[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] about emotions



This is from our translation of Thinking and Speech, Chapter One, and it corresponds roughly to p. 50 of the Minick translation:
 
"The first question which arises when we speak of the relationship between thinking and speech (on the one hand—DK) and the other aspects of the life of consciousness (on the other—DK) is the question of the connection between intellect and the passions. As is well known, the detachment of the intellectual side of our consciousness from its affective, volitional side represents one of the basic and radical defects of the whole of traditional psychology. Thinking is in this way unavoidably converted into an autonomous flow of thoughts which think themselves, torn off from the full weight of life as it is lived, occuring completely separately from the living motives, the interests, the inclinations of the thinking person and appearing as an unnecessary epiphenomenon, which can change nothing in the life and behavior of man, or else it is converted into some ancient, primordial and autonomous force, which, interfering in the life of the consciousness
 and in the life of the personality, has an inexplicable effect on both." 
 
Here Vygotsky is taking a strikingly SPINOZAN view, and it is reflected even in his choice of words: passion and reason are not at all opposed to each other, or even simply mutually defining. They are mutually generating, and indispensable to each other.
 
Unfortunately, Minick’s translation fails to convey this because he breaks up Vygotsky’s stream of thoughts into short sentences which are easy to understand but which fail to convey the sweep of his thinking, his opposition between a psychology of thoughts without passions (the psychology of intelligence) and a psychology of passions without thoughts (the unconscious).
 
Intellect without passion is, of course, the dominant paradigm in educational psychology: Binet, Simon, and above all Thorndike. But passion without intellect leads to a Nietszchean psychology which Volosinov criticizes in his critique of Freudianism: the irruption of the irrational into the life of the mind in absolutely inscrutable ways. Once again, Vygotsky echoes Volosinov’s critique without citing it.
 
I wonder if we are ever going to get the promised issue of MCA on play which was supposed to be a tribute to the work of Gunilla Lindqvist. I know there were some problems in production, but I also know that there is at least one article which is quite relevant to this theme.
 
In all languages that I know, the words "good" and "bad" have an aesthetic as well as an ethical meaning, and in the research we did on play in preschoolers here in Seoul we found that the latter tends to develop out of the former, ontegenetically.
 
I think the same thing can clearly be seen phylogenetically, in the history of literature. For example, if you read the "revenge tragedies" of the sixteenth century (Kyd, Webster, and eventually Shakespeare's "Hamlet", and so to Vygotsky's work on this topic), you notice that they are all concerned with the emergence of a rationally mediated concept of justice from the raw emotion of rage.
 
Now it really seems to me that there is no sense in which volitional attention, logical thinking, voluntary memory are higher psychological functions which is not equally true of the ethical meaning of "good" compared to its purely culinary one, or the rationally mediated concept of fairness compared to the purely retributive one. 
 
Both sets of functions are culturally mediated, both involve the use of artefacts, both are the objects of internalization, and both, ultimately, depend on the replacement of other regulation with self regulation. 
 
Therefore it seems to me that not only do the higher emotional functions exist, but that they are an essential line of child development, without which we can't really talk of holistic development in the field of aesthetics, ethics, or more generally the child as a whole being. Worse, without the higher emotional functions, there is no hope any reciprocal effect of ontogenesis on social progress. Perhaps that is why a disbelief in the existence of higher emotional functions is rife in our own period.
 
There might be another reason though. There is an important sense in which the development of the higher cognitive functions is a story of the child's discovery of the real, as well as of the imaginative. But the development of the higher emotional functions is more often the story of the child's discovery of the ideal. 
 
In Chapter Two, Vygotsky and Karl Buhler pours some scorn on the notion, attributed to Freud and by association Piaget, that a child might prefer an imaginary apple to a real one; the child is an indefatigable realist in these matters. But in other matters, the child is not so; it is not hard to see that a child might prefer an imaginary hunger or an imaginary death to the real thing.
 

David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education


--- On Mon, 11/30/09, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:


From: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 10:22 AM


To Eric, Jay Achillies, and Andy
Andy
I wanted to pick up a thread you wrote about there not being higher or lower emotions.  It is just a reaction of the body responding.
I agree whatever we label emotions is just the body responding which then becomes reified in language (the map not the territory) However I wonder if one of the central ways the body picks up cues and responds through learned  habits, patterns, to the social matrix in particular ways is to monitor "attachment" (biological) and "intersubjective"(psychological) needs for connection as primary to being human.  This way of viewing communication as connection (and disconnection and re-connection) seems to me a central and primary framework to "understand" (cognitive) the primacy of the sociocultural contexts to the emergence of "self," "subjectivity," or "identity" (different discourses which seem to me to be pointing to the same horizon of understanding.
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Date: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:01 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Jay:
> 
> I believe this to be a great start to what I was thinking on the 
> issue.
> eric
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 11/28/2009 10:45 PM
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> 
>  
>         
> To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>        cc: 
>         
> Subject:        Re: [xmca] 
> about emotions
> 
> 
> So, would we begin with the simple contradiction: emotion is 
> society's 
> principal support? (vs. "nemesis"?)
> 
> Reasonable on the grounds that "fellow-feeling" or primary 
> sociality, 
> our empathic bond to our fellow humans, is what counters any 
> notion 
> that the "state of nature" is ONLY "red in tooth, claw, and 
> nail". We 
> do not begin from a war of all against all, but from family 
> ties, and 
> cultural extensions of kinship feelings to notional kin, and 
> loyalties 
> and identifications with larger groups and with lineages, clans, 
> moieties, age cohorts, initiation cohorts, totemic subgroups, 
> etc. etc.
> 
> Without fellow-feeling, no society. Can the same be said as 
> convincingly of reason? Do we imagine that social systems cohere 
> because we rationally recognize our advantage from them? And 
> that that 
> bond is strong enough to stand the test of conflict? That we 
> would 
> sacrifice our lives to defend others solely out of rational 
> calculation? I doubt it. It seems clearly that sociality is 
> rooted in 
> feeling.
> 
> Or, rather, in the unity and functional integration of kinds of 
> meaning making (e.g. to determine culturally who is in-group and 
> who 
> is out-group) and kinds of feeling (loyalty, love, and alas 
> their 
> opposites).
> 
> Emotions may be the nemesis of abstract and arbitrary, perhaps 
> even 
> ideologically suspect, social ties. The "rational" grounds of 
> the 
> capitalist nation-state, and its efforts to recruit loyalty 
> emotionally (songs, flags, rhetoric) seem rather easily 
> interrupted by 
> the emotions of anger and resentment and the feeling of 
> righteous 
> wrath against the oppressor, not just of myself, but also of 
> others, 
> that leads to revolution, or at least to throwing a brick or two.
> 
> So I hope I am being a bit dialectical here in seeing even the 
> sense 
> in which emotions ARE the nemesis of society as also and more 
> fundamentally being the same sense in which they ground the very 
> possibility of society.
> 
> JAY.
> 
> 
> Jay Lemke
> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> Educational Studies
> University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> 
> Visiting Scholar
> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> University of California -- San Diego
> La Jolla, CA
> USA 92093
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 28, 2009, at 7:48 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> 
> > Hello All:
> >
> > I would like to point out that when I suggested that emotion 
> > appeared to be
> > societies nemesis I did not bring in the dialectic but rather 
> used 
> > the word
> > dichotomy.  Dichotomy does bring out the notion of 
> either/or where
> > dialectic is rather a wholeness a both sidedness within the same
> > 'gestalt' (for lack of a better word).  I believe in the 
> dialectic and
> > would like someone to stage this aspect of emotions in the 
> form of the
> > dialectic.  Does this make sense?
> >
> > much thanks and turkey gravy
> > eric
> >
> >      
> To:               "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >      cc:
> >      bcc:
> >      Subject:    RE: 
> [xmca] about emotions
> > Achilles Delari Junior <achilles_delari@hotmail.com>
> > Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > 11/28/2009 10:28 AM GMT
> > Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, 
> Activity"        <font
> > size=-1></font>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So, now, compare the two contexts
> >
> > 1926 - Fighting against general dualistic view in old psycholoy
> >
> > "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
> > psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
> > reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
> > such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
> > loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
> > affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
> > forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
> > every point nourished and permeated by these
> > interdependences. NOT FOR A SINGLE MILLISECOND,
> > PSYCHOLOGY TO MEASURE THE EXACT DURATION OF MENTAL
> > PROCESSES, IS IT ISOLATED AND SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE
> > WORLD ANDA THE OTHER ORGANIC PROCESS. Who claimsand studies
> > the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
> > mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
> > construtctions instead of genuine reality."
> >
> >
> > 1931-33 - Fighting against specific dualistic view in theory 
> of 
> > emotions
> > Chabrier completely justifiably refers to the fact that a 
> feeling of
> > hunger, usually
> > considered in the group of lower bodily feelings in civilized 
> man, is
> > already a
> > fine feeling from the point of view of the nomenclature of 
> James, 
> > that the
> > simple
> > need of food can acquire a religious sense when it leads to 
> the 
> > appearance
> > of a
> > symbolic rite of mystical communication between man and God. And
> > conversely,
> > a religious feeling, usually considered as a purely spiritual 
> > emotion, in
> > pious cannibals
> > bringing human sacrifices to the gods, can scarcely he 
> referred to the
> > group
> > of higher emotions. Consequently, THERE IS NO EMOTION THAT BY 
> NATURE 
> > WOULD
> > BE
> > INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY AND NOT CONNECTED WITH IT.Thank you 
> for the 
> > English
> > version. Where in English is "Psychology to measure" in 
> Russian is
> > "Psychologists"
> > The Spanish is more correct - I don´t know about other mistakes.
> >
> > Achilles.
> >
> >> From: achilles_delari@hotmail.com
> >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Subject: RE: [xmca] about emotions
> >> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:04:36 +0000
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course this view is a mistake, because this view do not consider
> >> what he said after, that is that mind is not separate from 
> organism.>> He not only denying old psychology, he is making an 
> affirmation 
> >> againt
> >> it. The same affirmation that I quote.
> >>
> >> Achilles.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:53:47 +1100
> >>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>
> >>> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
> >>> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
> >>> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
> >>> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
> >>> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
> >>> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
> >>> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
> >>> every point nourished and permeated by these
> >>> interdependences. Not for a single millisecond, used by
> >>> psychology to measure the exact duration of mental
> >>> processes, is it isolated and separated from the rest of the
> >>> world and the other organic processes. Who claimsand studies
> >>> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
> >>> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
> >>> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
> >>>
> >>> LSW CW v. 3, p. 152-3.
> >>>
> >>> Reading this together with the preceding 3 sections, I take
> >>> it that "traditional psychology" means introspective, or
> >>> subjective psychology, and the view that introspection
> >>> provides direct access to a distinct part of reality (soul,
> >>> spiritual beings, something nonphysical, above matter).
> >>> Vygotsky is saying that this view is mistaken.
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> >>>> Please Andy,
> >>>>
> >>>> Please if you are with the text about Thonrdike,
> >>>> The passage is in the part 2, paragraph 4th -
> >>>> The paragraph immediately above has te following
> >>>> reference (N. N. Langue, 1914, p 42)...
> >>>>
> >>>> "The psyche and any its delicates and complex mechanisms, 
> is 
> >>>> inserted
> >>>> in the general system of the human behavior, each one of its
> > manifestations
> >>>> is totally impregnated by this mutual relation. Do not appears
> > isolated nor
> >>>> separated from the rest of the world an from the process of 
> >>>> organism
> > even
> >>>> a millesinum of a second, that is the time that psychologists
> > calculate to
> >>>> the psychic process. Who sustains in their investigations the
> > contrary, will
> >>>> be studying an unreal configuration of the own 
> intelligence, 
> >>>> chimeras
> > in
> >>>> the place of facts, terminologicals constructs in the 
> places of 
> >>>> real
> > authentic
> >>>> facts"....
> >>>>
> >>>> He is discussing methodological problem of definition of the
> > psyche... Just
> >>>> trying to posing about what king of things psychologist 
> want make 
> >>>> his
> > questions.
> >>>> And stating that a psyche without orgnism is not a real 
> thing about
> > what
> >>>> make questions... because if you ask for something that doesn't
> > exist, you
> >>>> can find answers that can not exist too. Its what I 
> understand 
> >>>> about
> > that
> >>>> formulation. And I guess that in "The teatching about 
> emotions" the
> > problem
> >>>> is methodological too. Let me say, about the own conditions 
> to you
> > make a
> >>>> good question related to emotions, at that time, and even 
> in our
> > time, I can
> >>>> conclude...
> >>>>
> >>>> I will see a manner to type the Russian, for any adictional 
> >>>> checking
> > about this
> >>>> quoting. Because there are two problems:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) How it was translated from Russian to Spanish.
> >>>> 2) How, of course, I translate from Spanish to English... 
> (this 
> >>>> very
> > worse, of course)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you Andy. Again.
> >>>> Sorry about my persistence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Achilles.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:57:19 +1100
> >>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Achilles, I am looking at the English version in LSV CW v.3.
> >>>>> I can't find the passage you quote, but I see on p. 155 that
> >>>>> Vygotsky puts "other somatic reactions that form the basis
> >>>>> of emotion" in the same category as "the first component of
> >>>>> an organism's perception of this environmental influence."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally, I don't think emotion has anything to do with
> >>>>> instinct or higher vs lower mental functions. We perceive
> >>>>> the reaction of our body and that affects our thinking and
> >>>>> our whole process of perception, just like our vision does.
> >>>>> Vygotsky compares it to inner speech actually. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> >>>>>> Andy,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that Vygotsky was trying to solve the problem of
> >>>>>> dualism in theory of emotions. He worked with the principle
> >>>>>> of "psychophysical unit" - the "main principle of Soviet
> > psychology"
> >>>>>> in the words from Rubinshtein. The difference between
> >>>>>> the cognitive and the instinctive is not because the cognitive
> >>>>>> have not physiological conditions, but the complexity of that
> >>>>>> conditions and it mediated character... Vygotsky said that
> >>>>>> "the psyche do not appears isolated from the world or from
> >>>>>> the process form organism neither for a 0,001 second" 
> (1926/1991>>>>>> - Prólogo a la versión russa del libro de E. 
> Thorndike 
> >>>>>> 'Principios
> >>>>>> de enseñanza basados a la psicología - this is the Volume I
> >>>>>> of the Works in Russian and Spanish, I don't remeber the number
> >>>>>> in English, because they do not follow the Russian numeration).
> >>>>>> You can see that psyche are not isolated from the 
> organism and
> >>>>>> not isolated from the world. In fact human beens are 
> constituted>>>>>> by the same substance that the world, we are 
> not an "Impire 
> >>>>>> inside
> >>>>>> the impire" - but to be the same substance do not means 
> that we
> >>>>>> are in the same way... the same "mode" - I Spinoza´s words.
> >>>>>> Vygotsky fight against a dualistic approach to emotions. 
> And to
> >>>>>> him James is an "involuntary disciple of Descartes" 
> because his
> >>>>>> especial emphasis in cultural feelings as spiritual 
> process. Much
> >>>>>> common even today.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I only don't uderstand why you say that there is a 
> problem that
> >>>>>> I am trying to solve. If cognition have not material 
> support what
> >>>>>> kind of substance is cognition? This is not a problem, 
> the 
> >>>>>> problem
> >>>>>> is how to understand ideological, historical, conscious, 
> >>>>>> cultural,
> >>>>>> constitution of human emotions in his/her whole 
> personality 
> >>>>>> without
> >>>>>> repeat a dualistic approach. I understand this problem is 
> not 
> >>>>>> only
> >>>>>> mine... this is a problem posed by Vygotsky himself. And 
> I only
> >>>>>> agree that is good question... I don't if Damasio already 
> answer> that.
> >>>>>> Can you tell me who did?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:56:10 +1100
> >>>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But you still need a distinction between a physiological
> >>>>>>> reaction and a cognitive disposition, don't you, Achilles?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is the specific problem you are trying to solve?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Jay,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you very much.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Something near to this distinction between feelings and 
> >>>>>>>> emotions
> >>>>>>>> was posed by William James too, according Vygotsky, but James
> >>>>>>>> saw this distinction in terms that these social 
> dimension of
> > affective
> >>>>>>>> world, the higher feelings, have almost nothing related to
> > biological,
> >>>>>>>> physiological, material, body, conditions. And Vygotsky
> > criticizes
> >>>>>>>> this like a way of dualistic thinking - this dualism 
> can be
> > understood
> >>>>>>>> as based in ideological motivations too: "the human is 
> not an
> > animal,
> >>>>>>>> nor a material been, but a divine been, in his higher, 
> superior> feelings..."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A distinction between feelings and emotions is present 
> in 
> >>>>>>>> Damasio
> > too
> >>>>>>>> in neurofunctional terms... But Vygotsky proposed the 
> >>>>>>>> question of
> >>>>>>>> a systemic inter-relationship in that the lower can 
> turns 
> >>>>>>>> higher,
> > and
> >>>>>>>> vice versa... I don't know what we can thing about 
> this... In
> > this
> >>>>>>>> case, distinction between feelings and emotions are 
> useful, but
> > if
> >>>>>>>> we want to understand the entire human been, his/her whole
> > personality,
> >>>>>>>> the integration and inter-functional relations between 
> feelings> and
> >>>>>>>> emotions turns relevant too, In my point of view.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best wishes.
> >>>>>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: jaylemke@umich.edu
> >>>>>>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:28:26 -0800
> >>>>>>>>> CC:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am certainly one of those people interested in 
> emotion, or
> > feeling,
> >>>>>>>>> or affect, or whatever we choose to make of the phenomenon.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The topic seems to have historically accumulated a lot of
> > ideological
> >>>>>>>>> baggage. And while its expression may be more sophisticated
> > today than
> >>>>>>>>> in times past, there doesn't seem to be that much less 
> of it 
> >>>>>>>>> (as
> > for
> >>>>>>>>> example in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
> review 
> >>>>>>>>> noted
> > by
> >>>>>>>>> someone earlier).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Emotion tends to be seen as bad in our philosophical 
> >>>>>>>>> tradition.
> > As the
> >>>>>>>>> enemy of reason, the motor of self-deception, etc. It 
> links us
> > to the
> >>>>>>>>> animals, to our "baser" nature, etc. A bit of this in 
> the 
> >>>>>>>>> pagan
> >>>>>>>>> tradition, a lot of it in christian asceticism, and 
> tons of it
> > in
> >>>>>>>>> Enlightenment rationalism and its successors.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Emotions are also associated with the unreliable 
> feminine vs..
> > the cool
> >>>>>>>>> and collected masculine, with the passions of the mob 
> vs. the
> >>>>>>>>> thoughtful elite, with peasants, workers, and 
> children, and
> > pretty
> >>>>>>>>> much every social category whose oppression needs some
> > legitimation.
> >>>>>>>>> Indeed one of the near universal legitimations of 
> elite 
> >>>>>>>>> power is
> > "we
> >>>>>>>>> know what's good for you", not just because of what we 
> know, 
> >>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> because you can't be trusted to see your own best interests
> > through
> >>>>>>>>> the haze of your emotions.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Useful as this is to elite interests, it combines 
> further with
> > the
> >>>>>>>>> cult of individualism to make emotions a purely individual,
> > mental,
> >>>>>>>>> subjective matter. Non-material, non-social, non-
> cultural, and
> >>>>>>>>> universal (the easier to apply the stigma of 
> emotionality to
> > non-
> >>>>>>>>> European cultures). It is rather hard to crawl out of 
> this pit
> > of mud.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As I've been trying to do for the last year or two. 
> There 
> >>>>>>>>> would
> > be too
> >>>>>>>>> much to say for a short post on this list, but here 
> are a few
> > basic
> >>>>>>>>> suggestions:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Feeling is a broad enough category to get back to the
> > phenomenology of
> >>>>>>>>> affect/emotion, whereas "emotion" is too narrowly 
> defined 
> >>>>>>>>> within
> > the
> >>>>>>>>> tradition of animal-like and universal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There are a LOT of different feelings, and that is more
> > important than
> >>>>>>>>> efforts to identify some small number of basic emotions.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Many feelings are associated with evaluative judgments 
> and 
> >>>>>>>>> this
> > may be
> >>>>>>>>> a key link to re-unify affective and cognitive.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Feelings do differ significantly across cultures, and 
> are part
> > of a
> >>>>>>>>> larger system of meanings-and-feelings specific to a 
> >>>>>>>>> community.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You can't make meanings across any longer term process of
> > reasoning
> >>>>>>>>> without feelings and evaluative judgments.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It is likely that feelings have histories, both in 
> cultures 
> >>>>>>>>> and
> > in
> >>>>>>>>> individuals.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Feelings are often reliable guides to survival, to adaptive
> > action,
> >>>>>>>>> and to finding ways to meet our needs.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Feelings are just as situated and distributed as are 
> >>>>>>>>> cognitions.
> > And
> >>>>>>>>> just as active and actively made and produced.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In short -- pretty much everything in our dominant tradition
> > about
> >>>>>>>>> emotions and feelings is exactly wrong -- and for the worst
> > possible
> >>>>>>>>> ideological-political reasons, I believe.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> JAY.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jay Lemke
> >>>>>>>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> >>>>>>>>> Educational Studies
> >>>>>>>>> University of Michigan
> >>>>>>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> >>>>>>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Visiting Scholar
> >>>>>>>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> >>>>>>>>> University of California -- San Diego
> >>>>>>>>> La Jolla, CA
> >>>>>>>>> USA 92093
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 8:08 AM, mike cole wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> With so much interest in achieving an integrated 
> >>>>>>>>>> understanding
> > of
> >>>>>>>>>> emotion,
> >>>>>>>>>> cognition, and development, Achilles, your focus on 
> this 
> >>>>>>>>>> topic
> > is a
> >>>>>>>>>> helpful
> >>>>>>>>>> reminder of its continued importance.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Seems like one of those many areas in psychological 
> research> where
> >>>>>>>>>> we cannot
> >>>>>>>>>> keep from murdering to dissect.
> >>>>>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 
> _________________________________________________________________>>>>>>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e 
> >>>>>>>> muito
> > mais. Conheça!
> >>>>>>>>
> > 
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> >>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> >>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 
> _________________________________________________________________>>>>>> Agora a pressa é amiga da perfeição. Chegou o Windows 7. Conheça!
> >>>>>>
> > 
> http://www.microsoft.com/brasil/windows7/default.html?WT.mc_id=1539_______________________________________________>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> >>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> >>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e muito
> > mais. Conheça!
> >>>>
> > 
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> >>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> >>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e 
> muito 
> >> mais..
> > Conheça!
> >>
> > 
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________>> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Você já ama o Messenger? Conheça ainda mais sobre ele no Novo 
> site de
> > Windows Live.
> > 
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________> xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



      
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca