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

[Xmca-l] Re: CoExperiencing as a Philosophy of Practice.



I thought I would add the last paragraph of Alex Kozulin's review of
Vasiliyuk's book.

By choosing the literary model of human experiencing, Vasilyuk affirms his
adherence to the humanistic, rather than scientific approach to human
psychology. His work can also be seen as a blueprint for the future
convergence of humanistic psychology with Vygotsky’s cultural-historical
theory of human development .

This premonition that some  new convergence is on the horizon. The coming
intersection forming a hybrid character.
Do others agree that we may be moving in the direction of a *literary
model*?
The discussion of White's narrative approach [using Bruner's notion of
scaffolding] may be an example.

 Vasilyuk's key understanding as expressed in his concept of consciousness
that has two essential aspects [and their relations]
*stratigraphy* as layered registers of depth or height. Each *layer* is a
life-world.
*structure* of the smallest molecule as unit of consciousness IS a *mental
image*  A mental image having the structure of the two magnetic poles and
the dynamic of consciousness moving within this dynamic *image*  like the
flow of plasma.  Depth of layers AND mental images interact generating
consciousness.

Vasilyuk's philosophy of practice as 1st order word that is originating
within the liminal spaces on the boundaries OF humanistic THEORY and
cultural historical THEORY of human development.

Consciousness as the originating site of meaning-GENERATION forming within
co-experiencing *situations*.  In other words situated consciousness as
working experience.

This is a fragment but does express a *tone*





On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike, the declaration that cultural mediation [in particular the symbolic
> level] is a key element can put aside psychoanalysis and psychotherapy
> and turn to Vygotsky's own way of including this symbolic level of
> coexperiencing. Listen for the implicit movement marking the felt sense of
> having *fallen away* from a *source* and then finding one's way back to the
> *source* [and in this return entering *deeper* levels.  I am referring to
> page 62 of Vasiliyuk's article "Prayer Silence, Psychotherapy".
>
> Vygotsky is exploring  a *deeper* layer for experiencing suffering. Not a
> hedonistic flight from suffering, not masochistic consolation, not routine
> platitudes [always a silver lining] but a spiritual sublimation of sorrow.
> Elevating and deepening into the layer of experiencing the *source* by
> transforming this suffering by return to the eternal.
> Vygotsky images his life as *my star* in the heavens *marked* by sorrow.
> His personal life and his Jewish life *marked* by sorrow. BUT this star is
> IN THE HEAVENS.  So the meaning of suffering [the falling away from the
> source] is not in fleeing from the suffering but in returning to the
> *source* [the eternal, the deepest layer of consciousness] . The meaning is
> *found* in the ELEVATION of suffering, elevtion on the wing OF A PRAYER TO
> GOD. The transformation of suffering IN GOD.
>
> Vygotsky's metaphor is a personal particular  *image* expressing a deeply
> felt layer of experience. But within the particular unique felt image there
> is a general [not universal] plot [mytheme] that is historically
> traceable developing  symbolic cultural imaginary.
>
> The plot can shift what is *source* [God, sublime, the *self*] and this
> can be historically traced[including the work of experiencing the authentic
> true *self* in psychology].
>
>  Suzanne Kirschner has traced these transformations in this myth from
> religious origins, transformed within the Romantic movement, and shifting
> into psychological theories today.
>
> The point I am offering is that Vygotsky as Vasilyuk his project was
> touched by this mytheme. Peirce in his speculative musings, also was pulled
> into this mytheme.
>
> I am not suggesting this plot is fundamental or foundational but the
> yearning for this plot to be universal envelops and embodies us into this
> particular myth and is experienced as a deeply felt *truth*. It is only one
> of the *key elements* but it is a significant one of the keys to the
> philosophy of practice.
> The shift to secular themes [such as naturalism] does not change the
> underlying plot structure but does change the images that *have us*.
> Vygotsky saw his *star* ELEVATED to the heavens that transforms suffering
> which is the experience existing within a symbolic truth,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:00 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Larry--
>>
>> Thanks for your continuing explication of your reading of Vasiliuk.
>> Putting
>> aside psychoanalysis and psychotherapy for a moment, I am totally behind
>> the delaration
>> that  *cultural mediation OF experience* which is a KEY ELEMENT", plus
>> co-experiencing as the necessary condition for that cultural mediation.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Vasilyuk is developing the *philosophy of Practice* as a psychotechnical
>> > *system*.
>> > He says in his historical outline of the different *basic foundations*
>> on
>> > which psychology has relied [from suggestibility to *becoming aware* to
>> > *emancipation* to reliance on learning  to reliance on experiencing to
>> the
>> > current reliance on experiencing [as existential/humanistic] which is
>> > intersecting with todays reliance on productively producing internal
>> > psychological transformations oriented to enriching the meaning of
>> being.
>> >
>> > Vasilyuk says the task exploring the changing reliances of psychology
>> as a
>> > practice is not to describe the *factual* history of psychology and the
>> > reliances of psychotherapy but to elicit the logic of history. In other
>> > words to *listen* to the evolving IMPLICIT plot that gives meaning and
>> > direction to the subsequent acts of the development of psychology. (page
>> > 11)
>> >
>> > One of the key elements Vasilyuk identifies is the concept of *cultural
>> > mediation of experiences*. He says:
>> > Historically cumulative experiencings with standard situations
>> crystallize
>> > in various SYMBOLIC FORMS; when a person experiences crises, his
>> > consciousness might get connected to these symbolic forms, an so the
>> > process of experiencing, without losing its personality-oriented
>> > uniqueness, gains ADDITIONAL DEPTH AND PRODUCTIVITY. (page 18).
>> >
>> > It is this additional depth and productivity as symbolic that Vasilyuk
>> is
>> > generating within his evolving implicit *plot* oriented to transforming
>> > psychology in order to enrich the meaning of being.  This is also the
>> theme
>> > Vasilyuk is relying on in his other article *Prayer, Silence, and
>> > Psychotherapy*. This is the living symbol of prayer on the boundary of
>> > experiencing and silence/stillness.
>> >
>> > Here is Vygotsky exploring the *depth* of symbolism in his own words:
>> >
>> > Ophelia's tragedy [a personification] is exactly LIKE a lyrical
>> > accompaniment, that towers over the entire play, which is full of the
>> > dreadful torment of INEXPRESSIBILITY, of the most profound dark,
>> > mysterious, and SACRED melodies that in some incomprehensible and
>> > miraculous way REVEAL AND EMBODY what is most exciting, most allusive,
>> and
>> > touchingly important, what is DEEPEST AND DARKEST, but what is most
>> tragic
>> > that is OVERCOME and enlightened, and what IS MOST MYSTICAL in the
>> entire
>> > play. Thus tragedy turns into PRAYER .... as though with an oblational
>> and
>> > expiatory and PRAYERFUL light, it gives religious illumination to the
>> > tragedy." (page 61 of Vasilyuk's article.)
>> >
>> > Vasiliuk then comments: "No matter how much the devotees of Marxist
>> > materialism try to conceal Vygotsky's religiosity from themselves and
>> us,
>> > it is perfectly obvious that THESE words [LP -1st order words]  could
>> only
>> > have been written by a person with deep personal EXPERIENCE with
>> prayer."
>> > (page 61).
>> >
>> > To sum up, I am MARKING [for orientation purposes]  the concept of
>> > *cultural mediation OF experience* which is a KEY ELEMENT of
>> coexperiencing
>> > psychotherapy AS philosophy of practice. I believe that the same
>> *symbolic
>> > gravity* can be expressed through changing images. The plot of "falling
>> > away from* and *returning to* can be expressed in multiple symbols such
>> > as turning away from God, turning away from the natural sublime, turning
>> > away from one's true authentic self, These images are expressing
>> different
>> > *reliances* but are sharing the same symbolic plot as the cultural
>> > mediation of experiencing. The IMPLICIT deepening of coexperience that
>> is
>> > now emerging in Russia since the 1980's that Vasilyuk is plotting may be
>> > implicitly enveloped in this same mytheme of falling away from *the
>> source*
>> > and then the return to this *source.
>> >
>> > The book *The Religious and Romantic Roots of Psychoanalysis* by Suzanne
>> > Kirschner has plotted this particular myth flowing through Western ways
>> of
>> > experiencing the meaning of being. She is tracing the roots of the
>> > emergence of Freudian psychoanalysis but it is the more general
>> philosophy
>> > of practice as including this KEY ELEMENT of cultural mediation as
>> > deepening coexperiences that I am highlighting.
>> > As Vasilyuk says: the task is to LISTEN FOR *the evolving IMPLICIT
>> > plot that gives meaning and direction to the subsequent acts of the
>> > *development* of psychology [including the KEY symbolic element that
>> > *deepens* experience beyond the personal existential.
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>>
>
>