Message-ID: <5318FA6F.8090402@mira.net>
Paul, I think that once your name and email address gets captured by
spiders crawling around the internet looking for the names of aspiring
academic authors, you will find that you get swamped every day with
offers to publish your articles and attend "World Congresses" on various
hot topics as well. I have no real iea if anyone reads these journals in
addition to the great excess of legitimate, peer-reviewed journals that
already exist, but I suspect very few. As most universities nowadays
require publication as a condition for having an academic job, I suspect
the authors don't care. But with millions of aspiring authors and the
option of vey cheap short run printing today, its an opportunity for
someone to earn a living. But perhaps I am wrong.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> Off topic...does anyone have any experience paying journals to publish their work. I have had several journals reach out to me. They claim to be peer-reviewed journals, willing to publish my work for $200. How legitimate and respected are these journals.
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> www.paulcmocombe.info
>
> Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities
> www.routledge.com/9780415714372
>
> -
>
From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Thu Mar 6 15:44:47 2014
From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 18:44:47 -0500
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: paying journals to publish your work
Message-ID: <8lo1o2o3jpre87ek53jo8x06.1394149487065@email.android.com>
Thanks andy...i appreciate the advice...
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
President
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
www.mocombeian.com?
www.readingroomcurriculum.com?
www.paulcmocombe.info?
-------- Original message --------
Date:03/06/2014 5:45 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
Subject: [Xmca-l] paying journals to publish your work
Paul, I think that once your name and email address gets captured by
spiders crawling around the internet looking for the names of aspiring
academic authors, you will find that you get swamped every day with
offers to publish your articles and attend "World Congresses" on various
hot topics as well. I have no real iea if anyone reads these journals in
addition to the great excess of legitimate, peer-reviewed journals that
already exist, but I suspect very few. As most universities nowadays
require publication as a condition for having an academic job, I suspect
the authors don't care. But with millions of aspiring authors and the
option of vey cheap short run printing today, its an opportunity for
someone to earn a living. But perhaps I am wrong.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> Off topic...does anyone have any experience paying journals to publish their work.? I have had several journals reach out to me.? They claim to be peer-reviewed journals, willing to publish my work for $200.? How legitimate and respected are these journals.
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> www.paulcmocombe.info
>
> Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities
> www.routledge.com/9780415714372
>
> -
>
From smago@uga.edu Fri Mar 7 03:12:28 2014
From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:12:28 +0000
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: paying journals to publish your work
In-Reply-To: <5318FA6F.8090402@mira.net>
References:
<5318FA6F.8090402@mira.net>
Message-ID: <3a3f74c800c844af9f81dc629f8a8494@BN1PR02MB166.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
"As most universities nowadays require publication as a condition for having an academic job, I suspect the authors don't care."
Most universities are more discriminating than simply counting all publications as being of equal value.
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:45 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] paying journals to publish your work
Paul, I think that once your name and email address gets captured by spiders crawling around the internet looking for the names of aspiring academic authors, you will find that you get swamped every day with offers to publish your articles and attend "World Congresses" on various hot topics as well. I have no real iea if anyone reads these journals in addition to the great excess of legitimate, peer-reviewed journals that already exist, but I suspect very few. As most universities nowadays require publication as a condition for having an academic job, I suspect the authors don't care. But with millions of aspiring authors and the option of vey cheap short run printing today, its an opportunity for someone to earn a living. But perhaps I am wrong.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> Off topic...does anyone have any experience paying journals to publish their work. I have had several journals reach out to me. They claim to be peer-reviewed journals, willing to publish my work for $200. How legitimate and respected are these journals.
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
> President
> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
> www.mocombeian.com
> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
> www.paulcmocombe.info
>
> Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities
> www.routledge.com/9780415714372
>
> -
>
From daviddpreiss@gmail.com Fri Mar 7 03:27:37 2014
From: daviddpreiss@gmail.com (David Preiss)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:27:37 -0300
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: paying journals to publish your work
In-Reply-To: <3a3f74c800c844af9f81dc629f8a8494@BN1PR02MB166.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References:
<5318FA6F.8090402@mira.net>
<3a3f74c800c844af9f81dc629f8a8494@BN1PR02MB166.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID:
Indeed. It is not random publication but specially the merit of your ideas and their social and scientific relevance. And I know lots of people that really care, specially here at XMCA.
David
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 07-03-2014, a las 8:12, Peter Smagorinsky escribi?:
> "As most universities nowadays require publication as a condition for having an academic job, I suspect the authors don't care."
> Most universities are more discriminating than simply counting all publications as being of equal value.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:45 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] paying journals to publish your work
>
> Paul, I think that once your name and email address gets captured by spiders crawling around the internet looking for the names of aspiring academic authors, you will find that you get swamped every day with offers to publish your articles and attend "World Congresses" on various hot topics as well. I have no real iea if anyone reads these journals in addition to the great excess of legitimate, peer-reviewed journals that already exist, but I suspect very few. As most universities nowadays require publication as a condition for having an academic job, I suspect the authors don't care. But with millions of aspiring authors and the option of vey cheap short run printing today, its an opportunity for someone to earn a living. But perhaps I am wrong.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
>> Off topic...does anyone have any experience paying journals to publish their work. I have had several journals reach out to me. They claim to be peer-reviewed journals, willing to publish my work for $200. How legitimate and respected are these journals.
>>
>>
>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>> President
>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>> www.mocombeian.com
>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>
>> Race and Class Distinctions within Black Communities
>> www.routledge.com/9780415714372
>>
>> -
>
>
From smago@uga.edu Fri Mar 7 11:43:01 2014
From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 19:43:01 +0000
Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: [DPJ] New section: "Scholarship beyond essayistic
texts" -- 2 Interviews with Alexander Lobok
In-Reply-To: <5c4f4ade72bf244750340d45856f433a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5c4f4ade72bf244750340d45856f433a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <520965a5e22241c19199f807afbc502f@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 2:18 PM
Subject: [DPJ] New section: "Scholarship beyond essayistic texts" -- 2 Interviews with Alexander Lobok
Dear Dialogic Pedagogy Journal members-
We are happy to announce an opening of a new section of the journal with a tentative title "Scholarship Beyond Essayistic Texts". This is NOT peer-reviewed section of the journal will be reserved for some interesting interviews (video and text-based) and other possible forms of non-essayistic scholarship on Dialogic Pedagogy. Similar to the Book Review section, the Editors will select submitted scholarship for this section - we may consider electing special Editors for this section as all these issues related to the new section will be moved to the DPJ Editorial Board. Feel free to submit your non-essayistic scholarship to this new section of our journal: http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/information/authors (please, select the "Scholarship Beyond Essayistic Texts" section during you submission).
The first publication to the section "Scholarship Beyond Essayistic Texts" is "Education/obrazovanie as an experience of an encounter" by Russian scholar of Dialogic Pedagogy Alexander Lobok - his theses and 2 video conferences that he conducted in January and February 2014 with international audience at the 4th Bakhtinian conference in New Zealand and afterwards. The conferences and theses are in Russian and English in synchronous translation by Eugene Matusov with support of other Russian-English participants of the conference. You can access this publication here: http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/84 Also, please feel free to participate in discussion of Alexander Lobok's scholarship - the discussion has been started already - see below the publication! To post by "Add Comment" or "Reply to Comment", you need to login first.
Sincerely,
Eugene and Ana
_____________________________________________________________
Eugene Matusov Ana Marjanovic-Shane
Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal
Professor of Education Assistant Professor of Education
University of Delaware, USA Chestnut Hill College, USA
ematusov@udel.edu anamshane@gmail.com
DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dialogic-Pedagogy-Journal/581685735176063
______________________________________________________________
From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Mar 8 06:51:35 2014
From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 06:51:35 -0800
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
I am going to add some further *commentary* to John's particular
exploration of aspects of wayfinding. I do this in the spirit of
hermeneutics AS an open circle. I notice a famiy *resemblance* between
John's writings and the preface to Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit"
exploring similar themes.
Hegel wrote:
"The spirit however BECOMES an object, for the spirit IS this movement of
becoming something OTHER for itself i.e. and object for its self, AND THEN
to sublimate THIS otherhood. And EXPERIENCE is the NAME we give to this
MOVEMENT in which the immediate, the unexperienced, i.e. the astract,
whether of sensible BEING or of a bare, simple THOUGHT, becomes estranged
and then RETURNS to itself FROM estrangement, and is only then PRESENTED in
its actuality and truth and BECOMES the property of consciousness."
I *read* John as offering further commentary on THIS movement within fluid
dynamic open circles AS *intra*-actions in contrast to *inter*-actions.
As an aside, Alex Kozulin wrote this reflection on the GENRE of commentary:
"The genre of this book [Vygotsky's Psychology A Biography of Ideas] can be
defined as that of a commentary. If not the only acceptable form of
scholary trestise, the genre of commentary in the last century fell into
disrepute and was pushed aside by experimental monographs and SYSTEMATIC
surveys of literature. There is a good reason for such a fate. To start
with a good commentary always takes as its subject a corpus of writings of
a superior quality, and there are not many of those nowadays. Second, the
very idea of commentary is incompatible with the popular view of human
knowledge AS a temporalized progression from inaccurate facts to accurate
ones. Commentary always aims [orients] as a DIALOGUE, with a superior text,
the outcome of which is a NEW READING of this text and thus, by
implication, a conception of the NEW one."
I hope John's article will be *read* in the spirit of commentary AS
*wayfinding*.
Larry
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> Mike,
> Thanks for the suggestion to invite john to respond. I am including him
> using an address different from the one you used.
>
> John,
> Here is Mike's response which included you in the address:
>
> Hi Larry-- I still have not read John's paper. But at least dealing with
> email I could not answer owing to local consequences of getting some of the
> rain
> we asked for.
>
> Firstly, here we have a clear case where John should be asked to join the
> discussion. He is a long-admired colleague with whom we have far too little
> interaction, speaking personally.
>
> So, here is a part of answering. Perhaps off topic. I hope not. I believe
> that the principle of the retrospective construction of meaning is a
> foundational part of the problem under discussion and fictive stories about
> how cognition and emotion are a dance between the frontal lobe and the
> limbic system. In so far as emotion is effected AT ALL by experience, it is
> retrospective, and hence, constructive. the "tools" of that construction
> are, in the aggregate, human culture.
>
> Cultural cognition is always, in principle, non-linear -- a sequences of
> vicious circles and spirals of development.
>
> As a routine practice, I used to spend a lot of time with undergraduates at
> a local housing project. There the students engaged in a variety of
> mutually valued practices -- a hybrid idioculture-- and learned through
> empathy. It was all about growing ourselves by participating in the
> development of others.
>
> Finding socio-cultural-historical niches where such settings can be
> sustained is quite a different matter. I am particularly interested in how
> fragile and pre- occupying they are.o you and myself:
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Yes, I understand John indicating that an ASPECT of performative practices
> [always emotive] is the *mode* of retrospective constructions. I understand
> THIS mode as captured by John using the concept *text* Mike you in quotes
> mention THIS mode as using *tools* of that retrospective construction. I
> believe John is using the concept *tools* in a more limited sense as
> existing as *relata* [in relation to *prosthetics*] When
> performative practices use *prosthetics* our experience is EXTENDED but AS
> prosthetics the use is transparent and our performances are expressed
> THROUGH the use of the prosthetics from the subjective side of performative
> practices. However, when the use of the prosthetics is disrupted in use
> THEN we become aware [conscious] that we are using prosthetics and in this
> awareness the prosthetics BECOME opaque [and become conscious AS *tools*.
>
> If I have read John as he intended then *texts* *prosthetics* and *tools*
> are various ASPECTS [not parts] of a dynamic FLUID *intra*-action which is
> always AMBIGUOUS and moving within our performative practices. In other
> words AS retrospective constructions we are foregrounding the *text aspect*
> within the *prosthetic-tool-text* ambiguity.
>
> In other words the multiple *aspects* of our orienting [wayfinding] to our
> surroundings express fluidly flowing *modes* of awareness which cannot be
> pre-determined AS pre-existing subjective and objective aspects of
> performative practices. The differentiation into prosthetics, tools, and
> texts come into existence WITHIN our practices. [NOT prior to which is an
> *inter*-action picture] The radical phenomena John is asking us to focus on
> is the *felt tendency* PRIOR TO differentiating this fluid *intra*-action
> AS INVOLVING *prosthetics*, tools*, or *texts*. THIS fluidity is always in
> fact *ambiguous* and cannot ever be finalized.
>
> Mike, I hope John will add his voice to my *reading* and elaborate on the
> *text* aspect which is so prominent in Gadamer's project of philosophical
> hermeneutics. John is exploring *wayfinding* within our *intra*-actions
> and discusses *prosthetics* *tools* and *texts* AS moments within our WAYS
> of orienting. ALWAYS fluid, flowing dynamic phenomena, ALWAYS
> ambiguous, ALWAYS partially open, and involving multiple *aspects*
> including prosthetics, tools, and texts.
>
> John, if I have mis-read your intent I ask others to read your
> article. This article is participating in [and extending using text] a
> tradition which also includes James, Dewey, Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, Gibson,
> Wittgenstein, and Karen Barard. XMCA incarnates this *spirit* and I hope
> we generate further participation within this textual tradition.
>
> Larry
>
From lchcmike@gmail.com Fri Mar 14 18:56:31 2014
From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:56:31 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: DBIR web site + DBIR at AERA?
In-Reply-To: <76113A50-71D2-4614-9225-BA13768EBDE5@colorado.edu>
References: <76113A50-71D2-4614-9225-BA13768EBDE5@colorado.edu>
Message-ID:
Bill has an article on this general topic in the upcoming MCA with a
commentary by some folks from Helsinki. If you count your self in some
version of design research, you might want to attend to this note.
mike
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Penuel
Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:59 PM
Subject: DBIR web site + DBIR at AERA?
To: DBIR Workshop
Hi all:
I wanted to announce the launch of the DBIR web site here:
http://learndbir.org
There, we've organized a range of resources related to DBIR, including
chapter abstracts from our NSSE book and some practical tools for
organizing DBIR research and development projects.
Please send us your suggestions for what to add, especially from your own
work, that you'd like to see represented there.
Also, you can follow DBIR on Twitter at @LearnDBIR.
I also wanted to send out a request to folks presenting DBIR-related work
at AERA. I am compiling a list and will add a list to the news page on the
DBIR web site.
Bill and Barry
From ablunden@mira.net Fri Mar 14 21:56:07 2014
From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:56:07 +1100
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: DBIR web site + DBIR at AERA?
In-Reply-To:
References: <76113A50-71D2-4614-9225-BA13768EBDE5@colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <5323DD67.8040009@mira.net>
Sounds like a call for mesogenetic methodology in Education to me.
And if one brackets the word "education" everywhere, it is a call to
adopt "project" as a unit of analysis,
I wish them all success!
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/
mike cole wrote:
> Bill has an article on this general topic in the upcoming MCA with a
> commentary by some folks from Helsinki. If you count your self in some
> version of design research, you might want to attend to this note.
> mike
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: William Penuel
> Date: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:59 PM
> Subject: DBIR web site + DBIR at AERA?
> To: DBIR Workshop
>
>
> Hi all:
>
> I wanted to announce the launch of the DBIR web site here:
> http://learndbir.org
>
> There, we've organized a range of resources related to DBIR, including
> chapter abstracts from our NSSE book and some practical tools for
> organizing DBIR research and development projects.
> Please send us your suggestions for what to add, especially from your own
> work, that you'd like to see represented there.
>
> Also, you can follow DBIR on Twitter at @LearnDBIR.
>
> I also wanted to send out a request to folks presenting DBIR-related work
> at AERA. I am compiling a list and will add a list to the news page on the
> DBIR web site.
>
> Bill and Barry
>
>
>
From lchcmike@gmail.com Sun Mar 16 11:46:09 2014
From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:46:09 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Public Academics and its risks
Message-ID:
This article seems relevant to prior discussion on the topic of public
engagement by academics. The issue is especially tricky when working on
soft money, but.......
mike
http://www.thenation.com/article/178821/columbia-university-fired-two-eminent-public-intellectuals-heres-why-it-matters#
From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Mar 16 14:17:13 2014
From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:17:13 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
Message-ID:
Mike,
thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public intellectual.
Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in
their publications.
I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago [Vygotsky's
Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in
Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by his
contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West
in the 1960's .
In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky
scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's. What
in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social mediation,
and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic
approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new
question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND cultural
mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
Alex writes:
"The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a new
light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes
the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative
action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's contribution
TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND
traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the
humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years
later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In
particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored
in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of
Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a
young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the deep
questions of life and existence.
How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the audience
for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the
role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions and
Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of
Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary
discourse.
Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic
studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography of
Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to Vygotsky's
later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and
tragedy?
Larry
From glassman.13@osu.edu Sun Mar 16 16:41:08 2014
From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:41:08 +0000
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Public Academics and its risks
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <54248F6464A3874BB28FFF75F616AED6AB1687A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>
How extraordinarily painful. The fact that one of the richest universities in the world fired the found of the National Coalition for the Homeless because he couldn't bring in 80% of his salary from grants suggests something has gone very wrong with our collective enterprise. There was a time when people used to say we must support cynicism in going after money because it can support nobler endeavors. Now.....
Buy a writer a beer on a hot day and he or she will tell you the three unalterable rules of the universe without much prodding.
Never eat at a place called moms.
Never play cards with a guy named Doc
and Never get into a relationship with somebody who has more problems that you.
Perhaps we need to add a fourth.
Never make a deal with the devil because in the end the devil always comes out ahead.
Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:46 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Public Academics and its risks
This article seems relevant to prior discussion on the topic of public
engagement by academics. The issue is especially tricky when working on
soft money, but.......
mike
http://www.thenation.com/article/178821/columbia-university-fired-two-eminent-public-intellectuals-heres-why-it-matters#
From lchcmike@gmail.com Sun Mar 16 18:24:37 2014
From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 18:24:37 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Very interesting set of ideas, thanks a lot Larry. I would prefer to defer,
first, to Alex himself. Both of us are, so speak, hybrid people, but from
different home grounds. And besides, he is the author. So I'll cc Alex and
hope that he will help us out here.
mike
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> Mike,
> thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public intellectual.
> Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in
> their publications.
> I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago [Vygotsky's
> Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
>
> Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in
> Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
> The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by his
> contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
> The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West
> in the 1960's .
> In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky
> scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's. What
> in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social mediation,
> and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic
> approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new
> question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND cultural
> mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
>
> Alex writes:
> "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a new
> light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes
> the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative
> action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's contribution
> TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND
> traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the
> humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
>
> I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years
> later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In
> particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored
> in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of
> Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a
> young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the deep
> questions of life and existence.
>
> How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
> The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the audience
> for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the
> role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions and
> Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of
> Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary
> discourse.
> Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic
> studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography of
> Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to Vygotsky's
> later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and
> tragedy?
> Larry
>
From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Sun Mar 16 19:58:09 2014
From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:58:09 -0600
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Public Academics and its risks
In-Reply-To: <54248F6464A3874BB28FFF75F616AED6AB1687A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>
References:
<54248F6464A3874BB28FFF75F616AED6AB1687A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>
Message-ID:
and there is another story that runs somewhat parallel to this that
involves academics at the front end of their careers:
http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/10/essay-about-inability-find-tenure-track-job-academe
the author, Patrick Iber, doesn't explicitly mention a failure to bring in
big money, but one suspects that this might have been one of the big knocks
against him considering that he teaches courses like "Artists,
Intellectuals, and Social Change in Latin America" (see his blog at:
http://patrickiber.blogspot.com/). Not likely to bring in the big grants
with that...
It is a nasty world out there. Anyone have any ideas how to make it better?
-greg
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
> How extraordinarily painful. The fact that one of the richest
> universities in the world fired the found of the National Coalition for the
> Homeless because he couldn't bring in 80% of his salary from grants
> suggests something has gone very wrong with our collective enterprise.
> There was a time when people used to say we must support cynicism in going
> after money because it can support nobler endeavors. Now.....
>
> Buy a writer a beer on a hot day and he or she will tell you the three
> unalterable rules of the universe without much prodding.
>
> Never eat at a place called moms.
>
> Never play cards with a guy named Doc
>
> and Never get into a relationship with somebody who has more problems that
> you.
>
> Perhaps we need to add a fourth.
>
> Never make a deal with the devil because in the end the devil always comes
> out ahead.
>
> Michael
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> on behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:46 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Public Academics and its risks
>
> This article seems relevant to prior discussion on the topic of public
> engagement by academics. The issue is especially tricky when working on
> soft money, but.......
>
> mike
>
>
> http://www.thenation.com/article/178821/columbia-university-fired-two-eminent-public-intellectuals-heres-why-it-matters#
>
>
>
>
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Mar 16 23:17:24 2014
From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:17:24 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Public Academics and its risks
In-Reply-To:
References:
<54248F6464A3874BB28FFF75F616AED6AB1687A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>
Message-ID:
Greg
An idea that I share may be utopian [ it is an ideal] which comes from
reading an article by John Shotter where he offers commentary on
Voloshinov's dialogical approach to academic advancement of knowledge
This approach sees academic practices as dialogically responding &
informing each other as each perspective adds [aspects] to our ongoing
shared conversations.
Here is a link to the article
http://www.johnshotter.com/papers/voloshinov%20instead%20of%20theory%20final.pdf
What I found intriguing is Volohinov proposes a *way* of reading and
engaging our differences in theories in a spirit of dialogical question and
answer.
If this model was more prevalent in our re-search then our differences
could be embraced as sharing common questions. Very utopian, but Vygotsky,
Gadamer, Bahktin, Voloshinov seemed to show this style of engagement it
fits into a particular TYPE or STYLE of scholarship that puts questions
into circulation for further elaboration.
Is this approach to advancing knowledge money is probably scarce, so I'm
not sure how to sustain this way of orienting our practices?
Larry
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Greg Thompson wrote:
> and there is another story that runs somewhat parallel to this that
> involves academics at the front end of their careers:
>
> http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/10/essay-about-inability-find-tenure-track-job-academe
>
> the author, Patrick Iber, doesn't explicitly mention a failure to bring in
> big money, but one suspects that this might have been one of the big knocks
> against him considering that he teaches courses like "Artists,
> Intellectuals, and Social Change in Latin America" (see his blog at:
> http://patrickiber.blogspot.com/). Not likely to bring in the big grants
> with that...
>
> It is a nasty world out there. Anyone have any ideas how to make it better?
>
> -greg
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Glassman, Michael >wrote:
>
> > How extraordinarily painful. The fact that one of the richest
> > universities in the world fired the found of the National Coalition for
> the
> > Homeless because he couldn't bring in 80% of his salary from grants
> > suggests something has gone very wrong with our collective enterprise.
> > There was a time when people used to say we must support cynicism in
> going
> > after money because it can support nobler endeavors. Now.....
> >
> > Buy a writer a beer on a hot day and he or she will tell you the three
> > unalterable rules of the universe without much prodding.
> >
> > Never eat at a place called moms.
> >
> > Never play cards with a guy named Doc
> >
> > and Never get into a relationship with somebody who has more problems
> that
> > you.
> >
> > Perhaps we need to add a fourth.
> >
> > Never make a deal with the devil because in the end the devil always
> comes
> > out ahead.
> >
> > Michael
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> > on behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:46 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Public Academics and its risks
> >
> > This article seems relevant to prior discussion on the topic of public
> > engagement by academics. The issue is especially tricky when working on
> > soft money, but.......
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.thenation.com/article/178821/columbia-university-fired-two-eminent-public-intellectuals-heres-why-it-matters#
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
From smago@uga.edu Mon Mar 17 03:10:58 2014
From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:10:58 +0000
Subject: [Xmca-l] the risks of being a public intellectual
Message-ID: <680a3f210fc84c30a3047ddc96ad9565@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
I think it's important to note that the people let go by Columbia were on grant-funded jobs, and so not getting grants should lead to termination. That was the condition of employment. I don't see it affecting those on conventional job tracks that involve security (tenure or its equivalent). People who have tenure and don't get grants in fields that require them might become pariahs, but unless a post-tenure review is in place that may remove them, it's probably not an issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:17 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
Mike,
thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public intellectual.
Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in their publications.
I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago [Vygotsky's
Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by his contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West in the 1960's .
In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's. What in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social mediation, and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND cultural mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
Alex writes:
"The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a new light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's contribution TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the deep questions of life and existence.
How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the audience for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions and Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary discourse.
Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography of Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to Vygotsky's later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and tragedy?
Larry
From dkirsh@lsu.edu Mon Mar 17 07:09:52 2014
From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:09:52 +0000
Subject: [Xmca-l] Is Sociocultural Theory Psychology?
Message-ID:
Larry,
Thanks for posting this comment of Kozulin:
"The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a new light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's contribution TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [1999, p. 278-279]
Is the Vygotskyan tradition psychological?
Sub-questions:
...As viewed from the outside? (I've noticed that later editions of ed psych texts often include Vygotsky, whereas earlier editions didn't.)
...As viewed from the inside (is there a consensus, collectively)?
Has the answer changed (e.g., used to be psychology but that label no longer fits)?
Are there methodological requirements? (We rarely discuss data in this list; most psychology lists discuss little else)
Does the scientific status of being a branch of psychology matter to the future of sociocultural theory?
Does the psychological designation matter to individual theorists?
David
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:17 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
Mike,
thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public intellectual.
Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in their publications.
I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago [Vygotsky's
Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by his contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West in the 1960's .
In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's. What in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social mediation, and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND cultural mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
Alex writes:
"The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a new light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's contribution TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the deep questions of life and existence.
How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the audience for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions and Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary discourse.
Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography of Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to Vygotsky's later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and tragedy?
Larry
From joe.glick@gmail.com Mon Mar 17 09:03:22 2014
From: joe.glick@gmail.com (JAG)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:03:22 -0400
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Public Academics and its risks
In-Reply-To:
References:
<54248F6464A3874BB28FFF75F616AED6AB1687A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>
Message-ID:
The Shotter article is labeled a "first draft" dated 2006. Has it been
published to anyone's knowledge? If so, where?
Although this seems of a piece with his other writings the latest
bibliographic reference in this paper to Shotter's other writings is 1997 -
and this is, indeed, the latest dated reference to anyone - except for a
reference to Shotter (in press) in the notes - note 31 - but no
bibliographic clue to its whereabouts.
On his website an article which might be the one referenced is indicated as
to appear in the "Journal of Collaborative Practices" - no date.*
* (tracked it down - Issue 3 of that journal - 2012).
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
> Greg
> An idea that I share may be utopian [ it is an ideal] which comes from
> reading an article by John Shotter where he offers commentary on
> Voloshinov's dialogical approach to academic advancement of knowledge
> This approach sees academic practices as dialogically responding &
> informing each other as each perspective adds [aspects] to our ongoing
> shared conversations.
> Here is a link to the article
>
>
> http://www.johnshotter.com/papers/voloshinov%20instead%20of%20theory%20final.pdf
>
> What I found intriguing is Volohinov proposes a *way* of reading and
> engaging our differences in theories in a spirit of dialogical question and
> answer.
> If this model was more prevalent in our re-search then our differences
> could be embraced as sharing common questions. Very utopian, but Vygotsky,
> Gadamer, Bahktin, Voloshinov seemed to show this style of engagement it
> fits into a particular TYPE or STYLE of scholarship that puts questions
> into circulation for further elaboration.
>
> Is this approach to advancing knowledge money is probably scarce, so I'm
> not sure how to sustain this way of orienting our practices?
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Greg Thompson >wrote:
>
> > and there is another story that runs somewhat parallel to this that
> > involves academics at the front end of their careers:
> >
> >
> http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/10/essay-about-inability-find-tenure-track-job-academe
> >
> > the author, Patrick Iber, doesn't explicitly mention a failure to bring
> in
> > big money, but one suspects that this might have been one of the big
> knocks
> > against him considering that he teaches courses like "Artists,
> > Intellectuals, and Social Change in Latin America" (see his blog at:
> > http://patrickiber.blogspot.com/). Not likely to bring in the big grants
> > with that...
> >
> > It is a nasty world out there. Anyone have any ideas how to make it
> better?
> >
> > -greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Glassman, Michael > >wrote:
> >
> > > How extraordinarily painful. The fact that one of the richest
> > > universities in the world fired the found of the National Coalition for
> > the
> > > Homeless because he couldn't bring in 80% of his salary from grants
> > > suggests something has gone very wrong with our collective enterprise.
> > > There was a time when people used to say we must support cynicism in
> > going
> > > after money because it can support nobler endeavors. Now.....
> > >
> > > Buy a writer a beer on a hot day and he or she will tell you the three
> > > unalterable rules of the universe without much prodding.
> > >
> > > Never eat at a place called moms.
> > >
> > > Never play cards with a guy named Doc
> > >
> > > and Never get into a relationship with somebody who has more problems
> > that
> > > you.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we need to add a fourth.
> > >
> > > Never make a deal with the devil because in the end the devil always
> > comes
> > > out ahead.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> ]
> > > on behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:46 PM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Public Academics and its risks
> > >
> > > This article seems relevant to prior discussion on the topic of public
> > > engagement by academics. The issue is especially tricky when working on
> > > soft money, but.......
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.thenation.com/article/178821/columbia-university-fired-two-eminent-public-intellectuals-heres-why-it-matters#
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > Assistant Professor
> > Department of Anthropology
> > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > Brigham Young University
> > Provo, UT 84602
> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> >
>
From lsmolucha@hotmail.com Mon Mar 17 09:17:21 2014
From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com (larry smolucha)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:17:21 -0500
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Is Sociocultural Theory Psychology?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Message from Francine:
Metatheories in psychology typically are just as humanistic and /or philosophical as they are psychological science. Among these are Piaget's theory based on French Structuralism, Psychoanalytic theory, the American Humanistic psychology of Rogers and Maslow, and Vygotsky's theory. Never-the-less much empirical research has been generated from these theories and their disagreements with opposing theories. In contrast, reductionist theories like Behaviorism generate a lot of research but ignore the complicated interplay of obvious factors like culture or neural functioning. Even contemporary neuroscience, which generates tons of data from ever increasing technological innovations, is essentially reductionist. When asked to answer the tough questions about cultural and environmental influences the typical replay from neuroscience will be a conflicting review of research, and a summary of the functions of various neurological systems.
Neuroscience and its customary psychopharmacological interventions has unseated
psychotherapies as explanations for human behavior, but this has a lot to do with
the economic profits derived from prescription drugs. Crime rates, rates of psychological disorders, and educational achievement rates have not improved.
Perhaps, there will be a 21st century Revivalism in psychology to once again examine the
synergistic interplay of cultural, social, cognitive, emotional, and neurological factors affecting human behavior. After all, even Wilhelm Wundt recognized the two fold nature of psychological investigations, Cultural Psychology and Experimental Psychology.
> From: dkirsh@lsu.edu
> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:09:52 +0000
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Is Sociocultural Theory Psychology?
>
> Larry,
> Thanks for posting this comment of Kozulin:
> "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a new light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's contribution TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [1999, p. 278-279]
>
> Is the Vygotskyan tradition psychological?
>
> Sub-questions:
> ...As viewed from the outside? (I've noticed that later editions of ed psych texts often include Vygotsky, whereas earlier editions didn't.)
> ...As viewed from the inside (is there a consensus, collectively)?
> Has the answer changed (e.g., used to be psychology but that label no longer fits)?
> Are there methodological requirements? (We rarely discuss data in this list; most psychology lists discuss little else)
> Does the scientific status of being a branch of psychology matter to the future of sociocultural theory?
> Does the psychological designation matter to individual theorists?
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:17 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
>
> Mike,
> thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public intellectual.
> Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in their publications.
> I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago [Vygotsky's
> Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
>
> Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
> The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by his contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
> The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West in the 1960's .
> In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's. What in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social mediation, and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND cultural mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
>
> Alex writes:
> "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a new light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's contribution TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
>
> I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the deep questions of life and existence.
>
> How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
> The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the audience for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions and Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary discourse.
> Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography of Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to Vygotsky's later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and tragedy?
> Larry
>
>
From ben.devane@gmail.com Mon Mar 17 12:08:04 2014
From: ben.devane@gmail.com (Ben DeVane)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:08:04 -0500
Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [gls] GLS Doctoral Consortium applications due in a
week!
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
For doctoral students interested in the field of games and learning. Please
contact me at benjamin-devane@uiowa.edu with any questions.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Caro Williams wrote:
> The Games+Learning+Society Doctoral Consortium offers select graduate
> students the opportunity for valuable career advice and critical feedback
> on their scholarship. Graduate students working on their dissertations will
> receive feedback on their research trajectories, publishing advice from
> successful authors and journal editors, and timely information about the
> job search from early career scholars who have recently been on the market.
> They will also have the opportunity to build new peer relationships and
> potential collaborations with other graduate students who are part of the
> consortium.
>
> THE APPLICATION PROCESS
> To apply, please send a 2-page CV and a 1000-word prospectus (excluding
> references) describing the (1) goals of your research project, (2) research
> question(s), (3) background & theoretical frame, (4) methodology, (5)
> current status of your project, and a (6) description of the topics that
> you would like to address at the doctoral consortium.
>
> This prospectus should be saved in PDF format and emailed to
> chair@glsconference.org.
>
> APPLICATIONS ARE DUE ON MARCH 22, 2014.
> Notification emails will be sent April 15, 2014.
> The Doctoral Consortium will take place immediately prior to the GLS
> Conference, on June 10, 2014, in Madison, Wisconsin.
> http://glsconference.org/2014/doctoral-consortium
>
> The GLS Doctoral Consortium is free to accepted participants, and we are
> delighted to announce that accepted participants will also have their GLS
> Conference registration fees comped!
>
> Good luck to you all!
>
> Questions about the DC or the application process? Contact the DC
> Co-Chairs, Alecia Magnifico, at alecia.magnifico@unh.edu and Ben Devane,
> at benjamin-devane@uiowa.edu.
>
> Caro
>
> Caroline C. Williams
> Co-Chair - Games+Learning+Society Conference
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> Conference: www.glsconference.org
> Center: www.gameslearningsociety.org
> Twitter: @GLScenter
>
---
You are currently subscribed to gls as: ben.devane@gmail.com.
To unsubscribe click here:
https://lists.wisc.edu/u?id=40153250.f1d612f08dea3c98261a53d363b2a108&n=T&l=gls&o=34636876orsend
a blank email to
leave-34636876-40153250.f1d612f08dea3c98261a53d363b2a108@lists.wisc.edu
--
***********************
Ben DeVane, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
Psychological & Quantitative Foundations
University of Iowa
***********************
From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Mar 17 14:34:04 2014
From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:34:04 +0900
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Larry:
I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I'd like to pick up a strand of
our thread that nobody else has touched. It's the idea that part of
the trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological element of Vygotskyan
theory lies in his early work on esthetics, and specifically on
Hamlet.
I have always resisted the Lurian characterization of Vygotsky as a
romantic scientist, because I think he was, as Nadezhda Mandelstam
said and as Bakhurst confirmed (in his piece on "Vygotsky's Demons" in
the Cambridge Companion), a defender of Enlightenment ideas AGAINST
the Romantic counter-revolution of the nineteenth century. When I read
Vygotsky on Hamlet, I can see that he has completely rejected the
nineteenth century idea of Hamlet as romantic hero--that is, an
inspired individual hero among lesser breeds without the law. Hamlet's
depressed, not inspired. He's divided, not individual. And the others
in the play actually perceive Hamlet more accurately than he perceives
himself; Hamlet simply cannot feel the weight of his own body, nor is
he sufficiently aware of his own awareness to be able to distinguish
it from the way things are.
But I recently read a lot about Gordon Craig and Konstantin
Stanislavski's 1912 Moscow production of Hamlet. Whether he saw it or
not (and there is some debate on this point), it had a huge influence
on the way that Vygotsky read Hamlet (we know that Vygotsky saw the
revival of the 1912 production and that he disapproved of it).
Perversely true to the play text, Craig's and Stanislavski's version
was a completely divided production that almost fell apart before
opening night: Craig saw the play as monodrama (that is, everybody in
the play except Hamlet himself is a "ghost" in the mind of Hamlet).
Stanislavski, of course, insisted on a historical drama of real people
whose motivations were all too human; Hamlet was simply a man amongst
men.
You can see that all of Kozulin's planes are present and accounted
for. Stanislavski, the social realist, accounts for the way in which
Vygotsky made sense to his contemporaries. Craig is much closer to the
way we interpret Vygotsky today: a way of making sense of individual
psychology, alongside the work of Freud, Piaget, and others. And the
third, trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological plane? Well, I think
that is yet another plane that has gone missing. But when we find, I
am sure that we will see that Vygotsky himself is safe and sound on
board.
David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
On 17 March 2014 06:17, Larry Purss wrote:
> Mike,
> thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public intellectual.
> Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in
> their publications.
> I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago [Vygotsky's
> Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
>
> Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in
> Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
> The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by his
> contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
> The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West
> in the 1960's .
> In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky
> scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's. What
> in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social mediation,
> and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic
> approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new
> question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND cultural
> mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
>
> Alex writes:
> "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a new
> light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget comes
> the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative
> action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's contribution
> TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND
> traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the
> humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
>
> I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years
> later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In
> particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored
> in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of
> Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a
> young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the deep
> questions of life and existence.
>
> How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
> The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the audience
> for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the
> role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions and
> Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of
> Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary
> discourse.
> Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic
> studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography of
> Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to Vygotsky's
> later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and
> tragedy?
> Larry
From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Mar 17 20:11:51 2014
From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:11:51 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Public Academics and its risks
In-Reply-To:
References:
<54248F6464A3874BB28FFF75F616AED6AB1687A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX01.osuad.osu.edu>
Message-ID:
Joe,
I first read the article in the january 2014 journal which I believe is
called [Theory of Psychology] I am on a public commuter so cannot confirm
the exact title.
I wrote John Shotter to see if it was possible to share this article on
line. He said that it was not possible but he did send this draft which he
said could be distributed.
The article is available for access for people with academic accounts
I do believe this article is *of a piece* with his other writings but in my
reading I also saw an extension in the theme of *ways of orienting* AS
multiple [the prosthetic-tool-text aspects OF agential realism] and very
rapidly shifting ways of orienting BETWEEN these multiple ways. We perceive
THROUGH tools when intentionally acting and the tools are opaque. In
John's conception, prosthetics become visible when they are not functioning
as expected and thus become *tools*. The third aspect of ways of orienting
is expressed in the concept *text* which I read as implicating cultural
historical ways of orienting. What is *of a piece* is the way Shotter
questions notions of *representations* as prior to our ways of orienting.
He is drawing attention to the aspect of *felt tendencies* within our ways
of orienting AS intra-actions. This is in contrast to
*inter*-actions which presuppose things or entities that EXIST prior to
their coming into relation.
I read this current article as *extending* the dialogue with social
construction and going BEYOND these earlier *readings* which foreground
language
John is even questioning the assumptions of *foreground* and *background*
as pre-existing concepts. Foreground and backgeround *emerge* within
*agential realism*.
The terms *extension* and *beyond* indicate a coherent theme but also
adding further commentary [and depth??] to John's *project*
That is what I as a particular reader understand when reading this article
Larry
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:03 AM, JAG wrote:
> The Shotter article is labeled a "first draft" dated 2006. Has it been
> published to anyone's knowledge? If so, where?
>
> Although this seems of a piece with his other writings the latest
> bibliographic reference in this paper to Shotter's other writings is 1997 -
> and this is, indeed, the latest dated reference to anyone - except for a
> reference to Shotter (in press) in the notes - note 31 - but no
> bibliographic clue to its whereabouts.
>
> On his website an article which might be the one referenced is indicated as
> to appear in the "Journal of Collaborative Practices" - no date.*
>
> * (tracked it down - Issue 3 of that journal - 2012).
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
>
> > Greg
> > An idea that I share may be utopian [ it is an ideal] which comes from
> > reading an article by John Shotter where he offers commentary on
> > Voloshinov's dialogical approach to academic advancement of knowledge
> > This approach sees academic practices as dialogically responding &
> > informing each other as each perspective adds [aspects] to our ongoing
> > shared conversations.
> > Here is a link to the article
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.johnshotter.com/papers/voloshinov%20instead%20of%20theory%20final.pdf
> >
> > What I found intriguing is Volohinov proposes a *way* of reading and
> > engaging our differences in theories in a spirit of dialogical question
> and
> > answer.
> > If this model was more prevalent in our re-search then our differences
> > could be embraced as sharing common questions. Very utopian, but
> Vygotsky,
> > Gadamer, Bahktin, Voloshinov seemed to show this style of engagement it
> > fits into a particular TYPE or STYLE of scholarship that puts questions
> > into circulation for further elaboration.
> >
> > Is this approach to advancing knowledge money is probably scarce, so I'm
> > not sure how to sustain this way of orienting our practices?
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Greg Thompson <
> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > and there is another story that runs somewhat parallel to this that
> > > involves academics at the front end of their careers:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/10/essay-about-inability-find-tenure-track-job-academe
> > >
> > > the author, Patrick Iber, doesn't explicitly mention a failure to bring
> > in
> > > big money, but one suspects that this might have been one of the big
> > knocks
> > > against him considering that he teaches courses like "Artists,
> > > Intellectuals, and Social Change in Latin America" (see his blog at:
> > > http://patrickiber.blogspot.com/). Not likely to bring in the big
> grants
> > > with that...
> > >
> > > It is a nasty world out there. Anyone have any ideas how to make it
> > better?
> > >
> > > -greg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Glassman, Michael <
> glassman.13@osu.edu
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > How extraordinarily painful. The fact that one of the richest
> > > > universities in the world fired the found of the National Coalition
> for
> > > the
> > > > Homeless because he couldn't bring in 80% of his salary from grants
> > > > suggests something has gone very wrong with our collective
> enterprise.
> > > > There was a time when people used to say we must support cynicism in
> > > going
> > > > after money because it can support nobler endeavors. Now.....
> > > >
> > > > Buy a writer a beer on a hot day and he or she will tell you the
> three
> > > > unalterable rules of the universe without much prodding.
> > > >
> > > > Never eat at a place called moms.
> > > >
> > > > Never play cards with a guy named Doc
> > > >
> > > > and Never get into a relationship with somebody who has more problems
> > > that
> > > > you.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we need to add a fourth.
> > > >
> > > > Never make a deal with the devil because in the end the devil always
> > > comes
> > > > out ahead.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > ]
> > > > on behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:46 PM
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Public Academics and its risks
> > > >
> > > > This article seems relevant to prior discussion on the topic of
> public
> > > > engagement by academics. The issue is especially tricky when working
> on
> > > > soft money, but.......
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.thenation.com/article/178821/columbia-university-fired-two-eminent-public-intellectuals-heres-why-it-matters#
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > Assistant Professor
> > > Department of Anthropology
> > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > Brigham Young University
> > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > >
> >
>
From lchcmike@gmail.com Mon Mar 17 20:14:39 2014
From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:14:39 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
David-- Where did luria say that Vygotsky was engaged in Romantic Science.
I missed it!
mike
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
> Larry:
>
> I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I'd like to pick up a strand of
> our thread that nobody else has touched. It's the idea that part of
> the trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological element of Vygotskyan
> theory lies in his early work on esthetics, and specifically on
> Hamlet.
>
> I have always resisted the Lurian characterization of Vygotsky as a
> romantic scientist, because I think he was, as Nadezhda Mandelstam
> said and as Bakhurst confirmed (in his piece on "Vygotsky's Demons" in
> the Cambridge Companion), a defender of Enlightenment ideas AGAINST
> the Romantic counter-revolution of the nineteenth century. When I read
> Vygotsky on Hamlet, I can see that he has completely rejected the
> nineteenth century idea of Hamlet as romantic hero--that is, an
> inspired individual hero among lesser breeds without the law. Hamlet's
> depressed, not inspired. He's divided, not individual. And the others
> in the play actually perceive Hamlet more accurately than he perceives
> himself; Hamlet simply cannot feel the weight of his own body, nor is
> he sufficiently aware of his own awareness to be able to distinguish
> it from the way things are.
>
> But I recently read a lot about Gordon Craig and Konstantin
> Stanislavski's 1912 Moscow production of Hamlet. Whether he saw it or
> not (and there is some debate on this point), it had a huge influence
> on the way that Vygotsky read Hamlet (we know that Vygotsky saw the
> revival of the 1912 production and that he disapproved of it).
> Perversely true to the play text, Craig's and Stanislavski's version
> was a completely divided production that almost fell apart before
> opening night: Craig saw the play as monodrama (that is, everybody in
> the play except Hamlet himself is a "ghost" in the mind of Hamlet).
> Stanislavski, of course, insisted on a historical drama of real people
> whose motivations were all too human; Hamlet was simply a man amongst
> men.
>
> You can see that all of Kozulin's planes are present and accounted
> for. Stanislavski, the social realist, accounts for the way in which
> Vygotsky made sense to his contemporaries. Craig is much closer to the
> way we interpret Vygotsky today: a way of making sense of individual
> psychology, alongside the work of Freud, Piaget, and others. And the
> third, trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological plane? Well, I think
> that is yet another plane that has gone missing. But when we find, I
> am sure that we will see that Vygotsky himself is safe and sound on
> board.
>
> David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>
>
>
>
> On 17 March 2014 06:17, Larry Purss wrote:
> > Mike,
> > thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public
> intellectual.
> > Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in
> > their publications.
> > I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago
> [Vygotsky's
> > Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
> >
> > Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in
> > Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
> > The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by
> his
> > contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
> > The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West
> > in the 1960's .
> > In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky
> > scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's.
> What
> > in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social
> mediation,
> > and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic
> > approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new
> > question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND
> cultural
> > mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
> >
> > Alex writes:
> > "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a
> new
> > light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget
> comes
> > the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative
> > action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's
> contribution
> > TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND
> > traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the
> > humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
> >
> > I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years
> > later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In
> > particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored
> > in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of
> > Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a
> > young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the
> deep
> > questions of life and existence.
> >
> > How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
> > The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the
> audience
> > for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the
> > role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions
> and
> > Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of
> > Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary
> > discourse.
> > Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic
> > studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography
> of
> > Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to
> Vygotsky's
> > later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and
> > tragedy?
> > Larry
>
From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Mar 17 20:58:08 2014
From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:58:08 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
David,
I often feel *in over my head* in these conversations
without enough background to comment.
However, I will comment on what I found intriquing in Kozulin's commentary
on Vygotsky's exploration of art and Hamlet and the *mythological*
trans-disciplinary theme of tragedy
Kozulin's *reading* of Vygotsky's early work on esthetics and tragedy shows
Vygotsky engaged with similar themes which were emerging in Marburg with
Heidegger and Gadamer at this same time. [the 1920's &30's].
Chapter one and two of Kozulin's book bring to awareness that Vygotsky was
deeply immersed in exploring this *mythological realm* questioning the
supra-psychological aspect BEYOND the merely subjective.
Kozulin shows that the book Doctor Zhivago was also a genre of writing
exploring the way we are *called* and that there are *forces* calling
BEYOND the personal which however are historical. Kozulin for example says
neither Doctor Zhivago or Vygotsky's writings [which Kozulin reads as
sharing a family resemblance] could have been written in any other
epoch except within this historical epoch. THIS is because of the shared
questions which they were attempting to answer
THIS *3rd plane* which Kozulin is *illuminating* [his book is developing
this theme] is pointing to this trans-disciplinary supra-psychological [but
effected within history] reality.
David, I hope Alex Kozulin will respond and share his current reflections
on your question. I was amazed how deeply Vygotsky as a young man could
engage with these themes and I came away with a new appreciation for the
vitality and depth of engagement Vygotsky *incarnated* in his writings at
this *liminal* time in his own development within this historical epoch.
As I say, I am in over my head, but through these *canonical* texts the
notion of the *romantic* AND the *supra-psychological* in DIALOGUE seems to
me the way to play with these themes.
Everybody except Hamlet AS *ghosts* brings in the awareness of a
realm BEYOND the personal which is expressed THROUGH the personal.
David, I don't have answers but I find these questions have a vitality
which I sense Kozulin was expressing in his book.
Larry
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
> Larry:
>
> I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I'd like to pick up a strand of
> our thread that nobody else has touched. It's the idea that part of
> the trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological element of Vygotskyan
> theory lies in his early work on esthetics, and specifically on
> Hamlet.
>
> I have always resisted the Lurian characterization of Vygotsky as a
> romantic scientist, because I think he was, as Nadezhda Mandelstam
> said and as Bakhurst confirmed (in his piece on "Vygotsky's Demons" in
> the Cambridge Companion), a defender of Enlightenment ideas AGAINST
> the Romantic counter-revolution of the nineteenth century. When I read
> Vygotsky on Hamlet, I can see that he has completely rejected the
> nineteenth century idea of Hamlet as romantic hero--that is, an
> inspired individual hero among lesser breeds without the law. Hamlet's
> depressed, not inspired. He's divided, not individual. And the others
> in the play actually perceive Hamlet more accurately than he perceives
> himself; Hamlet simply cannot feel the weight of his own body, nor is
> he sufficiently aware of his own awareness to be able to distinguish
> it from the way things are.
>
> But I recently read a lot about Gordon Craig and Konstantin
> Stanislavski's 1912 Moscow production of Hamlet. Whether he saw it or
> not (and there is some debate on this point), it had a huge influence
> on the way that Vygotsky read Hamlet (we know that Vygotsky saw the
> revival of the 1912 production and that he disapproved of it).
> Perversely true to the play text, Craig's and Stanislavski's version
> was a completely divided production that almost fell apart before
> opening night: Craig saw the play as monodrama (that is, everybody in
> the play except Hamlet himself is a "ghost" in the mind of Hamlet).
> Stanislavski, of course, insisted on a historical drama of real people
> whose motivations were all too human; Hamlet was simply a man amongst
> men.
>
> You can see that all of Kozulin's planes are present and accounted
> for. Stanislavski, the social realist, accounts for the way in which
> Vygotsky made sense to his contemporaries. Craig is much closer to the
> way we interpret Vygotsky today: a way of making sense of individual
> psychology, alongside the work of Freud, Piaget, and others. And the
> third, trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological plane? Well, I think
> that is yet another plane that has gone missing. But when we find, I
> am sure that we will see that Vygotsky himself is safe and sound on
> board.
>
> David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>
>
>
>
> On 17 March 2014 06:17, Larry Purss wrote:
> > Mike,
> > thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public
> intellectual.
> > Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in
> > their publications.
> > I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago
> [Vygotsky's
> > Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
> >
> > Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in
> > Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
> > The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by
> his
> > contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
> > The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West
> > in the 1960's .
> > In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky
> > scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's.
> What
> > in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social
> mediation,
> > and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic
> > approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new
> > question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND
> cultural
> > mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
> >
> > Alex writes:
> > "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a
> new
> > light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget
> comes
> > the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative
> > action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's
> contribution
> > TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND
> > traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the
> > humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
> >
> > I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years
> > later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In
> > particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored
> > in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of
> > Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a
> > young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the
> deep
> > questions of life and existence.
> >
> > How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
> > The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the
> audience
> > for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the
> > role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions
> and
> > Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of
> > Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary
> > discourse.
> > Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic
> > studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography
> of
> > Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to
> Vygotsky's
> > later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and
> > tragedy?
> > Larry
>
From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Mar 17 22:18:24 2014
From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:18:24 +0900
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Oh, I got it from a wonderful book by Luria edited by Michael and
Sheila Cole, "The Making of Mind". The phrase "romantic scientist" is
not really Luria's to begin with; he took it from Max Verwoern. But on
p. 174 of "The Making of Mind", he associates "romantic" with holism,
with anti-reductionism and Gestalt, using Vygotsky's favorite quotes.
"Classical scholars are those who look upon events in terms of their
constituent parts. Step by step they single out important units and
elements until they can formulate abstract general laws. These laws
are then seen as the governing agents of the phenomena of the field
under study. One outcoem of this approach is the reduction of living
reality with all its richenss of detail to abstract schemas. The
roperties ofhte iving whole are lost, which provoked Goethe to pen,
'Gray is eery theory, but ever green is the tree of life."
"Romantic scholars traits, attitudes and strategies are just the
opposite. They do not follow the path of reductionism, which is the
leading philosophy of the classical group. Romantics in science want
neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to
represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that
lose the properties of the phenomena themselves. It is of the utmost
importance to romantics to preserve the wealth of living reality, and
they aspire to a science that retains this richness."
Don't you think that sounds like a thumbnail of Vygotsky?
On p. 175 he says "One of the major factors that drew me to Vygotsky
was his emphasis on the necessity to resolve (sic) this crisis",
meaning the crisis brought about by the split between classical and
romantic tendencies. He then describes the rise of wave after wave of
reductionism in psychology in the twentieth century.
David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
On 18 March 2014 12:14, mike cole wrote:
> David-- Where did luria say that Vygotsky was engaged in Romantic Science.
> I missed it!
> mike
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
>> Larry:
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I'd like to pick up a strand of
>> our thread that nobody else has touched. It's the idea that part of
>> the trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological element of Vygotskyan
>> theory lies in his early work on esthetics, and specifically on
>> Hamlet.
>>
>> I have always resisted the Lurian characterization of Vygotsky as a
>> romantic scientist, because I think he was, as Nadezhda Mandelstam
>> said and as Bakhurst confirmed (in his piece on "Vygotsky's Demons" in
>> the Cambridge Companion), a defender of Enlightenment ideas AGAINST
>> the Romantic counter-revolution of the nineteenth century. When I read
>> Vygotsky on Hamlet, I can see that he has completely rejected the
>> nineteenth century idea of Hamlet as romantic hero--that is, an
>> inspired individual hero among lesser breeds without the law. Hamlet's
>> depressed, not inspired. He's divided, not individual. And the others
>> in the play actually perceive Hamlet more accurately than he perceives
>> himself; Hamlet simply cannot feel the weight of his own body, nor is
>> he sufficiently aware of his own awareness to be able to distinguish
>> it from the way things are.
>>
>> But I recently read a lot about Gordon Craig and Konstantin
>> Stanislavski's 1912 Moscow production of Hamlet. Whether he saw it or
>> not (and there is some debate on this point), it had a huge influence
>> on the way that Vygotsky read Hamlet (we know that Vygotsky saw the
>> revival of the 1912 production and that he disapproved of it).
>> Perversely true to the play text, Craig's and Stanislavski's version
>> was a completely divided production that almost fell apart before
>> opening night: Craig saw the play as monodrama (that is, everybody in
>> the play except Hamlet himself is a "ghost" in the mind of Hamlet).
>> Stanislavski, of course, insisted on a historical drama of real people
>> whose motivations were all too human; Hamlet was simply a man amongst
>> men.
>>
>> You can see that all of Kozulin's planes are present and accounted
>> for. Stanislavski, the social realist, accounts for the way in which
>> Vygotsky made sense to his contemporaries. Craig is much closer to the
>> way we interpret Vygotsky today: a way of making sense of individual
>> psychology, alongside the work of Freud, Piaget, and others. And the
>> third, trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological plane? Well, I think
>> that is yet another plane that has gone missing. But when we find, I
>> am sure that we will see that Vygotsky himself is safe and sound on
>> board.
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 March 2014 06:17, Larry Purss wrote:
>> > Mike,
>> > thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public
>> intellectual.
>> > Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in
>> > their publications.
>> > I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago
>> [Vygotsky's
>> > Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
>> >
>> > Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in
>> > Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
>> > The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by
>> his
>> > contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
>> > The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West
>> > in the 1960's .
>> > In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky
>> > scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's.
>> What
>> > in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social
>> mediation,
>> > and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic
>> > approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new
>> > question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND
>> cultural
>> > mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
>> >
>> > Alex writes:
>> > "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a
>> new
>> > light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget
>> comes
>> > the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative
>> > action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's
>> contribution
>> > TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND
>> > traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the
>> > humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
>> >
>> > I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years
>> > later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In
>> > particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored
>> > in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of
>> > Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a
>> > young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the
>> deep
>> > questions of life and existence.
>> >
>> > How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
>> > The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the
>> audience
>> > for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the
>> > role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions
>> and
>> > Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of
>> > Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary
>> > discourse.
>> > Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic
>> > studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography
>> of
>> > Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to
>> Vygotsky's
>> > later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and
>> > tragedy?
>> > Larry
>>
From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Mar 17 22:31:01 2014
From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:31:01 +0900
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Yes, but the comment that Vygotsky could only have been written within
a particular historical epoch always seems trite, banal, and therefore
basically wrong to me. It is, of course, objectively true that every
historical moment is different from every other historical moment, if
only by virtue of the fact that the other historical moments precede
it and each historical moment therefore includes their trace. It is
also true that if you try to write like Vygotsky in our own day people
will laugh (Martin once accused me of trying, and in my defense I had
to plead, naively, that I thought that's what a translator did).
Professor Glick says, in his preface to the History of the Development
of the Higher Mental Functions in Volume Four of the Collected Works,
that Vygotsky really has TWO salient characteristics which rather
contradict each other. One is that he is intensely engaged in
virtually all of the major psychological and even philosophical
disputes of his time--very frustrating for the translator because it
mires you in footnotes, but of really an essential part of Vygotsky
the public intellectual. The other, which I think is really more
important, is that he always manages to seem like his writing about
YOUR time as well as his own.
Marx remarks that the thing we need to explain about the ancient
Greeks is not what they meant to themselves; they didn't even know
that they were ANCIENT Greeks. What we really need to explain is why
they still mean anything to us today at all. But that's my wife's
job--she's teaching World Lit these days, and they have to spend weeks
and weeks getting Odysseus home to Ithaca.
David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
On 18 March 2014 12:58, Larry Purss wrote:
> David,
> I often feel *in over my head* in these conversations
> without enough background to comment.
> However, I will comment on what I found intriquing in Kozulin's commentary
> on Vygotsky's exploration of art and Hamlet and the *mythological*
> trans-disciplinary theme of tragedy
> Kozulin's *reading* of Vygotsky's early work on esthetics and tragedy shows
> Vygotsky engaged with similar themes which were emerging in Marburg with
> Heidegger and Gadamer at this same time. [the 1920's &30's].
>
> Chapter one and two of Kozulin's book bring to awareness that Vygotsky was
> deeply immersed in exploring this *mythological realm* questioning the
> supra-psychological aspect BEYOND the merely subjective.
> Kozulin shows that the book Doctor Zhivago was also a genre of writing
> exploring the way we are *called* and that there are *forces* calling
> BEYOND the personal which however are historical. Kozulin for example says
> neither Doctor Zhivago or Vygotsky's writings [which Kozulin reads as
> sharing a family resemblance] could have been written in any other
> epoch except within this historical epoch. THIS is because of the shared
> questions which they were attempting to answer
> THIS *3rd plane* which Kozulin is *illuminating* [his book is developing
> this theme] is pointing to this trans-disciplinary supra-psychological [but
> effected within history] reality.
>
> David, I hope Alex Kozulin will respond and share his current reflections
> on your question. I was amazed how deeply Vygotsky as a young man could
> engage with these themes and I came away with a new appreciation for the
> vitality and depth of engagement Vygotsky *incarnated* in his writings at
> this *liminal* time in his own development within this historical epoch.
>
> As I say, I am in over my head, but through these *canonical* texts the
> notion of the *romantic* AND the *supra-psychological* in DIALOGUE seems to
> me the way to play with these themes.
>
> Everybody except Hamlet AS *ghosts* brings in the awareness of a
> realm BEYOND the personal which is expressed THROUGH the personal.
>
> David, I don't have answers but I find these questions have a vitality
> which I sense Kozulin was expressing in his book.
>
> Larry
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
>> Larry:
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I'd like to pick up a strand of
>> our thread that nobody else has touched. It's the idea that part of
>> the trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological element of Vygotskyan
>> theory lies in his early work on esthetics, and specifically on
>> Hamlet.
>>
>> I have always resisted the Lurian characterization of Vygotsky as a
>> romantic scientist, because I think he was, as Nadezhda Mandelstam
>> said and as Bakhurst confirmed (in his piece on "Vygotsky's Demons" in
>> the Cambridge Companion), a defender of Enlightenment ideas AGAINST
>> the Romantic counter-revolution of the nineteenth century. When I read
>> Vygotsky on Hamlet, I can see that he has completely rejected the
>> nineteenth century idea of Hamlet as romantic hero--that is, an
>> inspired individual hero among lesser breeds without the law. Hamlet's
>> depressed, not inspired. He's divided, not individual. And the others
>> in the play actually perceive Hamlet more accurately than he perceives
>> himself; Hamlet simply cannot feel the weight of his own body, nor is
>> he sufficiently aware of his own awareness to be able to distinguish
>> it from the way things are.
>>
>> But I recently read a lot about Gordon Craig and Konstantin
>> Stanislavski's 1912 Moscow production of Hamlet. Whether he saw it or
>> not (and there is some debate on this point), it had a huge influence
>> on the way that Vygotsky read Hamlet (we know that Vygotsky saw the
>> revival of the 1912 production and that he disapproved of it).
>> Perversely true to the play text, Craig's and Stanislavski's version
>> was a completely divided production that almost fell apart before
>> opening night: Craig saw the play as monodrama (that is, everybody in
>> the play except Hamlet himself is a "ghost" in the mind of Hamlet).
>> Stanislavski, of course, insisted on a historical drama of real people
>> whose motivations were all too human; Hamlet was simply a man amongst
>> men.
>>
>> You can see that all of Kozulin's planes are present and accounted
>> for. Stanislavski, the social realist, accounts for the way in which
>> Vygotsky made sense to his contemporaries. Craig is much closer to the
>> way we interpret Vygotsky today: a way of making sense of individual
>> psychology, alongside the work of Freud, Piaget, and others. And the
>> third, trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological plane? Well, I think
>> that is yet another plane that has gone missing. But when we find, I
>> am sure that we will see that Vygotsky himself is safe and sound on
>> board.
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 March 2014 06:17, Larry Purss wrote:
>> > Mike,
>> > thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a public
>> intellectual.
>> > Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars *address* in
>> > their publications.
>> > I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years ago
>> [Vygotsky's
>> > Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
>> >
>> > Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing three trends in
>> > Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
>> > The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's theory by
>> his
>> > contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
>> > The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's theory in the West
>> > in the 1960's .
>> > In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of Vygotsky
>> > scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of the 1920's.
>> What
>> > in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of social
>> mediation,
>> > and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the individualistic
>> > approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a radically new
>> > question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory social AND
>> cultural
>> > mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
>> >
>> > Alex writes:
>> > "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now being seen in a
>> new
>> > light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists and Piaget
>> comes
>> > the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of communicative
>> > action. In an even broader sense, what looked like Vygotsky's
>> contribution
>> > TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at least BEYOND
>> > traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies BASED on the
>> > humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
>> >
>> > I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue seems to others 25 years
>> > later, but I found the themes in this book very current and relevant. In
>> > particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic writings explored
>> > in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on the theme of
>> > Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet. These works were written by a
>> > young public scholar developing his identity through engaging in the
>> deep
>> > questions of life and existence.
>> >
>> > How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
>> > The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to be the
>> audience
>> > for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the question of the
>> > role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic questions
>> and
>> > Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to the concept of
>> > Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic disciplinary
>> > discourse.
>> > Will the university as an institution remain a place for these humanistic
>> > studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in his biography
>> of
>> > Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How central to
>> Vygotsky's
>> > later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on art and
>> > tragedy?
>> > Larry
>>
From lchcmike@gmail.com Tue Mar 18 05:59:54 2014
From: lchcmike@gmail.com (mike cole)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 05:59:54 -0700
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding
In-Reply-To:
References: