[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 was not referring to Mike's work nor disrespecting him, but reinforcing his answer to the anterior note (I don't know if you saw) in with the "Russian Edition" (6 volumes) of the Vygotsky's Works was qualified as "notorious and shameful" and Mike outlined these words, Carol. Was only this. I was agreeing with his exclamation. See above, please.

Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: The problem of exegesis without methods for	study	meaning.
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu; lchcmike@gmail.com
From: carolmacdon@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:32:52 +0000

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
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca 		 	   		  __________________________________________
xmca mailing list