Re: [xmca] social memory

From: Mike Cole <lchcmike who-is-at gmail.com>
Date: Tue Jan 01 2008 - 10:24:11 PST

This same basic idea is the basis for Dewey's critique of the reflex arc
concept in his classic
1898 (?). No idea if he was drawing on Goethe, Hegel, or his own
intuitions. I'll try to check it
out.And of course, LSV also read Dewey.
mike

On Dec 31, 2007 11:23 PM, Ed Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

> Andy
>
> Thanks for this. I have read Goethe, but
> didn't realize that Vygotsky was taking this from
> Goethe (who, I suspect, is quoting John :-)).
> This adds an even nicer twist as, besides adding
> a hermeneutic layer, there is a sense in which
> Vygotsky is reading rather than quoting.
>
> Ed
>
> >I presume everyone talking about "Vygotsky's
> >quote" knows that it all comes from Goethe?
> >Apart form the Book of Gensis.
> >
> > 'Tis writ, "In the beginning was the Word!"
> > I paused, perlex'd, Who now will help afford?
> > I cannot the Word so highly prize;
> > I must translate it otherwise,
> > If by the spirit guided as I read.
> >
> > "In the beginning was the Sense"!" Take heed,
> > The import of this primal sentence weigh,
> > Lest thy too hasty pen be led astray!
> > Is force creative then of Sense the dower?
> > "In the beginning was the Power!"
> >
> > Thus should it stand: yet while the line I trace,
> > A something warns me. once more to efface,
> > The spirit aids! from anxious scruples freed,
> > I write, "In the beginning was the Deed!"
> >
> >Translation from the Dover edition (Im Anfang
> >war der Tat") Marx and Engels also take up the
> >theme, Bruno Bauer I think?? and even Bukharin
> >and Trotsky has their own twist on at more or
> >less the same time as Vygotsky was writing.
> >
> >Andy
> >At 01:01 AM 1/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Michael
> >>
> >> Thanks for this. Let me do some tasting. I
> >>hope you don't mind if I use my brand of
> >>ketchup :-) .
> >>
> >> Okay all of this seems to be in response to
> >>a question I asked Paul (and, by the way, Paul
> >>I am fine if you remember me as somehow looking
> >>over your shoulder :-) ). So let me try to get
> >>a very simplistic grip on the phenomena. Paul
> >>and I were in conversation. Due to some words
> >>he had written, I had responded in writing. Due
> >>to the words in my response, you had responded
> >>to my writing. And so forth. Given all this
> >>Vygotsky is clearly wrong. Neither the word or
> >>the deed is in the beginning. As James says it
> >>is turtles all the way down.
> >> Hmmm. Let me make a hermeneutic move.
> >>Perhaps I have misinterpreted all this. You
> >>quote Vygotsky as saying "In the beginning was
> >>the deed." This may be a purposeful 'misquote'
> >>of John's
> >>
> >>I. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
> >>was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The
> >>same was in the beginning with God. [3] All
> >>thus were made through him. Without him was not
> >>anything made that has been made.
> >>
> >>So perhaps a place to start is a taking
> >>seriously of this 'misquoting' by better
> >>understanding the original. Beginning in the
> >>English, Word seems to designate a 'him' on
> >>which, in a sense, the very existence of the
> >>world rests and a 'him' that is different from
> >>God, but so close to be God. In a sense,
> >>thinking about some things David Kellog has
> >>written (thanks David), perhaps the ultimate,
> >>in a sense, interaction. How does this reading
> >>stand up in the Greek (please note, for me, a
> >>reading and a translation are, in a sense,
> >>different). The first sentence is "En arch n
> >>ho logos, kai ho logos n pros ton theon, kai
> >>theos n ho logos" which roughly reads 'From
> >>the very first was the Wisdom-in-action of
> >>God.'
> >> So, perhaps, Vygotsky has nicely made the
> >>point here-contrary to the usual
> >>translation-that it is not that the
> >>word-as-rules (I am using David's wording here)
> >>is first. I would like to think that he might
> >>say that it is also not action-as-rules that is
> >>first, but the word-as-action (David's
> >>interaction seems, in a sense, to work here.
> >>Notice I have interchanged wisdom or word;
> >>however, I mean wisdom). This seems to fit into
> >>how I often read Vygotsky (and, for me, reading
> >>and quoting are, in a sense, different).
> >> This seems to begin to address the phenomena
> >>a bit better. My words to Paul aren't (pause
> >>here and take a breath) without my action with
> >>the send key. Pressing the send key without any
> >>words doesn't solve the problem. Somehow
> >>word-as-action creates the interaction.
> >>However, l disagree with both Vygotsky and
> >>myself as I make yet another hermeneutic move.
> >>I'll put it this way, 'In the beginning was.'
> >>Being in the world, existing in the world -
> >>wasing - is the beginning of development.
> >>Action and words seem to be derivative. Seems
> >>trivial doesn't it? Don't believe it. Of
> >>course, I could be wrong (and that's another
> >>hermeneutical move :-) ).
> >> What would Vygotsky say to all this. I like
> >>to think he would say, 'Interesting point. Have
> >>you thought about ..?' However, such
> >>speculations are, of course. not quoting. On
> >>the other hand, I am rather sure he would say,
> >>"Writing this stuff on New Year's Eve? Get a
> >>life."
> >>
> >>Ed
> >>
> >>>Hi Ed,
> >>>here is what Vygotsky (1986, p. 255) says:
> >>>
> >>>"In the beginning was the deed. The words was
> >>>not the beginning-action was there first; it
> >>>is the end of development, crowning the deed."
> >>>
> >>>Just some "food for thought."
> >>>
> >>>Michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 30-Dec-07, at 12:52 PM, Ed Wall wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Michael
> >>>
> >>> Do you mean the correct order is: "Thank
> >>>you in advance", why do people write? :-)
> >>>
> >>>Ed
> >>>
> >>>>On 30-Dec-07, at 12:21 PM, Ed Wall wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>A general question for you: Why do people write "Thank you in
> advance."?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Ed,
> >>>>you are reversing the question of praxis and
> >>>>theory, the former generally emerging prior
> >>>>to the latter. We may do things to achieve
> >>>>purposes, and then find reasons for doing
> >>>>them. Or this is how Marx saw it.
> >>>>Cheers,
> >>>>Michael
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>xmca mailing list
> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>xmca mailing list
> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>xmca mailing list
> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>tel
> >(H) +61 3 9380 9435, mobile 0409 358 651
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jan 1 10:25 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 13 2008 - 12:33:27 PST