[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[xmca] "Perezhivanie" and "Opyt"
Greetings, for all.
Recently, I have compiled 11 important posts from XMCA about "perezhivanie", with unique contributions from Dorothy, Mike, Peter, Bella and Chaterin. However, in Vigotsky's works in Brazil I have noted that there's no discrimination in translate "opyt" and "perezhivanie". Both are translated ever like "experiência" (experience). I supose that they are not the same. Sometimes in "Conciousness as problem of behavior psychology" (1924) (Portuguese version) Vygotsky tell about "social experience" and "historical experience" and the word, in these cases (checking with Russian version), is not "perezhivanie" but "opyt". While when he speaks about consciousness as "experience of experiences" there stands "perezhivanie perezhivanii".
Please, if you have a litle time to answer, what do you think about the, sometimes unperceived, diference between "perezhivanie" and "opit"?
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Vygotsky and Behaviourism
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:05:01 -0800
> Very well said, Andy. Immanent critique. Immanence and transcendence
> at the same time. Revolutionary critique from within. Your analogy
> with Marx and political economy is perfect.
> - Steve
> On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:29 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> > Thanks Steve, maybe together we can figure this out. Can I venture
> > to throw one more ingredient into the puzzle. I am assured by Karl
> > Levitin that Vygotsky did study Hegel early on. Now how would a
> > Hegelian deal with reflexology? He would use immanent critique. That
> > means entering into reflexology and taking it forward both
> > theoretically and practically, until it arrives at contradiction
> > with itself. To my eyes this is exactly what Vygotsky is doing.
> > But reading Hegel or Marx, people frequently mistake "immanent
> > critique" for uncritical acceptance. So for example, there is a vast
> > body of people who study "Marxist political economy" and so on,
> > unconcerned with the fact that Marx was conducting an immanent
> > critique of political economy.
> > Someone who is conducting an immanent critique firmly believes that
> > it is not possible to criticise a theory from some other standpoint,
> > from outside; for example to criticise reflexology from the
> > standpoint of reactology or to criticise behaviourism from the
> > standpoint of social behaviourism, or whatever, is sectarian and
> > empty. Critique of reflexology can only be conducted from *within*
> > reflexology.
> > So we see Vygotsky talking the language of this and that school of
> > psychology, but as he says: "Kings are not always royalists."
> > I really don't know. I think you are right Steve, that the
> > "Educational Psychology" is an entirely different type of book, and
> > perhaps we can get some clues from there.
> > Andy
> > Steve Gabosch wrote:
> >> I agree with Mike from the other day, Andy, David etc. that an
> >> historical analysis of behaviorism, reflexology, reactology etc.
> >> would be very helpful.
> >> On one of Andy's questions, Vygotsky has a clear and helpful
> >> answer. He explains, in simple textbook descriptions, reactions
> >> and reflexes in Educational Psychology (1926/1997). This book has
> >> a style and form of writing I have not seen anywhere else in
> >> Vygotsky's work, and has a very different purpose. He is not
> >> trying to reflect his own thinking, per se, but generalize on the
> >> ideas of reflexology - and world psychology - in ways useful to
> >> teachers. It is an "experimental textbook." The book must be read
> >> with this in mind.
> >> He explains "... in the present book, I have often had to present
> >> the views of other researchers, and to translate concepts developed
> >> by other writers into my own terminology, as in any systematic
> >> presentation. I have been able to express my own thoughts only in
> >> passing, and mixed in with those of other writers. Nevertheless, I
> >> am of the belief that the present volume represents not just a
> >> novel experiment in the construction of a course of educational
> >> psychology, but also an attempt at the construction of a new type
> >> of textbook." pg xix
> >> Anyway, back to Andy's question. Chapter 2, The Concept of
> >> Behavior and Reaction, has a description of the three components of
> >> a reaction - the sensory component, the component associated with
> >> transforming the stimuli into an internal process, and the motor
> >> component, which in higher animals may be termed the central
> >> component, the central nervous system.
> >> It goes on to describe reactions and reflexes. "In animals that
> >> possess a nervous system, reactions tend to assume the form of what
> >> is known as a *reflex*. By a reflex we generally understand in
> >> physiology any act of the organism that is induced by some external
> >> stimulation of the nervous system, which is transmitted along an
> >> afferent nerve to the brain, and from there along an efferent
> >> nerve, automatically inducing a movement or a secreting of a
> >> working organ .... Certain scientists have recently begun to insist
> >> on referring to human reactions as reflexes, and have begun to call
> >> the science of human animal reactions, *reflexology*.
> >> "However, such a substitution of terms is unwarranted. As can be
> >> easily seen from its description, a reflex is only a special case
> >> of a reaction, that is, it is a reaction of the nervous system.
> >> Thus, a reflex is a concept which is narrowly physiological in
> >> nature, while a reaction is one which is broadly biological in
> >> nature." pg 15-16.
> >> - Steve
> >> On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >>> It would be helpful to clarify this wouldn't it, David.
> >>> In Vygotsky's speech, when he says:
> >>> "Classical reflexology ... reduces everything to a common
> >>> denominator. And precisely because this principle is too all-
> >>> embracing and universal it does not yield a direct scientific
> >>> means for the study of its particular and individual forms."
> >>> I took this to be a damning criticism of reflexology, but maybe
> >>> "reaction" is different from "reflex"?
> >>> On "Behaviourism," I have always taken this word in a very broad
> >>> sense as including all those approaches which say that
> >>> "consciousness" is not a legitimate object for science.
> >>> Vygotsky says: "Consciousness is only the reflex of reflexes"
> >>> which he says have a "social origin". And he says this in the
> >>> context of praising Wm James. But he goes on to *criticise*
> >>> reflexology for *excluding* mental pheneomena from its
> >>> investigations, i.e., he criticises reflexology for what I have
> >>> always called behaviourism (though I may be eccentric in that use
> >>> of the word).
> >>> So my reading he criciises reflexology and behaviourism, but to
> >>> different readers he is both a reflexologist and a
> >>> behaviourist. :) As he says: "Kings are not always royalists."
> >>> As Alice would say: "mysteriouser and mysteriouser."
> >>> Andy
> >>> David Kellogg wrote:
> >>>> eric--
> >>>> On p. 31 of "Making of Mind", Luria writes of arriving in Moscow
> >>>> from Kazan in 1923:
> >>>> "The situation in the institute when I arrived was peculiar
> >>>> indeed. All of the laboratories had been renamed to include the
> >>>> term 'reactions': there was a laboratory of visual reactions
> >>>> (perception), of mnemonic reactions (memory), of emotional
> >>>> reactions, and so forth. All this was meant to eliminate any
> >>>> traces of subjective psychology and to replace it with a kind of
> >>>> behaviorism." Luria clearly thinks that "reactology" really was
> >>>> a kind of relabelled behaviorism. So do I!
> >>>> David Kellogg
> >>>> Seoul National University of Education
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> email@example.com
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>> --
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
> >>> andy.blunden
> >>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
> >>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> firstname.lastname@example.org
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> email@example.com
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
> > andy.blunden
> > Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
> > http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> xmca mailing list
Conheça o Windows Live Spaces, a rede de relacionamentos do Messenger!
xmca mailing list