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

Re: [xmca] about emotions



Hello to all who have shared on this thread.  Thank you Achilles for 
beginning the thread and the thoughts and activity that have followed!

My investment into this topic is that I work in a school that has a 
population of high school students labeled "emotionally-behaviorally 
disordered".  What does that mean?  It is an easy answer and a very 
complex answer.  The easy answer is that the student's behaviors fall 
outside the expected 'norm' for 16 to 21 year old U.S. high school 
students.  The complex answer is that much of the baggage that they bring 
to our small program (100 students) is wrapped up in the 
socio-cultural-historical milieu of the U.S. educational system and more 
specifically the tendencies and systemic processes of the urban school 
district I work for.  Something that does indeed work for our staff is to 
separate the systemic behaviors from the individual emotions.  What that 
looks like would take a textbook to break down but I just would like to 
thank all who have contributed to this thread because it has provided me 
great insight into the topic of emotion from a CHAT perspective.

eric




Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
11/30/2009 04:08 PM
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"

 
        To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [xmca] about emotions


Hi Eric
Yes these are valid questions to what I'm suggesting.
As far as antropamorphizing animals, I am curious if chimps, being 
primates may share some aspects of social matrix with humans, not as a 
metaphorical construction but as a social construction.
As for what we share with 2 to 6 month old babies, I'm suggesting the 
answer is more than many people realize.
The question that intrigues me is the term "advanced" Does this term imply 
transcendence and moving beyond earlier ways of communicating OR a 
developing COMPEXITY and an expanding "horizon of understanding" within 
sociocultural contexts.  If the latter is true, then the centrality of 
affect attunement may continue to be a primary and "foundational" aspect 
of being human which is as central to adult ways of being in the world as 
it is for infants.
This affective way of connecting is usually taken-for-granted and part of 
our "background" BUT when this way of being connected threatens our sense 
of connection, our emotional reactions can have many parallels to the 
needs expressed by thay 6 month old child.
The discussions of "higher order" may be viewed as moving to a new level 
of epistemology (piaget) and the lower levels  in all aspects being 
transformed, OR it could possibly be viewed as adding a new way 
epistemology, but the previous ways of organizing experience continue to 
exist IN RELATION TO the newer epistemology.
This is more an intuitive question I have. Call it a hunch.

Larry


----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Date: Monday, November 30, 2009 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Hello Larry, 
> 
> After your post, I am struck with two ideas at present when 
> considering 
> this thread on emotions:
> 
> 1. the social smile that appears in infants between 2 and 6 
> months 
> 
> 2. the need for people to anthropamorphize animals; i.e. seeing 
> emotions 
> in our pets
> 
> do these two ideas provide the cornerstone for understand how 
> human 
> communication has advanced? 
> 
> what do other's think or do?
> 
> eric
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 11/30/2009 12:22 PM
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> 
> 
> 
> To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>        cc: 
> 
> Subject:        Re: [xmca] 
> about emotions
> 
> 
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
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