[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] about emotions
Hi Jay
I want to take another stab at emotions from another discourse (not
relational psychoanalysi) but rather symbolic interactionism (pragmatism)
and the contrasting approaches to emotion between George Herbert Mead and
Charles Horton Cooley.
I've just finished reading a fascinating article by Glenn Jacobs titled
"Influence and Canonical Supremacy: An Analysis of How George Herbert Mead
Demoted Charles Horton Cooley in the Sociological Canon" published in The
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Volume 45(2), pages
117-144 Spring,2009
Jacobs' article points out that the contrasting discursive styles of Mead's
and Cooley's writings was instrumental in Mead being seen as the founding
father of symbolic interactionism and Cooley becoming just a footnote.
Jacobs believes Cooley's writing was expressed in a literary essayist style
while Mead's theories were articulated in a more social scientific style of
discourse.
Following is an extended summary of some of Jacobs major points of the
consequences of these different styles or ways of knowing. Remember these
scholars were writing at the turn of the last century into the 1920's so
their vocabulary may be dated but the themes they discuss seem very
contemporary.
Cooley conceived the social in a LITERARY sense, as a matter of SHIFTING
PERSPECTIVES to understand social phenomena on three scalar levels
(micro=self) (meso=primary group) (macro=institutions) Society and the
individual are "simply collective and distributive aspects of the same
thing" the difference between them being "rather in our point of view than
in the object we are looking at" (cooley, 1922) "SElf and society go
together, as phases of a common whole. For Cooley communication was
foundational as he states "public opinion is no mere aggregate of separate
individual judgements, but an organization, a cooperative product of
communication and reciprocal influence." Its unity "is not one of identity,
but of life and action" (Cooley 1909)
Jacobs points out the reason Cooley's ideas were not given the status of
Mead's ideas were because he PLACED FEELING AT THE CENTER of social
processes and the formation of the self (in contrast to Mead's more
logocentric perspective which focused on the VERBAL gesture)
Cooley conceived of the intellectual process and the work of science and
WRITING in a very different way than Mead. For Cooley human intelligence is
DRAMATIC AND SCENARIC, meeting difficulties through the formulation of fresh
lines of action. "It is, then, essentially a kind of foresight, a mental
reaction that anticipates the operation of forces at work and is prepared in
advance to adjust to them" Intelligence is "inseparably bound up with
communication and discussion" (Cooley, 1918) For Cooley intelligence is
DRAMATIC in character and is required to forecast how they will react to one
another and how the situation will work out. Cooley wrote "the literary
drama, including fiction and whatever other forms have a dramatic character,
may be regarded as INTELLIGENCE striving to interpret the social process BY
ART." (1918)
However Cooley's analyzing social process as METAPHORICALLY weaving the
process into a DRAMATURGICAL - SYMPATHETIC conception of the operation of
intelligence in action was a discursive position that was not well received
in the 1920's when positivist science models of social process were gaining
status in academic departments. Mead's discursive style, laced with the the
rhetoric of science dimissed Cooley's literary discursive style and its
rhetorical expression as MERE SOCIAL COMMENTARY
As Jacobs points out if we interpret writing as behavior, we can also
interpret writing STYLE as a kind of cultural form and writers as BOTH
CREATORS AND INSTRUMENTS OF this cultural form. However style may determine
the inclusion or exclusion of a writer within a disciplinary canon. In a
sense as Jacob's article elaborates Cooley's open avowal of a literary style
"could be interpreted as inviting the criticism of fellow social scientists"
(p.132) who in the 1920'2 were staking out disciplinary discourses which
privleged objective data analysis. Cooley's sociology, his writing style,
and his intellectual self-concept derived in great measure from a different
intellectual context which emraced the literary essay style. Jacob's
elaborates in his article how the essay TRADITION stresses the CENTRALITY of
the CONVERSING subject, an autobiographical approach, and a DIALOGIC or
INTERTEXTUAL focus on the importance of the impact of the reader and other
texts on the writer and the written product. This reframe of the writing
process points to recognition of STYLE AS PERSON (Jacobs, quoting Green
p132) Green, in discussing Cooley's writing style points out that for Cooley
"a text is an emergent organization of meanings, within which nothing is
FIXED and where origin is absent" (Green, 1988,quoted in Jacobs, p.132)
>From this literary standpoint Cooley would be a voice in the wilderness of
positivist science discourse.
Both Mead and Cooley discuss "taking the role of the other" but Cooley
discribed this human capacity of taking the perspective of the other as a
process of SYMPATHY, the FOUNDATIONAL element in his construction of the
"looking glass self. For Cooley the self is founded on the human species
RECEPTIVITY OF FEELING and the SYMPATHETIC CAPACITY to register or perceive
the FEELINGS OF OTHERS toward oneself, which entails a REFLECTIVE PROCESS
which results in SELF- FEELING Cooley's looking glass self integrates
FEELING into the process matrix of self-formation within the larger context
of COMMUNICATION. For COOLEY person's are SENTIMENTALLY GROUNDED SYMBOLS.
Sentiment and imagination are generated in the life of communication, having
no separate existence except in OUR FORMS OF SPEECH (Cooley, 1922) "The
thing that moves us to pride or shame, is not the mere mechanical reflection
of ourselves, but an imputed SENTIMENT, the imagined judgement, which is
quite ESSENTIAL.
Jay it seems to me this debate about the role of emotions, which was debated
between Cooley and Mead seems quite current to our continuing discussion.
What is fascinating to me is how talk od "sympathy" and "sentiment" and
"feeling" and "emotion" are not given the same status and validation in many
of the social science dicourses that they seem to merit.
Feminist discourse is another discursive tradition that has a lot to say
about this topic.
Leaves me wondering and curious.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Lemke" <jaylemke@umich.edu>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
So, would we begin with the simple contradiction: emotion is society's
principal support? (vs. "nemesis"?)
Reasonable on the grounds that "fellow-feeling" or primary sociality,
our empathic bond to our fellow humans, is what counters any notion
that the "state of nature" is ONLY "red in tooth, claw, and nail". We
do not begin from a war of all against all, but from family ties, and
cultural extensions of kinship feelings to notional kin, and loyalties
and identifications with larger groups and with lineages, clans,
moieties, age cohorts, initiation cohorts, totemic subgroups, etc. etc.
Without fellow-feeling, no society. Can the same be said as
convincingly of reason? Do we imagine that social systems cohere
because we rationally recognize our advantage from them? And that that
bond is strong enough to stand the test of conflict? That we would
sacrifice our lives to defend others solely out of rational
calculation? I doubt it. It seems clearly that sociality is rooted in
feeling.
Or, rather, in the unity and functional integration of kinds of
meaning making (e.g. to determine culturally who is in-group and who
is out-group) and kinds of feeling (loyalty, love, and alas their
opposites).
Emotions may be the nemesis of abstract and arbitrary, perhaps even
ideologically suspect, social ties. The "rational" grounds of the
capitalist nation-state, and its efforts to recruit loyalty
emotionally (songs, flags, rhetoric) seem rather easily interrupted by
the emotions of anger and resentment and the feeling of righteous
wrath against the oppressor, not just of myself, but also of others,
that leads to revolution, or at least to throwing a brick or two.
So I hope I am being a bit dialectical here in seeing even the sense
in which emotions ARE the nemesis of society as also and more
fundamentally being the same sense in which they ground the very
possibility of society.
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
Visiting Scholar
Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
University of California -- San Diego
La Jolla, CA
USA 92093
On Nov 28, 2009, at 7:48 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> I would like to point out that when I suggested that emotion
> appeared to be
> societies nemesis I did not bring in the dialectic but rather used
> the word
> dichotomy. Dichotomy does bring out the notion of either/or where
> dialectic is rather a wholeness a both sidedness within the same
> 'gestalt' (for lack of a better word). I believe in the dialectic and
> would like someone to stage this aspect of emotions in the form of the
> dialectic. Does this make sense?
>
> much thanks and turkey gravy
> eric
>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cc:
> bcc:
> Subject: RE: [xmca] about emotions
> Achilles Delari Junior <achilles_delari@hotmail.com>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 11/28/2009 10:28 AM GMT
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <font
> size=-1></font>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, now, compare the two contexts
>
> 1926 - Fighting against general dualistic view in old psycholoy
>
> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
> every point nourished and permeated by these
> interdependences. NOT FOR A SINGLE MILLISECOND,
> PSYCHOLOGY TO MEASURE THE EXACT DURATION OF MENTAL
> PROCESSES, IS IT ISOLATED AND SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE
> WORLD ANDA THE OTHER ORGANIC PROCESS. Who claimsand studies
> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
>
>
> 1931-33 - Fighting against specific dualistic view in theory of
> emotions
> Chabrier completely justifiably refers to the fact that a feeling of
> hunger, usually
> considered in the group of lower bodily feelings in civilized man, is
> already a
> fine feeling from the point of view of the nomenclature of James,
> that the
> simple
> need of food can acquire a religious sense when it leads to the
> appearance
> of a
> symbolic rite of mystical communication between man and God. And
> conversely,
> a religious feeling, usually considered as a purely spiritual
> emotion, in
> pious cannibals
> bringing human sacrifices to the gods, can scarcely he referred to the
> group
> of higher emotions. Consequently, THERE IS NO EMOTION THAT BY NATURE
> WOULD
> BE
> INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY AND NOT CONNECTED WITH IT.Thank you for the
> English
> version. Where in English is "Psychology to measure" in Russian is
> "Psychologists"
> The Spanish is more correct - I don´t know about other mistakes.
>
> Achilles.
>
>> From: achilles_delari@hotmail.com
>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] about emotions
>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:04:36 +0000
>>
>>
>> Of course this view is a mistake, because this view do not consider
>> what he said after, that is that mind is not separate from organism.
>> He not only denying old psychology, he is making an affirmation
>> againt
>> it. The same affirmation that I quote.
>>
>> Achilles.
>>
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:53:47 +1100
>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
>>>
>>> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
>>> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
>>> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
>>> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
>>> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
>>> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
>>> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
>>> every point nourished and permeated by these
>>> interdependences. Not for a single millisecond, used by
>>> psychology to measure the exact duration of mental
>>> processes, is it isolated and separated from the rest of the
>>> world and the other organic processes. Who claimsand studies
>>> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
>>> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
>>> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
>>>
>>> LSW CW v. 3, p. 152-3.
>>>
>>> Reading this together with the preceding 3 sections, I take
>>> it that "traditional psychology" means introspective, or
>>> subjective psychology, and the view that introspection
>>> provides direct access to a distinct part of reality (soul,
>>> spiritual beings, something nonphysical, above matter).
>>> Vygotsky is saying that this view is mistaken.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
>>>> Please Andy,
>>>>
>>>> Please if you are with the text about Thonrdike,
>>>> The passage is in the part 2, paragraph 4th -
>>>> The paragraph immediately above has te following
>>>> reference (N. N. Langue, 1914, p 42)...
>>>>
>>>> "The psyche and any its delicates and complex mechanisms, is
>>>> inserted
>>>> in the general system of the human behavior, each one of its
> manifestations
>>>> is totally impregnated by this mutual relation. Do not appears
> isolated nor
>>>> separated from the rest of the world an from the process of
>>>> organism
> even
>>>> a millesinum of a second, that is the time that psychologists
> calculate to
>>>> the psychic process. Who sustains in their investigations the
> contrary, will
>>>> be studying an unreal configuration of the own intelligence,
>>>> chimeras
> in
>>>> the place of facts, terminologicals constructs in the places of
>>>> real
> authentic
>>>> facts"....
>>>>
>>>> He is discussing methodological problem of definition of the
> psyche... Just
>>>> trying to posing about what king of things psychologist want make
>>>> his
> questions.
>>>> And stating that a psyche without orgnism is not a real thing about
> what
>>>> make questions... because if you ask for something that doesn't
> exist, you
>>>> can find answers that can not exist too. Its what I understand
>>>> about
> that
>>>> formulation. And I guess that in "The teatching about emotions" the
> problem
>>>> is methodological too. Let me say, about the own conditions to you
> make a
>>>> good question related to emotions, at that time, and even in our
> time, I can
>>>> conclude...
>>>>
>>>> I will see a manner to type the Russian, for any adictional
>>>> checking
> about this
>>>> quoting. Because there are two problems:
>>>>
>>>> 1) How it was translated from Russian to Spanish.
>>>> 2) How, of course, I translate from Spanish to English... (this
>>>> very
> worse, of course)
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Andy. Again.
>>>> Sorry about my persistence.
>>>>
>>>> Achilles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:57:19 +1100
>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
>>>>>
>>>>> Achilles, I am looking at the English version in LSV CW v.3.
>>>>> I can't find the passage you quote, but I see on p. 155 that
>>>>> Vygotsky puts "other somatic reactions that form the basis
>>>>> of emotion" in the same category as "the first component of
>>>>> an organism's perception of this environmental influence."
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I don't think emotion has anything to do with
>>>>> instinct or higher vs lower mental functions. We perceive
>>>>> the reaction of our body and that affects our thinking and
>>>>> our whole process of perception, just like our vision does.
>>>>> Vygotsky compares it to inner speech actually. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that Vygotsky was trying to solve the problem of
>>>>>> dualism in theory of emotions. He worked with the principle
>>>>>> of "psychophysical unit" - the "main principle of Soviet
> psychology"
>>>>>> in the words from Rubinshtein. The difference between
>>>>>> the cognitive and the instinctive is not because the cognitive
>>>>>> have not physiological conditions, but the complexity of that
>>>>>> conditions and it mediated character... Vygotsky said that
>>>>>> "the psyche do not appears isolated from the world or from
>>>>>> the process form organism neither for a 0,001 second" (1926/1991
>>>>>> - Prólogo a la versión russa del libro de E. Thorndike
>>>>>> 'Principios
>>>>>> de enseñanza basados a la psicología - this is the Volume I
>>>>>> of the Works in Russian and Spanish, I don't remeber the number
>>>>>> in English, because they do not follow the Russian numeration).
>>>>>> You can see that psyche are not isolated from the organism and
>>>>>> not isolated from the world. In fact human beens are constituted
>>>>>> by the same substance that the world, we are not an "Impire
>>>>>> inside
>>>>>> the impire" - but to be the same substance do not means that we
>>>>>> are in the same way... the same "mode" - I Spinoza´s words.
>>>>>> Vygotsky fight against a dualistic approach to emotions. And to
>>>>>> him James is an "involuntary disciple of Descartes" because his
>>>>>> especial emphasis in cultural feelings as spiritual process. Much
>>>>>> common even today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only don't uderstand why you say that there is a problem that
>>>>>> I am trying to solve. If cognition have not material support what
>>>>>> kind of substance is cognition? This is not a problem, the
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>> is how to understand ideological, historical, conscious,
>>>>>> cultural,
>>>>>> constitution of human emotions in his/her whole personality
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> repeat a dualistic approach. I understand this problem is not
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> mine... this is a problem posed by Vygotsky himself. And I only
>>>>>> agree that is good question... I don't if Damasio already answer
> that.
>>>>>> Can you tell me who did?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Achilles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:56:10 +1100
>>>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you still need a distinction between a physiological
>>>>>>> reaction and a cognitive disposition, don't you, Achilles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the specific problem you are trying to solve?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jay,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you very much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something near to this distinction between feelings and
>>>>>>>> emotions
>>>>>>>> was posed by William James too, according Vygotsky, but James
>>>>>>>> saw this distinction in terms that these social dimension of
> affective
>>>>>>>> world, the higher feelings, have almost nothing related to
> biological,
>>>>>>>> physiological, material, body, conditions. And Vygotsky
> criticizes
>>>>>>>> this like a way of dualistic thinking - this dualism can be
> understood
>>>>>>>> as based in ideological motivations too: "the human is not an
> animal,
>>>>>>>> nor a material been, but a divine been, in his higher, superior
> feelings..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A distinction between feelings and emotions is present in
>>>>>>>> Damasio
> too
>>>>>>>> in neurofunctional terms... But Vygotsky proposed the
>>>>>>>> question of
>>>>>>>> a systemic inter-relationship in that the lower can turns
>>>>>>>> higher,
> and
>>>>>>>> vice versa... I don't know what we can thing about this... In
> this
>>>>>>>> case, distinction between feelings and emotions are useful, but
> if
>>>>>>>> we want to understand the entire human been, his/her whole
> personality,
>>>>>>>> the integration and inter-functional relations between feelings
> and
>>>>>>>> emotions turns relevant too, In my point of view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best wishes.
>>>>>>>> Achilles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: jaylemke@umich.edu
>>>>>>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:28:26 -0800
>>>>>>>>> CC:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am certainly one of those people interested in emotion, or
> feeling,
>>>>>>>>> or affect, or whatever we choose to make of the phenomenon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The topic seems to have historically accumulated a lot of
> ideological
>>>>>>>>> baggage. And while its expression may be more sophisticated
> today than
>>>>>>>>> in times past, there doesn't seem to be that much less of it
>>>>>>>>> (as
> for
>>>>>>>>> example in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy review
>>>>>>>>> noted
> by
>>>>>>>>> someone earlier).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Emotion tends to be seen as bad in our philosophical
>>>>>>>>> tradition.
> As the
>>>>>>>>> enemy of reason, the motor of self-deception, etc. It links us
> to the
>>>>>>>>> animals, to our "baser" nature, etc. A bit of this in the
>>>>>>>>> pagan
>>>>>>>>> tradition, a lot of it in christian asceticism, and tons of it
> in
>>>>>>>>> Enlightenment rationalism and its successors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Emotions are also associated with the unreliable feminine vs..
> the cool
>>>>>>>>> and collected masculine, with the passions of the mob vs. the
>>>>>>>>> thoughtful elite, with peasants, workers, and children, and
> pretty
>>>>>>>>> much every social category whose oppression needs some
> legitimation.
>>>>>>>>> Indeed one of the near universal legitimations of elite
>>>>>>>>> power is
> "we
>>>>>>>>> know what's good for you", not just because of what we know,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> because you can't be trusted to see your own best interests
> through
>>>>>>>>> the haze of your emotions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Useful as this is to elite interests, it combines further with
> the
>>>>>>>>> cult of individualism to make emotions a purely individual,
> mental,
>>>>>>>>> subjective matter. Non-material, non-social, non-cultural, and
>>>>>>>>> universal (the easier to apply the stigma of emotionality to
> non-
>>>>>>>>> European cultures). It is rather hard to crawl out of this pit
> of mud.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I've been trying to do for the last year or two. There
>>>>>>>>> would
> be too
>>>>>>>>> much to say for a short post on this list, but here are a few
> basic
>>>>>>>>> suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feeling is a broad enough category to get back to the
> phenomenology of
>>>>>>>>> affect/emotion, whereas "emotion" is too narrowly defined
>>>>>>>>> within
> the
>>>>>>>>> tradition of animal-like and universal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are a LOT of different feelings, and that is more
> important than
>>>>>>>>> efforts to identify some small number of basic emotions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many feelings are associated with evaluative judgments and
>>>>>>>>> this
> may be
>>>>>>>>> a key link to re-unify affective and cognitive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feelings do differ significantly across cultures, and are part
> of a
>>>>>>>>> larger system of meanings-and-feelings specific to a
>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't make meanings across any longer term process of
> reasoning
>>>>>>>>> without feelings and evaluative judgments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is likely that feelings have histories, both in cultures
>>>>>>>>> and
> in
>>>>>>>>> individuals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feelings are often reliable guides to survival, to adaptive
> action,
>>>>>>>>> and to finding ways to meet our needs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feelings are just as situated and distributed as are
>>>>>>>>> cognitions.
> And
>>>>>>>>> just as active and actively made and produced.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In short -- pretty much everything in our dominant tradition
> about
>>>>>>>>> emotions and feelings is exactly wrong -- and for the worst
> possible
>>>>>>>>> ideological-political reasons, I believe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JAY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jay Lemke
>>>>>>>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>>>>>>>>> Educational Studies
>>>>>>>>> University of Michigan
>>>>>>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>>>>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visiting Scholar
>>>>>>>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>>>>>>>>> University of California -- San Diego
>>>>>>>>> La Jolla, CA
>>>>>>>>> USA 92093
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 8:08 AM, mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With so much interest in achieving an integrated
>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> of
>>>>>>>>>> emotion,
>>>>>>>>>> cognition, and development, Achilles, your focus on this
>>>>>>>>>> topic
> is a
>>>>>>>>>> helpful
>>>>>>>>>> reminder of its continued importance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems like one of those many areas in psychological research
> where
>>>>>>>>>> we cannot
>>>>>>>>>> keep from murdering to dissect.
>>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e
>>>>>>>> muito
> mais. Conheça!
>>>>>>>>
>
http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> Agora a pressa é amiga da perfeição. Chegou o Windows 7. Conheça!
>>>>>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/brasil/windows7/default.html?WT.mc_id=1539_______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e muito
> mais. Conheça!
>>>>
>
http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e muito
>> mais..
> Conheça!
>>
>
http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Você já ama o Messenger? Conheça ainda mais sobre ele no Novo site de
> Windows Live.
>
http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
> 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