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

Re: [xmca] Re: The problem of exegesis without methods for study meaning.

I think that due respect to Mike is in order. He was in rRussia in the mid sixties and a co-author of Mind in Society. Conspiracy theories are not in order, as LSVs work stands up to hermeneutic scrutiny. 
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!

-----Original Message-----
From: rjsp2 <r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk>
Sender: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:47:03 
To: <lchcmike@gmail.com>; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Reply-To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: The problem of exegesis without methods for study

But how can we know if your wife is reliable, Mike ;-)


On 25/04/2013 19:31, mike cole wrote:
> The doctors of the church change from generation to generation, Achilles.
> My own relationship to these discussions is strongly influenced by personal
> experiences that occurred before the rising generation of doctors was born,
> which, given the well know effects of age on memory, renders me
> unreliable...
> and if you do not believe me, ask my wife!
> As Andy wrote, we have to figure things out ourselves for what they mean
> for us, whoever us is, now.
> Abracos Internationales
> mike
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Achilles Delari Junior <
> achilles_delari@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike, and XMCA.
>> This remember the problems with Bible interpretation and the enormous
>> effort of the "Doctors of Church" to indicate the "correct way" for read
>> the Holy Scriptures... Unfortunately, we have only the apocrypha versions
>> in our hand and then we must few shamed in read it. We must wait the
>> "Doctors of Church", with some kind of "method of analysis of meaning" that
>> following the same Doctors "does nos exist" (this is noteworthy), make a
>> Council, Illuminate by the Holy Ghost (there is no scientific method to
>> understand meaning), in order to establish the "True version" and/or the
>> only "correct meaning"!!! In time: On the own footnotes of the edition of
>> "The problems of consciousness" it was explicit the *codification* about
>> were and when there was literal words from Vigotski and the notes by his
>> colleagues who *listened* to him, that was direct auricular witness.
>> Remembering that several other texts was not wrote directly by Vygotsky,
>> but transcribed from stenographic notes of his oral presentations ("The
>> problem of environment", "Paedology conferences", etc. etc.)... Then,
>> perhaps Vygotsky's works was only a KGB invention to confusing westerns
>> capitalist researchers. In contrary this clerical exegetical trend and the
>> "conspiratorial hypothesis" improbable trend,  I understand that we must to
>> recognize that understand Vygotsky, through the fragments he leaves to us,
>> is a kind of "archaeological" work... If you have only some clues you must
>> think through *abduction* -- in Peirce's terms, and pay the price of this:
>> don't make so categorical and/or dogmatic claims about. Even more, I can
>> make one more blasphemy and ask: how can somebody exclude abduction from
>> any psychological and historical research?
>> Achilles.
>>> From: lchcmike@gmail.com
>>> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:11:49 -0700
>>> Subject: Re: RES: [xmca] Vygotskii-Lewin as gestaltists and the critics
>> of gestaltism in '30s
>>> To: the_yasya@yahoo.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> CC:
>>> notorious and shameful!! Wow.
>>> mike
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> "The text" -- which one?
>>>> If this is "The problem of consciousness", then its first appearance
>> is in
>>>> a volume "Psikhologiia grammatiki"
>>>> (The psychology of grammar). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo MGU, 1968 (edited by
>>>> A.A. Leontiev and T.V. Riabova).
>>>> The second edition in the notiorous and shameful Collected Works of
>>>> Vygotskii in 6 volumes,
>>>> the one later translated into English (6 vols.) and Spanish (5 vols.).
>>>> If you are asking about some other text, Joao, please, clarify which
>> one
>>>> of those mentioned along the thread.
>>>> AY
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Joao Martins <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br>
>>>> To: 'Anton Yasnitsky' <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "'eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>> Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:14:20 PM
>>>> Subject: RES: [xmca] Vygotskii-Lewin as gestaltists and the critics of
>>>> gestaltism in '30s
>>>> Where the text was published?
>>>> Joao
>>>> -----Mensagem original-----
>>>> De: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>> Em
>>>> nome
>>>> de Anton Yasnitsky
>>>> Enviada em: quarta-feira, 24 de abril de 2013 21:23
>>>> Para: Martin Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Assunto: [xmca] Vygotskii-Lewin as gestaltists and the critics of
>>>> gestaltism
>>>> in '30s
>>>> Oh, this one is pretty easy. Two points:
>>>> Point 1. The source is fairly idiosyncratic and should be almost
>> totally
>>>> distrusted. Firstly, Vygotsky never wrote this text:
>>>> Leontiev (A.N.) and Zaporozhets did. This text was generated on the
>> basis
>>>> of
>>>> the notes the two guys were taking
>>>> during Vygotskii's several hours long presentation, and only God knows
>> what
>>>> exactly the whole talk was about.
>>>> Naturally, the title was invented by the publishers of these notes
>>>> --Leontiev A.A. and Ryabova (Akhutina)--who
>>>> released it for the first time in 1968. Then, the textological hybrid
>> was
>>>> republished in the Collected Works, with grave mistakes in chronology,
>> but,
>>>> quite possibly, there are also other involuntary mistakes and
>> deliberate
>>>> censorship in the style of Yaroshevskii's usual brutal editing of
>>>> Vygotskii's texts.
>>>> Luckily, some notes that Vygotskii prepared BEFORE the talk have
>> preserved
>>>> and--
>>>> hurray, hurray!--were published fairly recently by Zavershneva.
>>>> I guess, furthermore, we also published the stuff in English some time
>> ago.
>>>> Quite a bonus, I would say.
>>>> So, it might be pretty interesting to compare the two sources, whatever
>>>> brief and fragmentary both are.
>>>> Anyway, all this needs to be kept in mind as long as this publication
>> is
>>>> concerned.
>>>> Point 2. To the matter: "cultural-historical gestalt psychology" as a
>>>> synthesis of Soviet Luria-Vygotskian and, on the other hand,
>>>> German-American
>>>> gestalt psychology. Regardless of what Vygotskii--or, rather Leontiev,
>>>> Zaporozhets and Yaroshevskii--say in this paper "The problem of
>>>> consciousness", there is overwhelming evidence of most intensive
>>>> and productive contacts between the two groups of scholars and, if not
>>>> mutual convergence, then most enthusiastic attempts to integrate
>>>> German-American gestaltist scholarship in the Soviet Union. I could
>>>> probably
>>>> try to relate this story here, but for the time being would refer to
>> the
>>>> work that has already been done.
>>>> It took me several [already published] papers to provide arguments in
>>>> support of this claim.
>>>> Some of these are in Russian, but the just of one of these is
>> available in
>>>> English (and some other languages), too.
>>>> All these are available here, right after Keiler's seminal work that
>> shows
>>>> that Vygotsky never spoke of "cultural-historical psychology" or, for
>> that
>>>> matter, "higher psychic functions" (vysshie psikhicheskie funktsii):
>>>> http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php
>>>> FYI, Russian paper provides numerous footnotes not in Russian that
>> might
>>>> give some idea of the contents of the paper.
>>>> Also, there are a couple of nice original documents published as
>>>> Illustrations within this Russian paper.
>>>> Still, the paper does not deal directly with the issue of theoretical
>>>> synthesis. Well, in fact, such paper is not written yet.
>>>> In a couple of words, though, the idea is as follows, I guess:
>> profoundly
>>>> influenced by gestaltist holism from late 1929
>>>> onwards, Vygotskii, however, moves closer to Kurt Lewin, who, in turn,
>>>> started expressing his criticism of gestaltist
>>>> preoccupation with holism in favour of more balanced view that would
>> take
>>>> into consideration the wholeness and,
>>>> on the other hand, the life of organs and the processes in the
>> sub-parts of
>>>> the whole, including the processes of
>>>> separation and fragmentation. This development looked too revisionist
>> for
>>>> the hardcore gestaltist, and fairly renegade.
>>>> It is pretty much in this sense Vygotskii was--along with Lewin--a most
>>>> devoted gestaltist and, at the same time,
>>>> its staunch critic. This is how I would interpret Lewin's and
>> Vygotskii's
>>>> both holism-gestaltism and its critic to the extent
>>>> of the danger of excommunication from the ranks of faithful
>> gestaltists.
>>>> This is true of the decade of 1930s, but not earlier.
>>>> AY
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>>>> To: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>> Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:20:34 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis" (timeo
>>>> Vygotskii et dona ferentem)
>>>> Hi Anton,
>>>> In "The problem of consciousness" (Collected Works, vol. 3), LSV writes
>>>> that
>>>> gestalt psychology makes the mistake of assuming that the psychological
>>>> functions form a specific kind of unified structure. He says that he
>> wants
>>>> to treat this assumption as the problem: to explore the connections
>> among
>>>> the psychological functions, and how these connections change
>> dynamically.
>>>> Certainly one can read this as an influence of gestalt psychology on
>> his
>>>> work. But it doesn't seem much of a movement towards a synthesis, or to
>>>> encourage such a synthesis. What's your take on this?
>>>> Martin
>>>> On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> As I mentioned this on several occasions, a synthesis of Vygotskian
>> ideas
>>>> with the solid system of gestaltist thought--
>>>>> the "cultural-historical gestalt psychology", if I may--looks like a
>> very
>>>> interesting and most promising option
>>>>> for the development of Vygotskiana in psychology today.
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> 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

The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list