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

[Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism


But what exactly does your "little experiment" mean?



Dr. Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.

Therapist, Affective Speech Remediation

Psycho-Educational Consultant

Voice Teacher, Vocal Coach

 <http://www.autisticvancouver.com/> www.autisticvancouver.com


Sharpening the Ear for Better Communication

and Socially Appropriate Behaviour



-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
Sent: April-02-14 11:48 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism


I just tried a little experiment. I googled "Think for yourself!" "Be

relevant!" and "Be useful!" to see how many times someone has had,

more or less, these exact sentiments in these exact words.


Here's what I found:


"Be useful!"  4,030,020 matches in .32 seconds.


"Be relevant!" 607,000,000 in 0.26 seconds. (Much easier to find.)


"Think for yourself!" 717 million mentions in only .040 seconds!


David Kellogg

Hankuk University of Foreign Studies




On 3 April 2014 11:24, Lois Holzman <lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> wrote:

> Joseph

> I'd like to know more about you. I appreciate your comment on the current
"conversational thread."

> Lois


> Lois Holzman

> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy

> 104-106 South Oxford Street

> Brooklyn, New York 11217

> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX

> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324

> Fax +1.718.797.3966

> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org

> Social Media

> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter

> Blogs

> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News

> Websites

> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World

> All Stars Project




> On Apr 2, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com>


>> May I suggest that you-all emphasize your own questioning and thinking
rather than mainly referring to great innovators and thinkers of the past.
By concentrating on what has already been said by recognized authorities,
one stays mired in the past. It is natural for intelligent, conscious beings
to have their own wonderings/questions. What are yours? Do you wish to
remake the world in any way? Would you like to have a peaceful planet for
your grandchildren? What needs to be done in order to achieve that? How
about a new perception, an updated world-view, based upon our best current
knowledge of human nature? Just as many Christians look backward to Jesus to
chart their course, academicians in this current corporate state tend to
remain stuck in the already accepted arguments and premises established long
ago. Please break free and really accomplish something useful with your
wealth of knowledge rather than mostly engaging in "small talk" among your
cohorts in an isolated i

 vory tower. We (humanity) need all the help we can get. It seems you should
be able to do more than split hairs among yourselves while the real needs of
the world go unaddressed. Get back to the basics and build from there, using
what you really believe to be true as your navigational instruments. Think
for yourselves! Be original! Be relevant! Be useful!


>>               Joseph Gilbert


>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 8:27 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:


>>> Seems like you nailed it, Robert, (and Benjamin read it there?).


>>> The lesson I take away from this is that we are all "so-called thinkers"

>>> virtue  of the fact that our consciousness is mediated through culture.

>>> imagined present never precisely matches the encountered future.


>>> In so far as there is an antidote to this characteristic of humans, so

>>> as I can figure out, it is develop cultural practices that might be

>>> "critical" in that they diverge from the common imaginary worlds. Having

>>> criticized, the preferred next step would be to test out your imagined

>>> world in practice in order to discover its flaws.


>>> What do others conclude?

>>> mike



>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Robert Lake


>>>> See highlighted phrase below :-).


>>>> Marx-Engels Correspondence 1893

>>>> Engels to Franz Mehring Abstract

>>>> ------------------------------


>>>> Source: *Marx and Engels Correspondence*;

>>>> Publisher: International Publishers (1968);

>>>> First Published: *Gestamtausgabe*;

>>>> Translated: Donna Torr;

>>>> Transcribed: Sally

>>>> Ryan<http://www.marxists.org/admin/volunteers/biographies/sryan.htm>in

>>>> 2000;

>>>> HTML Markup: Sally Ryan.

>>>> ------------------------------

>>>> London, July 14, 1893


>>>> Today is my first opportunity to thank you for the *Lessing Legend* you

>>>> were kind enough to send me. I did not want to reply with a bare formal

>>>> acknowledgment of receipt of the book but intended at the same time to

>>>> you something about it, about its contents. Hence the delay.


>>>> I shall begin at the end -- the appendix on historical materialism, in

>>>> you have described the main things excellently and for any unprejudiced

>>>> person convincingly. If I find anything to object to it is that you

>>>> attribute more credit to me than I deserve, even if I count in

>>>> which I might possibly have found out for myself - in time - but which

>>>> with his more rapid *coup d'oeil* (grasp) and wider vision discovered

>>>> more quickly. When one has the good fortune to work for forty years
with a

>>>> man like Marx, one does not usually get the recognition one thinks one

>>>> deserves during his lifetime. Then if the greater man dies, the lesser

>>>> easily gets overrated, and this seems to me to be just my case at

>>>> history will set all this right in the end and by that time one will be

>>>> safely round the corner and know nothing more about anything.


>>>> Otherwise there is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx
and I

>>>> always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which

>>>> are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and *were bound to

>>>> lay*,

>>>> the main emphasis, in the first place, on the *derivation* of

>>>> juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through

>>>> medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we

>>>> neglected the formal side -- the ways and means by which these notions,

>>>> etc., come about -- for the sake of the content. This has given our

>>>> adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings, of which Paul

>>>> Barth is a striking example.


>>>> Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker

>>>> indeed, but with a false consciousness.



>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Martin John Packer

>>>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>wrote:


>>>>> Wikipedia attributes the phase to Engels.


>>>>> Martin


>>>>> On Apr 1, 2014, at 8:13 PM, Douglas Williams <djwdoc@yahoo.com> wrote:


>>>>>> Hi--


>>>>>> The term false consciousness is from Walter Benjamin in a 1930 review

>>>> of

>>>>> Siegfried Kracauer's Die Angestellten, drawing from Marx. The idea in

>>>> Marx

>>>>> is described in terms of alienation and estrangement from real objects

>>>> and

>>>>> activity.



>>>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm



>>>>>> ________________________________

>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>

>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>

>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 5:14 PM

>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism



>>>>>> Tom, so far as I know, the term "false consciousness" was invented by

>>>>>> feminists in the 1970s and was never used by Marx, and I don't think

>>>> the

>>>>>> concept is consistent with his ideas, as expressed in the Theses on

>>>>>> Feuerbach which you quoted, for example.

>>>>>> Andy



>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*

>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/




>>>>>> Tom Richardson wrote:

>>>>>>> ... In the first place, it should be noted that Marx, like Spinoza

>>>>> later

>>>>>>> Freud, believed that most of what men consciously think is "false"

>>>>>>> consciousness, is ideology and rationalization; that the true

>>>>> mainsprings

>>>>>>> of man's actions are unconscious to him.