[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] RE: xmca Digest, Vol 75, Issue 5, Bladeless Knives Without Handles (David Kellogg)
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] RE: xmca Digest, Vol 75, Issue 5, Bladeless Knives Without Handles (David Kellogg)
- From: mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 07:27:59 -0700
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=xWY7TQCmDDqWpVuOihYbCuquWIWI+/SALV+KK5OywV4=; b=bpECZcZTJueLHoD2ApM+jU01ZlA5RpA29uAK0jS9HEdP8KDl4L9m0sOAbs7T+DcbOx 1WjEbn+9ao894tKUMf+eNyAlAkZSXlH7dEPscbjaywJbCV1C1pnuBaNaMeUkk6eWfl3f pUGLhXK5SSWkntX9U8NcxnchbOZmZ28k4siis=
- In-reply-to: <BAY159-W26094B3FACA781896793B4CF3F0@phx.gbl>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <20110805190010.43AE310AB6F@weber.ucsd.edu> <BAY159-W26094B3FACA781896793B4CF3F0@phx.gbl>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi Nick-- What are your ideas about Fernando's paper?
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Nikolai Veresov <email@example.com>wrote:
> Dear all. I have no idea why Kellog refers to my "article" "Vygotsky before
> Vygotsky" in respect to periodization. I do not have an article called
> "Vygotsky before Vygotsky", I have the book "Undiscovered Vygotsky" (1999)
> which provides the periodization. The "article" Kellog refers to is terribly
> abridged Introduction of my Ph. D. theses. Somebody put it in Internet
> without my permission. Everybody who are able to read my book (I hope there
> are some) can easily see that (1) I do not emphsize any negation and do not
> stress ABSOLUTE difference between the early Vygotsky and middle Vygotsky.
> In my book I do something absolutely opposite trying to find the links
> between the periods. (2) I do not split off early Vygotsky from Marxism.
> Everybody can easily see my approach in my paper "Marxist and non-Marxist
> aspects of the cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky" (
> (3) I do not stress that I am THE FIRST to make the distinction. On the
> contrary, in my book I undertook an analysis of all other periodizations
> existed at that time (just to remind that the paper of Mauricio Ernica David
> Keelog refers to, was published in 2008 which is ten years AFTER my Ph. D.
> Theses). So I do not think it is OK to make conclusions about colleagues'
> works using expressions like "extravagant claims of priority and extreme
> claims of periodizationon" on the basis of short and abridged fragments of
> texts. It is always better to read the book before criticising its abstract.
> I have an impression that Kellog's attacks have no serious grounds and are
> based on his own (mis)interpretations which, in turn, can mislead the
> people. I also think that we have to avoid the criticism of personalities
> and concentrate on the content.
> Nikolai Veresov
> > a)Â Â Â Both Rey and Veresov (in his article â€œVygotsky Before
> Vygotskyâ€ ) emphasize NEGATION in their periodization: they stress absolute
> differences between the early Vygotsky (interested in art, literature,
> imagination, creativity, emotion, and personality) and middle Vygotsky
> (interested in completely unrelated notions such as history, culture,
> mediation, tools, symbols, and internalization). I think there is indeed a
> very important distinction to be made, but I think it is more like the
> distinction between explanans and explanandum than either writer would like
> to admit. For example, isnâ€™t an artwork a kind of instrument? Doesnâ€™t
> art work involve the use of both tools and symbols? It is more than a little
> suggestive that both Rey and Veresov appear to distinguish a â€œrealâ€
> Vygotsky concerned with individual development from a false, objectivist
> and institutionalized Vygotsky concerned with Marxist psychology and (to
> link this thread to the
> > last discussion article) the Soviet social project. Rey does take this
> project much further than Veresov, and tries to split Vygotsky away from
> cultural-historical psychology altogether (whereas Veresov simply tries to
> split off the early Vygotsky from Marxism).
> > Â
> > b)Â Â Â Both Rey and Veresov stress that they are the FIRST to make this
> distinction (and thus ignore each other, as well as writers (Mauricio
> Ernica, Gunilla Lindqvist) who have made similar points in a less ambitious,
> less absolutist and (as a result) more acceptable fashion. For example, van
> der Veer and Kozulin have taken into account the clear examples of
> reflexological terminology in â€œPsychology of Artâ€ (even idiots like me!
> See â€œThe Real Idealâ€ in the LCHC discussion papers pigeonhole); actually
> the whole work uses as a unit of analysis an â€œaesthetic reactionâ€ .
> Oppositely, there are those pesky works by Vygotsky himself, e.g.
> â€œImagination and Creativity in the Adolescentâ€ which came out in 1931 at
> the very nadir of Vygotskyâ€™s supposedly â€œobjectivistâ€ period. Of
> course, knowing how hard it is to get published in MCA, I quite understand
> the temptation to make extravagant claims of priority and extreme claims of
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list