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

Re: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts

Larry, I'm following these discussions, too, at least sketchily. I'm still hoping someone has pages 288-289 of that Valsiner chapter where he discusses abduction. As for his levels of emotional thinking, I find Valsiner's concept of "overgeneralizing feeling fields" thought- provoking. I don't always find Valsiner's **explanations** well- aligned, insofar as he tries to trace the sociocultural **causes** of things - my take on him is he bends the stick way over toward a very strong one-sided subjectivist perspective - but his descriptions are often very helpful, he raises a lot of interesting ideas and insights, and addresses a lot of very important questions (for CHAT) with very high scholarship. He is usually a clear and excellent writer, and he always has a bundle of provocative ideas to offer. I appreciate his work and learn from him. I notice he cites Anna Wierzbicka, who Mike pointed me to a few years back. Wierzbicka studied how emotions are described in many different languages and reports on some very interesting patterns. It is sort of like the study of human facial expressions - there is so much there for CHAT to work with - in both areas, there appear to be some universal human behavioral patterns which beg to be explained from a CHAT perspective as to why they are true - or why they are not as they appear. I would so appreciate some people in CHAT writing some books on those questions! So much to learn. However, on the question that got some of this discussion started - I am still not grasping why Valsiner puts pseudoconcepts in his level 4. Anyone figured that out?

- Steve

On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Larry Purss wrote:

Thank you for this article explaining Valsiner's 4 levels. I also find it a
very interesting framework for trying to understand emotions.
I'm also aware of Andy's comments that Valsner is "merely" articulating a
"cognitive perspective" of generalization/abstraction and am trying to
remain reflective.
What I particularly find interesting is the recognition that at the "higher" 4th level of generalization the process of differentiation and reflection of
affect becomes DE-differentiated and abstracted [and implicit]
This "higher" level is the level of VALUES which have an IMPLICIT
constraining determination on the emergence and generation of affect and meaning. This model also offers an explanation of why it is so difficult to
have a DIALOGUE about level 2 emotions and meanings. At the level 4
de-differentiation of value constructions persons have a
generalized/abstracted orientation which is "just a feeling" which is
difficult to put into words and articulate.

I'm reading the other articles within this thread, but I'm hoping Andy and
others add their thoughts on Valsiner.  His writings are helping me to
understand abduction, pseudoconcepts, and stage/layer accounts of
development. His perspective also has significant implications for how we
"observe" or "recognize" our relations with others.


xmca mailing list