> and then the syntax would be very different
>>> from what Stanislavsky is using in his
>>> scripts. There is a similar problem in the
>>> different ways that Virginial Woolf and
>>> James Joyce treat inner speech--one of them
>>> tries to write about it and the other tries
>>> to write it.)
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>>
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>> New Article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
>>>
>>> Realizations: non-causal but real
>>> relationships in and between Halliday,
>>> Hasan, and Vygotsky
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/url310.tandfonline.com/ls/click?upn=odl8Fji2pFaByYDqV3bjGMQo8st9of2228V6AcSFNq3t86qU90pAx-2BEad4OTI0D6Bi1fwTdsuN-2BfXNLD3YVMjcLIX-2BmEuxF9NP5zGw-2BdLfY-3D7ljy_X7XaRk1WbLfx0WH87lwk8dq9sJwzGg6rYuMbUaEYJVSc-2Brn9o4kZxBH7VyDFXQG2cW-2FVpvW8kKmgCrEcZ9b01hknKR451ObdcFj2BjoQzt7GbzMiYiThGgitFYjHGo14NDXURJCBt80ZRKh9rhZiCz3ERpw5ZHeOlHPYX1rSnIqI9nfjq4FunlRWMWO46RMruhVV-2BsN-2BP3WHvbuOtvoLOg8W0MWktZcDt85Q8BK7UYuIOL31Osd02-2BMwIuIZ3U6ud9iCFOaXu9e0DjKARw9ftcuTIz2WiuLgDtTkR2I8YcY-3D__;!!Mih3wA!X-sPHj2yRj7CruRKtdoJzuSguNRxxRa07dqeIoZ9GHqxdbAkzGcN-Ue9sxFcWs26bXpP7Q$>
>>>
>>> Some free e-prints available.
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYxRvZeb0Q$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!X-sPHj2yRj7CruRKtdoJzuSguNRxxRa07dqeIoZ9GHqxdbAkzGcN-Ue9sxFcWs3BnshQdA$>
>>>
>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: /L.S.
>>> Vygotsky's Pedological Works/ /Volume One:
>>> Foundations of Pedology/"
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYyJeyU36Q$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!X-sPHj2yRj7CruRKtdoJzuSguNRxxRa07dqeIoZ9GHqxdbAkzGcN-Ue9sxFcWs0U-run5w$>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 9:11 PM Glassman,
>>> Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Actually the Hamlet of 1912 was even
>>> more consequential than you might think.
>>> It seems Isadora Duncan got Stanislavski
>>> and Craig together. Craig came to Russia
>>> but there were problems from the start,
>>> and pretty soon they were actually
>>> directing separately. Stanislavski saw
>>> this as his great opportunity to bring
>>> his ‘system’ (which I believe influenced
>>> Vygotsky a great deal) to an
>>> international production and a
>>> Shakespeare play. Up to that point he
>>> used his system mostly in workshop
>>> productions with Russian playwright
>>> working with the MAT. Stanislavsky was
>>> doing another small production
>>> simultaneously. Anyway, Craig, who was
>>> upset about the money he was receiving
>>> eventually took less of a hand in the
>>> production. He was a symbolist but I
>>> think not in the way Russians were
>>> symbolists, in other words he saw
>>> himself as the director creating the
>>> symbols rather than the actors exploring
>>> the sub-texts of the words. He also
>>> wanted Hamlet to be portrayed in the
>>> traditional bombastic, over the top
>>> Elizabethan fashion. Stanislavski wanted
>>> the actor playing Hamlet to really
>>> explore his emotions in the context of
>>> his system. The production only ran for
>>> a few weeks as most people do not like
>>> change (which makes me think Vygotsky at
>>> the young age did not see it) so it was
>>> a financial flop for the MAT but an
>>> international critical success and was
>>> in many ways a springboard for
>>> Stanislavski’s fame. My reading on
>>> Vygotsky’s essay on Hamlet, and
>>> Psychology of Art in general, was that
>>> he read a great many of the writings on
>>> the production, which continued for
>>> years. I feel he came down distinctly on
>>> the side of Stanislavski in his essay.
>>> Of course there is no way to know this
>>> for sure, except he could have never
>>> written that essay if there had never
>>> been the 1912 production. It changed the
>>> way people look at theater.
>>>
>>> As for socialist realism becoming state
>>> policy in 1932, that might be right. But
>>> Stanislavski was already retired from
>>> directing and he did a number of
>>> productions promoting socialist realism
>>> (he was not enamored with it, but it let
>>> the MAT keep working). Also his nephew
>>> had been exiled to Siberia. So it may
>>> have been an important component before
>>> it was state policy.
>>>
>>> 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 *David Kellogg
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 16, 2020 6:00 AM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious
>>> awareness enters through the gate" (a
>>> Participation Question)
>>>
>>> Michael--
>>>
>>> Actually, socialist realism was only
>>> declared official state policy in
>>> 1932--Lenin had been dead for eight
>>> years. During most of Vygotsky's career
>>> the arts scene in the USSR was probably
>>> the liveliest and freest in the world.
>>> But slightly crazy too--see the attached
>>> photograph “Every Komsomol (male Young
>>> Communist League member) can and must
>>> satisfy his sexual needs” and the woman
>>> has to hold a sign that says “Every
>>> Komsomolka (female Young Communist
>>> League member) should aid him in this,
>>> otherwise she’s a philistine”). This is
>>> the kind of thing Vygotsky was fighting
>>> AGAINST in his sex education work with
>>> Zalkind. My wife grew up during the
>>> Cultural Revolution, and I can tell you
>>> that it was not at all the same thing.
>>>
>>> In 1912, when Vygotsky was sixteen and
>>> visiting Moscow for the first time,
>>> there was a famous production of Hamlet
>>> than in some ways still influences us
>>> today: it was a little bit as if you had
>>> the Olivier production on stage and
>>> Zeffirelli doing the lighting and props.
>>> Stanislavsky wanted to treat Hamlet as
>>> historical characters, but the stage
>>> director and producer was the English
>>> symbolist Gordon Craig, who actually
>>> wanted, at one point, to turn it into a
>>> one man show, wiith every character
>>> except Hamlet in a mask. He got his way
>>> with the props, which were highly
>>> abstract and geometrical, but
>>> Stanislavsky got his way with the actual
>>> production, which (I gather) was gritty
>>> and grimey.
>>>
>>> I would love to know if the Hamlet
>>> Vygotsky saw and wrote about was the
>>> original Stanislavsky-Craig emulsion or
>>> if it was some toned down restaging of
>>> the original 1912 production. Do you know?
>>>
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>>
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam:
>>> A manual and a manifesto.
>>>
>>> Outlines, Spring 2020
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYwlhg5e8A$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!WC2B2d3sHzBVQzHe3_Gk-N5cH4sDTZXudPEFrikW3AbMDxvPNWZML6XSytkIU2nP5psr4Q$>
>>>
>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov:
>>> /L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works/
>>> /Volume One: Foundations of Pedology/"
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYyJeyU36Q$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!WC2B2d3sHzBVQzHe3_Gk-N5cH4sDTZXudPEFrikW3AbMDxvPNWZML6XSytkIU2mAEEqXaA$>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 6:12 PM
>>> Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu
>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> A couple of things, especially about
>>> the Uzbekistan experiments. As I
>>> have alluded to in some earlier
>>> posts I have been doing some reading
>>> on theater during the time Vygotsky
>>> was writing. One thing I have come
>>> across multiple times is the issue
>>> of socialist realism. The idea (and
>>> this is probably not a very good
>>> definition) is that we have to
>>> understand people as they really are
>>> and think, but we also have to
>>> accept that humans can become better
>>> actors (broadly defined) and
>>> thinkers under a socialist system.
>>> It seems the people pushing this was
>>> somewhat akin to cadres in the
>>> cultural revolution. In other words
>>> you better do it. Even Stanislavski,
>>> who both Lenin and Stalin loved, was
>>> forced to do a number of productions
>>> that promoted socialist realism. If
>>> you did not toe the line you were
>>> sent to Siberia (or worse). I am
>>> sure this is discussed somewhere in
>>> relationship to Vygotsky but I
>>> wonder if we she take that into
>>> account when thinking about things
>>> like the Uzbekistan experiment.
>>>
>>> A second thing. I wonder if
>>> sometimes we have a tendency to over
>>> think and over philosophize
>>> Vygotsky. In some ways he was just
>>> trying to get things done and a
>>> concept like conscious awareness in
>>> Thinking and Speech is mostly a
>>> means to solving a problem, not any
>>> philosophical statement. The problem
>>> it seems to me is that we do not
>>> have consistent conceptual systems
>>> based solely on our experience. A
>>> five year old can have five
>>> different best friends on five days
>>> on the playground depending on what
>>> people brought for lunch or who got
>>> to the swings first. Still, it is
>>> these affective based concepts that
>>> drive our activity. But we don’t
>>> offer use these concepts with any
>>> conscious use of attention or memory
>>> or any of our other intellectual
>>> functions. “Hmmm, Jerry brought
>>> salami today, maybe I should think
>>> about making him my best friend.” On
>>> the other hand social concepts are
>>> developed separately from our
>>> experiences and our emotions. They
>>> are developed specifically to
>>> organize and bring consistency to
>>> our feelings. But they are
>>> meaningless from an affective,
>>> everyday perspective. Why would we
>>> even want to think about them. In
>>> order to bring them into our lives
>>> we have to consciously engage in
>>> volitional activities using them. So
>>> we have to have conscious awareness.
>>> How then do you bring the two
>>> together, for which he takes the
>>> remainder of chapter six.
>>>
>>> Dewey also was really, really
>>> inconsistent in the way he used
>>> words. I would argue he used words
>>> as tools not as philosophical
>>> statements. You have to read the
>>> texts and figure it out.
>>>
>>> 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 *Martin Packer
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020
>>> 8:15 PM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>> Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious
>>> awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Well you and I may differ on this.
>>> My interpretation is that in the
>>> passage that Anthony gave us, LSV is
>>> talking about the growing
>>> consciousness *of their own
>>> thinking* on the part of school-age
>>> children. (In Thought & Language he
>>> shifts a bit on whether this happens
>>> in middle childhood or adolescence,
>>> but that needn't concern us.) That
>>> is to say, he is writing about what
>>> he calls “introspection."
>>>
>>> As evidence for this interpretation
>>> let me cite a couple of other
>>> passages (these are from the
>>> excellent Kellogg translation) where
>>> I think the point is made more clearly:
>>>
>>> 100 "I make a knot. I do
>>> it consciously. I cannot,
>>> however, tell you exactly how I
>>> did it. My conscious act is
>>> unconscious, because my
>>> attention is focused on the act
>>> of the tying, but not on how I
>>> do it. Consciousness is always
>>> some piece of reality. The
>>> object of my consciousness is
>>> tying the knot, a knot, and
>>> what was happening to it but not
>>> those actions that I make when
>>> tying, not how I do it. But the
>>> object of consciousness can be
>>> just that - then it will be
>>> awareness. Awareness is an act
>>> of consciousness, the object of
>>> which is itself the very same
>>> activity of consciousness”
>>>
>>> 102 "Even Piaget's research
>>> showed that introspection does
>>> not begin to develop in
>>> any significant degree until
>>> school age. Further
>>> investigations have shown that
>>> the development of introspection
>>> in the school age contains
>>> something similar to what occurs
>>> in the development of the
>>> external perception and
>>> observation in the transition
>>> from infancy to early childhood.
>>> As is well known, the most
>>> important change in external
>>> perception of this period [i.e.
>>> infancy to early childhood] is
>>> that a child from a wordless
>>> and, consequently, meaningless
>>> perception, to a semantic,
>>> verbal and objective perception.
>>> The same can be said of
>>> introspection on the threshold
>>> of school age. The child
>>> is moving from mute
>>> introspection to speech and
>>> words. He develops an internal
>>> semantic perception of his own
>>> mental processes…. I realize
>>> that I can recall, i.e. I
>>> do recall the subjectivity of my
>>> own consciousness."
>>>
>>> 104 "By their very
>>> nature, spontaneous concepts
>>> include the fact that they are
>>> unconscious. Children know how
>>> they operate spontaneously but
>>> are not aware of them. This is
>>> what we saw in the children's
>>> concept of "because." Obviously,
>>> by themselves, spontaneous
>>> concepts need to be
>>> unconscious, because
>>> consideration is always directed
>>> to their objects, rather than to
>>> the act of thought which is
>>> grasping it.”
>>>
>>> 106 "only in a system [of
>>> concepts] can the concept become
>>> the object of awareness and only
>>> in a system can the child
>>> acquire volitional control [of
>>> concepts]."
>>>
>>> In his Lectures on Child Psychology
>>> LSV is very clear, in my view, that
>>> at each stage the child has
>>> consciousness of different aspects
>>> of the world and of their own
>>> psychological processes. For example:
>>>
>>> "In an infant, there is no
>>> intellectual perception: he
>>> perceives a room but does not
>>> separately perceive chairs, a
>>> table, etc.; he will perceive
>>> everything as an undivided whole
>>> in contrast to the adult, who
>>> sees figures against a
>>> background. How does a child
>>> perceive his own movements in
>>> early childhood? He is happy,
>>> unhappy, but does not know that
>>> he is happy, just as an infant
>>> when he is hungry does not know
>>> that he is hungry. There is a
>>> great difference between feeling
>>> hunger and knowing that I
>>> am hungry. In early childhood,
>>> the child does not know his
>>> own experiences…. Precisely as a
>>> three-year-old child discovers
>>> his relation to other people, a
>>> seven-year-old discovers the
>>> fact of his own experiences.”
>>> (p. 291)
>>>
>>> Of course, one might find it
>>> objectionable that LSV might suggest
>>> that non-literate peoples might be
>>> unaware of their own thinking. But I
>>> agree with Andy, in such cultures
>>> there may well be systematic
>>> instruction in systems of concepts —
>>> legal, religious… — that would have
>>> the same effect as LSV says that
>>> school instruction does in the west.
>>>
>>> Stay safe,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Aug 15, 2020, at 6:06 PM,
>>> mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was not being ironic, David
>>>
>>> If scientific concepts are
>>> required for conscious awareness
>>> (as specified in the quotation I
>>> was asked to respond to) and
>>> people who
>>>
>>> have not been to school do not
>>> acquire Piagetian concepts
>>> related to formal operations
>>> (for example) or other measure
>>> of "thinking in
>>>
>>> scientific concepts) if seems to
>>> follow that they have not
>>> achieved conscious awareness.
>>>
>>> LSV writes about non-literate,
>>> indigenous, peoples that they
>>> are capable of complexes, but
>>> not true concepts (I think the
>>> use of the term.
>>>
>>> "scientific" is not helpful
>>> here). Luria interprets his data
>>> on self-consciousness that are a
>>> part of the same monograph as
>>> his work on syllogisms,
>>>
>>> classification, etc among
>>> Uzbekis who had experienced
>>> various degrees of involvement
>>> in modern (e.g. Russian) forms
>>> of life as evidence for
>>>
>>> what might be termed "lack of
>>> conscious awareness I am not sure."
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:31 PM
>>> David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe I missed an ironic
>>> intention, Michael, but on
>>> August 11 Anthony asked
>>> about the meaning of a
>>> couple of paragraphs from
>>> /Thinking and Speech/.
>>>
>>> *Here is the passage in
>>> question*, from /Thinking
>>> and Speech/, Ch. 6, pp. 190-1:
>>>
>>> "To perceive something in a
>>> different way means to
>>> acquire new potentials for
>>> acting with respect to it.
>>> At the chess board, to see
>>> differently is to play
>>> differently. By generalizing
>>> the process of activity
>>> itself, I acquire the
>>> potential for new
>>> relationships with it. To
>>> speak crudely, it is as if
>>> this process has been
>>> isolated from the general
>>> activity of consciousness. I
>>> am conscious of the fact
>>> that I remember. I make my
>>> own remembering the object
>>> of consciousness. An
>>> isolation arises here. In a
>>> certain sense, any
>>> generalization or
>>> abstraction isolates its
>>> object. This is why
>>> conscious awareness –
>>> understood as generalization
>>> – leads directly to mastery.
>>>
>>> /Thus, the foundation of
>>> conscious awareness is the
>>> generalization or
>>> abstraction of the mental
>>> processes, which leads to
>>> their mastery/. Instruction
>>> has a decisive role in this
>>> process. Scientific concepts
>>> have a unique relationship
>>> to the object. This
>>> relationship is mediated
>>> through other concepts that
>>> themselves have an internal
>>> hierarchical system of
>>> interrelationships. It is
>>> apparently in this domain of
>>> the scientific concept that
>>> conscious awareness of
>>> concepts or the
>>> generalization and mastery
>>> of concepts emerges for the
>>> first time. And once a new
>>> structure of generalization
>>> has arisen in one sphere of
>>> thought, it can – like any
>>> structure – be transferred
>>> without training to all
>>> remaining domains of
>>> concepts and thought. Thus,
>>> /conscious awareness enters
>>> through the gate opened up
>>> by the scientific concept/."
>>>
>>> Mike’s reply, in total was:
>>>
>>> I understand that to mean
>>> that humans who have not
>>> achieved scientific/real
>>> concepts do not have
>>> conscious awareness.
>>>
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> *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 *Martin Packer
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15,
>>> 2020 4:36 PM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind,
>>> Culture, Activity
>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re:
>>> "conscious awareness enters
>>> through the gate" (a
>>> Participation Question)
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Are you saying that either
>>> Mike Cole or Lev Vygotsky,
>>> or both, are claiming that
>>> 5-year old children (for
>>> example) lack conscious
>>> awareness of the world they
>>> live in?
>>>
>>> Puzzled...
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2020, at 9:16
>>> PM, David H Kirshner
>>> <dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Andy,
>>>
>>> That “any ‘actual’
>>> concept is the
>>> intersection or merging
>>> of both the scientific
>>> and spontaneous path,”
>>> speaks to their
>>> complementarity, making
>>> them akin to Type 1 and
>>> Type 2 processing I
>>> referred to in my post.
>>>
>>> But they’re also
>>> hierarchically related,
>>> since according to
>>> Mike’s interpretation of
>>> a Vygotsky’s passage
>>> cited by Anthony a few
>>> days ago, “humans who
>>> have not achieved
>>> scientific/real concepts
>>> do not have conscious
>>> awareness.”
>>>
>>> I do not question
>>> Vygotsky’s genius. What
>>> I do question is the
>>> coherence of the
>>> interpretive frames that
>>> have evolved from his
>>> work. As Michael
>>> observed in a recent
>>> post, “like the writer
>>> he wanted to be he
>>> [Vygotsky] used phrases
>>> and ideas less as truths
>>> and more to move his
>>> narrative forward.” What
>>> I always wonder in
>>> eavesdropping on XMCA is
>>> whether the issues we
>>> discuss are resolvable,
>>> or is the theoretical
>>> backdrop to our
>>> conversation so
>>> heterogeneous as to make
>>> the possibility of
>>> resolution illusory.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> *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 *Andy Blunden
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August
>>> 14, 2020 10:32 AM
>>> *To:*
>>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re:
>>> "conscious awareness
>>> enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>> No David, as I said, the
>>> term "scientific
>>> concept" as it is
>>> understood nowadays,
>>> tends to mislead. The
>>> distinction for Vygotsky
>>> is entirely, as you say,
>>> /developmental/, and it
>>> is not a categorisation
>>> either (as in putting
>>> things into boxes), and
>>> nothing to do with
>>> "sophistication."
>>> "Scientific concept"
>>> refers to the path of
>>> development that begins
>>> with an abstract
>>> (decontextualised)
>>> concept acquired through
>>> instruction in some more
>>> or less formal
>>> institution.
>>> "Spontaneous concept"
>>> refers to the path of
>>> development which begins
>>> with everyday
>>> experience, closely
>>> connected with immediate
>>> sensori-motor
>>> interaction and
>>> perception, i.e., it
>>> begins from the
>>> concrete, whereas the
>>> "scientific" is
>>> beginning from the
>>> abstract.
>>>
>>> Any "actual" concept is
>>> the intersection or
>>> merging of both the
>>> scientific and
>>> spontaneous path. For
>>> example (1) everyday
>>> life is full of ideas
>>> which have their source
>>> in institutions, but
>>> have made their way out
>>> of the institutional
>>> context into everyday
>>> life. On the other hand,
>>> for example (2) any
>>> scientific concept worth
>>> its salt has made its
>>> way out of the classroom
>>> and become connected
>>> with practice, like the
>>> book-learning of the
>>> medical graduate who's
>>> spent 6 months in A&E.
>>>
>>> I admit, this is not
>>> clear from Vygotsky's
>>> prose. But here's the
>>> thing: when you're
>>> reading a great thinker
>>> and what they're saying
>>> seems silly, trying
>>> reading it more
>>> generously, because
>>> there's probably a
>>> reason this writer has
>>> gained the reputation of
>>> being a great thinker.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> Hegel for Social
>>> Movements
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fbrill.com*2Fview*2Ftitle*2F54574__*3B!!Mih3wA!XxSEPVIR0yRJgFaNSBm_i4WM3CddjlgSG_ngNcugdSCaXGC-tM-WRY9GIob6WVqti5Nn5Q*24*26data*3D02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7Ca67ad4b8e1054ad0908108d840677d4e*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637330160531086326*26sdata*3DklbbGOD961jWAJJ2y9AC4ITYXCnaDGFBvC0IbUJKVVs*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Mih3wA!Xj5wWxgfwuTDZiCehf_tnNDlXD6gP8BpwnjrYGS24qDQcMEd3gC6xhsU3N_JiNLOorai4A*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C4c9f97baa48249eab87b08d841637595*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637331242718851133&sdata=W*2FK*2BTbTCBGe1eDIjlq4*2BhdhmoNfNxW11ayTlKsOia*2FA*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUqKioqKioqKiUlKiUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!WoFSvqRItZRFG-Wb6AmS0wx0inVUDXaV3gD2ZV6rpV81b-0KImklvCD1pGLY8v7_UV-zxA$>
>>> Home Page
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ethicalpolitics.org*2Fablunden*2Findex.htm__*3B!!Mih3wA!XxSEPVIR0yRJgFaNSBm_i4WM3CddjlgSG_ngNcugdSCaXGC-tM-WRY9GIob6WVoUDL1M-A*24*26data*3D02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7Ca67ad4b8e1054ad0908108d840677d4e*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637330160531096322*26sdata*3DUFQ8UqQhHon5sIjNEsW88BFc3G*2FEZq0s1nUehQfL3W4*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Mih3wA!Xj5wWxgfwuTDZiCehf_tnNDlXD6gP8BpwnjrYGS24qDQcMEd3gC6xhsU3N_JiNLEfO6ohg*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C4c9f97baa48249eab87b08d841637595*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637331242718861146&sdata=hQHaTHs78nCNPgn9gG2NkTNb*2BHrhTO8uhtoAzo5bpdE*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqJSUqKiUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!WoFSvqRItZRFG-Wb6AmS0wx0inVUDXaV3gD2ZV6rpV81b-0KImklvCD1pGLY8v77et7hHw$>
>>>
>>> On 15/08/2020 1:14 am,
>>> David H Kirshner wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for your
>>> accessible example,
>>> Michael.
>>>
>>> Vygotsky’s
>>> scientific /
>>> spontaneous
>>> distinction between
>>> types of concepts
>>> has always struck me
>>> as such an
>>> unfortunate solution
>>> to the problem of
>>> differential
>>> sophistication in
>>> modes of reasoning.
>>> I’m sure this
>>> problem must have
>>> deep roots in
>>> classical and
>>> contemporary
>>> philosophy, even as
>>> it is reflected in
>>> cognitive
>>> psychology’s Dual
>>> Process Theory that
>>> at its “theoretical
>>> core amounts to a
>>> dichotomous view of
>>> two types of
>>> processes…: type
>>> 1—intuitive, fast,
>>> automatic,
>>> nonconscious,
>>> effortless,
>>> contextualized,
>>> error-prone, and
>>> type 2—reflective,
>>> slow, deliberate,
>>> cogitative,
>>> effortful,
>>> decontextualized,
>>> normatively correct”
>>> (Varga & Hamburger,
>>> 2014). What
>>> externalizing this
>>> distinction as
>>> different kinds of
>>> cognitive products
>>> (this or that kind
>>> of concept) seems to
>>> do is
>>> distract/detract
>>> from the
>>> sociogenetic
>>> character of
>>> development. Surely,
>>> a sociogenetic
>>> approach seeks to
>>> interpret these
>>> different forms of
>>> reasoning as
>>> differential
>>> discursive
>>> practices, embedded
>>> in different
>>> cultural contexts
>>> (Scribner, Cole,
>>> etc.). But talking
>>> about different
>>> kinds of concepts
>>> seems like the wrong
>>> departure point for
>>> that journey.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> *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
>>> *Glassman, Michael
>>> *Sent:* Friday,
>>> August 14, 2020 7:03 AM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind,
>>> Culture, Activity
>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l]
>>> Re: "conscious
>>> awareness enters
>>> through the gate" (a
>>> Participation Question)
>>>
>>> Hi Andy, Henry, Anna
>>> Lisa,
>>>
>>> Let me start by
>>> saying that this is
>>> completely
>>> restricted to the
>>> way conscious
>>> awareness is used in
>>> Thinking and Speech.
>>> If it is use
>>> differently in other
>>> places this
>>> perspective may be
>>> wrong. To my mind
>>> (with the proviso
>>> that my mind if
>>> often wrong)
>>> Vygotsky is using
>>> the idea of
>>> conscious awareness
>>> for a specific
>>> purpose. To
>>> differentiate the
>>> role of spontaneous
>>> concepts with
>>> non-spontaneous
>>> concepts.
>>> Spontaneous concepts
>>> are based initially
>>> in affective memory
>>> and they give energy
>>> and motivation to
>>> many of our
>>> activities. However
>>> we are not
>>> consciously aware of
>>> them. To go back to
>>> chess, I am at the
>>> pool and my friend
>>> comes up to me and
>>> says “Chess?” I say
>>> yes. I have no
>>> conscious awareness
>>> of the concept of
>>> chess in my life,
>>> why I say yes so
>>> easily why it may be
>>> a way to make a
>>> social connection
>>> between me and my
>>> friend. It is
>>> residue of my
>>> affective memory (I
>>> don’t know how much
>>> Vygotsky was using
>>> Ribot when making
>>> this argument). We
>>> are playing chess
>>> and I remember that
>>> my brother showed me
>>> the
>>> non-spontaneous/scientific
>>> concept of the
>>> bishop’s gambit. As
>>> this point in my
>>> life I have to think
>>> about it and whether
>>> I want to use it. I
>>> must summon the
>>> intellectual
>>> functions of memory
>>> and attention as I
>>> think about the use
>>> of the bishop’s
>>> gambit. This then is
>>> conscious awareness
>>> of the scientific
>>> concept. I used the
>>> bishop’s gambit and
>>> win the game and I
>>> applaud myself. I
>>> got home and tell my
>>> brother, the
>>> bishop’s gambit was
>>> great, thanks. I am
>>> mediating the
>>> scientific concept
>>> of the bishop’s
>>> gambit with my
>>> everyday concept of
>>> playing chess.
>>> Voila, development!!!!
>>>
>>> I don’t know if
>>> Vygotsky uses
>>> conscious awareness
>>> differently elsewhere.
>>>
>>> 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 *Andy
>>> Blunden
>>> *Sent:* Thursday,
>>> August 13, 2020 11:51 PM
>>> *To:*
>>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l]
>>> Re: "conscious
>>> awareness enters
>>> through the gate" (a
>>> Participation Question)
>>>
>>> Henry, my aim was
>>> just to introduce
>>> Annalisa and whoever
>>> to the scientific
>>> way that the terms
>>> "conscious
>>> awareness" and
>>> "consciousness" are
>>> used in CHAT. I say
>>> "scientific" in the
>>> sense that in CHAT
>>> we have a system of
>>> concepts and
>>> associated word
>>> meanings which have,
>>> if you like,
>>> conventional
>>> meanings. There is
>>> nothing wrong with
>>> "automatic and
>>> controlled
>>> processing" and
>>> "ballistic
>>> processing" but so
>>> far as I am aware
>>> these terms were not
>>> in Vygotsky's
>>> vocabulary. I could
>>> be wrong of course
>>> and I am sure I will
>>> be rapidly corrected
>>> if this is the case.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> I<image001.jpg>
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus_Novus__;!!Mih3wA!XaZ0ldsk3LvHtURqQPa9pqhSzqJcTkfT9WpcH9iXCnnFdDWAkGk2rg5ikc9GFgnQRyK9kw$>The
>>> Angel's View of History
>>>
>>> It is only in a social context
>>> that subjectivism and
>>> objectivism, spiritualism and
>>> materialism, activity and
>>> passivity cease to be
>>> antinomies, and thus cease to
>>> exist as such antinomies. The
>>> resolution of the
>>> *theoretical* contradictions is
>>> possible only through practical
>>> means, only through
>>> the practical energy of humans.
>>> (Marx, 1844).
>>>
>>> Cultural Praxis Website:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!R53F7Q9dcfsf21mBbSTgVC6YexgI8_72x0cMqLYMWUp85LCvtsnoQuEedW_4rYzgbqXpew$
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XaZ0ldsk3LvHtURqQPa9pqhSzqJcTkfT9WpcH9iXCnnFdDWAkGk2rg5ikc9GFglySosYvA$>
>>>
>>> Re-generating CHAT Website:
>>> re-generatingchat.com
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!XaZ0ldsk3LvHtURqQPa9pqhSzqJcTkfT9WpcH9iXCnnFdDWAkGk2rg5ikc9GFgkzDUEbGA$>
>>>
>>> Archival resources website:
>>> lchc.ucsd.edu
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lchc.ucsd.edu/__;!!KGKeukY!ji0gqdjldexgATihzgPnPYay6rvvh9I-ydkDxJ6UtfV9X-x5XFtXmKGtowQioPBLBZI$>.
>>>
>>> Narrative history of LCHC:
>>> lchcautobio.ucsd.edu
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lchcautobio.ucsd.edu/__;!!KGKeukY!ji0gqdjldexgATihzgPnPYay6rvvh9I-ydkDxJ6UtfV9X-x5XFtXmKGtowQiQEfFUzs$>.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200819/8b1e79ed/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list