[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Videos on perezhivanie from Nikolai Veresov
- To: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Videos on perezhivanie from Nikolai Veresov
- From: Lplarry <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 07:37:21 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date:importance :thread-topic:in-reply-to:references; bh=HCt+7X0ICvJ//FoQV5h6jR4AuP3O/AQC/Qfh1QT0l+A=; b=M0nISBTgCVxrSXVQufcabbXly9aIWTeAGQqxN7meBTUeqK0JavB5G+JYrUxSeqZStU Yq+MnyDDsEkCzijZeM++wcawPy2TBvsAtMuoFQ4twGpqKMTvWm0fAi1dHPegRUbdeNYX hLEaI8jqBvp9We9EAqHCBPa3/9BmEZtECwqoq+Bksjf7++AeRkCXEw7JxpiOpuyvt4h/ mySdDbNBjPQ+wyYdmK7ahQ12B7/xU1GZUKSX3nKYnXxzduriGm9+rM4/0NOQo0mQv/0H muwfjEYMHC8E4TlGBJPI3aI9Ren14U2lRPTpoWkKc/Ar2IOFew9J9TqP+FDfa5uhEvO9 A5Pw==
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <DB4PR03MB0832BDB9E71EE412A408837A87750@DB4PR03MB0832.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: <email@example.com>
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] Videos on perezhivanie from Nikolai Veresov
Nikolai Veresov makes a central point that perezhivanie is not *social situation* but is rather social situation (of) *development*.
As such perezhivanie is a *unit* and not a *unity*. Perezhivanie has two aspects.
Point 1 indicates perezhivanie as verb/process involving think/ing and as such is *phenomenological, which focusses attentional humaning on becoming (travelling beyond repetition and representation and description as aspects of *aboutness*.
The key notion (of development) as not yet but potentially or possibly corresponding within the drama of the social situation.
Point 2 indicates perezhivanie as being (accomplished) (implies attention is not becoming) and indicates noun/content.
This is the content of human *being* that requires humaning to come into this place (of develop). What has previously come into ek-sistence and is now reflected upon concerning this refractive emerging phenomena (of development). Thinking becoming thought.
Nikolai’s presentation of prezhivanie hinges on being clear that it is not the *social situation* that is the focus of attentional *mitsein* but rather the social situation *of* development.
Now (of) generates specific notions but these notions involve a double genitive.
*of* as *aboutness* (within this relation of) what is meant is that the social situation of development addresses or tells us *about*the way social situation develops development as content
*of* as constitutive (within this way of).
What is meant by (social situation of development) is development as phenomenal as that which is coming into ek-sistence within the social situation. Development as not yet but potentially emerging (dis/closing) within the social situation.
I hear Nikolai Veresov and Ingold and Gadamer playing in the same sand box and an affinity between their ex/plorations.
I hope this is not too cryptic. It is the melodic sound I hear within perezhivanie, humaning, and mitsein.
Sent from my Windows 10 phone
Sent: May 15, 2016 5:55 AM
To: Rod Parker-Rees; firstname.lastname@example.org; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Videos on perezhivanie from Nikolai Veresov
I want to continue with your insight of the ways perezhivanie, Tim’s *human being is humaning* and Gadamer’s notion of *mitsein* seem to be mutually con(current) ways of moving or orienting or approaching this theme of freeze framing *aboutness* that is an (abstracting) from our corresponding ways of moving together. (verbing).
Tim being explicit that ethno/graphic doings are abstracting movements writing afterwards *about* what first must unfold and be disclosed through our humaning.
I will offer a comment from Frederick Olafson on this concurrent theme.
“It is still not as widely understood as it should be how closely the claim of the natural sciences to be *the theory of everything* is bound up with the validity of the operation that was performed on the concept of the world by philosophers in the seventeenth century, and that has been, since that time, vigorously espoused by natural scientists themselves. This was the creation of the subjective/objective contrast and with it, of the mind as the receptable for mere appearance -that is, for everything that did not lend itself to the methods of inquiry of those sciences. Without the initial act of *abstraction* from *the world as we know it* and the availability of the mind as an *alibi*, an *elsewhere* for all the subjective debris that had been denied a place in the order of nature, the claim of the natural sciences to be *the* complete and authoritative account of what there is would seem feeble indeed.”
The theme of humaning (as verb) as what human beings (human becomings) *do* within the world prior to our writing and abstracting and offering accounts *about* this *doing* is worth ex/ploring.
Greg’s question if it is possible to graphically compose in a humaning way is an open question. Maybe they are distinct processes but are mutually and reciprocally necessary movements?
Perezhevanie, humaning, and mitsein, share an affinity.
Sent from my Windows 10 phone
From: Rod Parker-Rees
Sent: May 14, 2016 9:50 AM
To: email@example.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Videos on perezhivanie from Nikolai Veresov
Thanks for this, Andy.
Nikolai’s emphasis on the distinction between P1 (the phenomenon of perezhivanie as a psychological process) and P2 (the abstract concept of perezhivanie as part of a theory) resonates, for me, with Ingold’s emphasis on doing – ‘human’, ‘thought’, ‘activity’ and ‘experience’ are convenient fictions which allow us to stop the continuous flow of humaning, thinking, acting or experiencing so that we can think ABOUT them. I picture this as being like those moments in films (I think first in ‘The Matrix’) when the action is paused as we move around within it, looking at it from various angles. Like a statue or model, the noun allows us to consider a process or event from different angles but the convenience of freezing the movement comes at a cost. There is a risk that we can forget that a human is only a human when it is humaning, an activity is only an activity when it is being enacted, etc.
The way the social situation of development is ‘refracted’ through a particular child’s perezhivanie seems to me to be like the way the environment is ‘understood’ and understanding is etymologically close to ‘standing among’. Being and acting within a social situation of development shapes (develops) the prism through which the social situation of development will shape development.
All the best,
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: 14 May 2016 13:56
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Videos on perezhivanie from Nikolai Veresov
Here are links to Nickolai Veresov's keynote speech on Perezhivanie on Symposium at ISCAR in Sydney.
Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory: The Concept and is content.
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.