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

[Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!



​David -- I am finding it very difficult to distinguish what Vygotsky wrote
what you are saying that Vygotsky is saying,  and what you are saying.

I read the phrase I quoted as coming from LSV not DK. And I went looking
for the Russian passage in your email to see if I interpreted the notion of
endowment the way Vygotsky did, only to find out it was you writing!!

Getting slow in my old age for sure.

mike





​

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tenaciously, Mike. The word "endowment" is a metaphor for something given,
> like the endowment of a university, or the patrimony of an investment fund.
> The child's biological endowment is given to the child by heredity and
> speech doesn't change that endowment. The most important part of
> the child's social endowment is, as Bronfenbrenner points out, largely
> unseen by the child: it's what Mommy and Daddy do for a living. That is not
> changed by the child's learning speech either.
>
> Vygotsky's a semiotician: not an environmentalist and he's also not a
> constructivist. The semiotic truth isn't in the middle; it's simultaneously
> beyond both extremes. It's beyond environmentalism because what the child
> obtains from the social and cultural environment is a semiotic and not
> simply an interpersonal one; it's the context of culture and the resources
> of the language system and not simply the immediate text and the immediate
> situation. It's beyond constructivism, because what the child construes in
> building up a grammar is not simply the meanings but the meaning
> potentials; not just seen paths for the taking but also the unseen ones not
> taken.
>
> That's why even the most social-behavioristic psychologists can
> underestimate the influence of the environment and even the most "childist"
> constructivists can understate the creativity involved; why people like
> Chomsky end up invoking biology and conversely people like Skinner end up
> invoking culture and environment to make up the deficit. Both assume that
> language has to be literally "acquired" or "built up" and cannot see a way
> to do this with finite materials. But the resources are not material at
> all; they are semiotic, and  "construction", like "endowment," is simply a
> metaphor we use to lend the weightlessness of word meaning a little mass.
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:01 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > You believe the following, David?
> >
> > Neither the biological nor the social endowment
> > of the child greatly changes in the acquisition of speech;
> > nevertheless,.....
> >
> > mike
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andy:
> > >
> > > A good paradox! Word meaning is a unit, but the spoken word itself is
> > just
> > > an element--a thing. We can see that this is, on the face of it,
> > > impossible: within a single holistic analysis, an element can be a part
> > of
> > > a unit, but a unit can never be a part of an element. So what you are
> > > referring to when you say that the word is a thing is the "sonic" or
> > > "phasal" quality of the word: its "acoustic" properties, its
> "phonetics".
> > >
> > > But not its phonology. The word that Vygotsky uses for "phoneme" refers
> > to
> > > the 1929 work of the Prague Circle, originally the Moscow Circle. He
> is a
> > > LITTLE coy about this, because the founders, Jakobson and Trubetskoy,
> > were
> > > not very popular with the authorities and Vygotsky already had plenty
> of
> > > heterodox acquaintances to worry about. Nevertheless, whenever Vygotsky
> > > says "phoneme", we know he really means what Jakobson and Trubetskoy
> > called
> > > "morphophonemes". We know this because the examples he actually
> > > gives--Russian case endings--are morpho-phonemes and not simply
> phonemes:
> > > so for example in English the sound /s/ is a simple phoneme when I say
> > the
> > > word "self" but if I say "Andy's" the sound /s/ is a morpho-phoneme: a
> > > difference in sounding that makes a difference in meaning. The system
> > (that
> > > is, the paradigmatic menu) of these differences in soundings are what
> the
> > > Moscow and Prague Circles called "phonology" (as OPPOSED to phonetics),
> > and
> > > this is the kind of "phoneme" that Vygotsky is really talking about.
> > >
> > > Still, you can see that it is not what he is talking about when he says
> > > word meaning, because these units are still nowhere near big enough to
> > > describe the kinds of changes which must occur when verbal thinking
> > > develops. I feel the same way about a lot of the examples offered of
> > > "perezhivanie", including Marc's. If MacDuff's grief or Carla's
> epiphany
> > > about the misbehavior of her kids being due to "outside influences"
> > really
> > > is the unit of personality and experience that Vygotsky wants us to use
> > > when we analyse the ontogenesis of personality, then it is no more
> > > appropriate than using the morpho-phoneme to analyse the whole of
> verbal
> > > thinking. Just as evolution (of species) requires very different units
> > from
> > > history (of classes), development, whether we are talking about verbal
> > > thinking or the personality as a whole, is going to require very
> > different
> > > units from learning, whether we are talking about MacDuff or Carla. The
> > > units must be able to develop; that is, the relationship of the
> elements
> > > within them must be susceptible to many changes over time.
> > >
> > > Let me give three examples of how this happens in different
> > "perezhivanie".
> > > They are not mine; they are Vygotsky's, and they are all from the
> > > Pedological Lectures.
> > >
> > > First, the Crisis at One. Neither the biological nor the social
> endowment
> > > of the child greatly changes in the acquisition of speech;
> nevertheless,
> > > the relationship between the personality and the environment, of which
> > > both personality moments and environmental ones are constituent
> elements,
> > > is entirely transformed. Here we are not talking about phonemes, or
> even
> > > morpho-phonemes: we are talking about "wordings"--whole utterances. In
> > > Melbourne I presented some data that demonstrated this beautifully--a
> > > child's first word is actually an attempt to imitate a whole
> > conversation.
> > >
> > > Second, the Crisis at Three. Vygotsky spends a lot of time discussing
> the
> > > "Seven Stars"--the symptoms of the "Terrible Twos" and "Threenagehood"
> > > noted by harried parents everywhere. But by the end of his analysis
> it's
> > > clear that what really happens is a new relationship between wish and
> > > will: in extreme cases, the child actually wishes for one thing (e.g.
> > > compromise) and wills the opposite (the everlasting "No!"). Again,
> > neither
> > > the personality moments as such nor the environmental ones change, but
> > > there is a separation and a sorting which allows the subordination of
> > wish
> > > to will that we see in play. This isn't the kind of "aha" moment that
> > Marc
> > > is offering us at all: Vygotsky actually calls it the "antipode" of
> > future
> > > will, because instead of enabling will it actually paralyzes it. But it
> > is
> > > indubitably a key moment in the development of the relation of
> > personality
> > > to environmental moments that we see in "perizhivanie".
> > >
> > > Thirdly, the Crisis at Seven. I think Gonzalez Rey makes a total hash
> of
> > > this, and I get very cross when I read his article. It is not true that
> > the
> > > essence of perizhivanie remained a mystery to Vygotsky simply because
> he
> > no
> > > longer subscribes to "the aesthetic reaction" and "catharsis" and other
> > > notions that he toyed with in Psych of Art (he's no longer doing
> > > experiments on changes in breathing rate when people read the works of
> > > Bunin either!). It might be true that he never offered a system of
> facts
> > > and methodological procedures for perezivanie, but that was only
> because
> > > one already existed, for example in the work of Wallon and Stern
> > > and others. It is demonstrably not true that when Vygotsky says that
> the
> > > speech environment of those around him does not change when the child
> > > learns to talk at one, he is not "profoundly contradictory with the
> > concept
> > > of sense": when you read the quotation in context, it is very clear
> that
> > > what he is referring to are the kinds of absolute indicators used by
> > > Zalkind: how often the parents read the newspapers, the dialect they
> > speak,
> > > and their educational background. These do not change, and if the child
> > > wants to make sense, these are the factors the child will have to
> relate
> > > to.
> > >
> > > Vygotsky gives the example of a child who is severely retarded. The
> child
> > > wants to play with other children and is rejected. The child walks down
> > the
> > > street and the other children follow, laughing. The child is shrieked
> at,
> > > insulted, but as soon as the humiliation stops, the child is perfectly
> > > happy with himself. Vygotsky points out that the child is not able
> > > to "co-generalize" the "perizhivanie" of the humiliations: each is
> > > unpleasant, but they are entirely separate and cannot be connected with
> > any
> > > internal sense of inferiority. A normal child, however, is able to
> > > "internalize" these humiliations and consequently develops a sense of
> > > inferiority. We can see that what has happened is the insertion of what
> > > Vygotsky calls an "intellectual" moment: an inner layer, which is what
> > > distinguishes later Chaplin movies from earlier ones (again, Vygotsky's
> > > example, not mine!) and what brings about the "loss of directness and
> > > naivete" that we see in pre-schoolers.
> > >
> > > I think that the reason people find "perizhivanie" so hard to work with
> > is
> > > the same reason that they find "word meaning" hard to work with: it
> > > develops. The feeling of drinking milk as the infant drinks it is
> > > perizhivanie, and the thought of being humiliated when you are mulling
> it
> > > over and contemplating revenge is also perizhivanie, and only a
> profound
> > > analysis which includes ontogenetic development and not just learning
> > will
> > > show the inner link between them. It's for that reason that I think
> that
> > > "activity" is not a useful unit of analysis and I am much more inclined
> > to
> > > use your word "project", so long as it can include what Vygotsky calls
> > > "inner activeness".
> > >
> > > Vygotsky says:
> > >
> > >
> > > Когда я размышляю, припоминаю и т. д., я имею дело с внутренней
> > > активностью, эта внутренняя деятельность психологических процессов
> > > непосредственно не связана с внешней деятельностью. Вот эта новая форма
> > > внутренней активности в школьном возрасте заключается в том, что, в то
> > > время как в дошкольном возрасте эти внутренние деятельности
> обнаруживают
> > > непосредственную связь с действием, внешней активностью, в школьном
> > > возрасте мы имеем относительно самостоятельно возникающие, относительно
> > > независимые внутренние активности по отношению к внешней деятельности.
> > Это
> > > уже ребенок, который может размышлять, в то время когда он делает или
> > видит
> > > что-нибудь, тот, у которого возникает дифференциация внешней и
> внутренней
> > > деятельности.
> > >
> > > When I think, remember, etc. I am dealing with inner activeness; this
> > > psychological process of inner activity is not directly linked to any
> > > external activity. The new form of inner activeness in the School Age
> > > consists of this: that while during the preschool years these inner
> > > activities demonstrated an immediate link with action, with external
> > > activeness, in the school years we have a relative autonomy which
> > emerges,
> > > inner activeness which is relatively independent of external
> activities.
> > > Here is already a child who can think, at the same time when he is
> doing
> > or
> > > seeing something, one in whom has emerged a differentiation of inner
> and
> > > outer activities.
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Macquarie University
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > David: "Are words really units?"
> > > >
> > > > Well, firstly, "units" is a *relative* term. That is, the question
> is:
> > > are
> > > > words units of something, some complex process subject to analysis.
> And
> > > > which?
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, according to Vygotsky, "no." The concept Vygotsky proposes
> > as a
> > > > unit is "word meaning" which he says is a unity of sound and meaning.
> > The
> > > > sound is an artefact, which, detached from its meaningful utterance
> in
> > a
> > > > transactional context is just a thing, viz., a word. Whereas "word
> > > meaning"
> > > > is an arrtefact-mediated action, a unit of human social activity.
> > > >
> > > > It is true that words can be countable or mass according to context,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > wasn't talking about words was I? I was talking about word meaning.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Andy Blunden
> > > > http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> decision-making
> > > > On 8/01/2017 7:59 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Are words really units? When we look at their ideational meaning
> (that
> > > is,
> > > >> their logical and experiential content--their capacity for
> > representing
> > > >> and
> > > >> linking together human experiences) they seem to fall into two very
> > > >> different categories: lexical words like "perezhivanie" or "sense"
> or
> > > >> "personality" of "individual" and grammatical words like "of", or
> > > "might",
> > > >> or "is". The lexical words seem to behave like units--they are
> > bounded,
> > > >> discrete, and, as Andy would say, "countable" (the problem is that
> > > almost
> > > >> all nouns are both countable and uncountable depending on the
> context
> > > you
> > > >> put them in, so this distinction is really not as essential as Andy
> > > seems
> > > >> to assume). But the more grammatical words seem to be elements of
> some
> > > >> larger unit, which we can call wording.
> > > >>
> > > >> Veresov and Fleer come up against this problem with "edintsvo" and
> > > >> "edintsa". Of course, as they say, the two words are distinct. But
> > this
> > > >> doesn't necessarily mean that the former always corresponds to
> "unity"
> > > in
> > > >> English and the latter is always "unit". If you look at the
> paragraph
> > > they
> > > >> translate on 330, you can see that Vygotsky starts with an idea that
> > is
> > > >> quite "synoptic" and is well expressed by "unit". But in the last
> > > sentence
> > > >> there is a sense that "perezhivanie" is a meta-stable unit--one that
> > > >> remains self-similar only through a process of thorough change,
> like a
> > > >> bicycle whose every part is replaced--and in English is it is better
> > to
> > > >> express this idea with "unity". The problem is that the differences
> > > >> between
> > > >> "edintsvo" and "edintsva" in Russian is a matter of gender (I think)
> > and
> > > >> not simply abstractness, and as a result the English version, which
> > > cannot
> > > >> use the resource of gender,has to rely on abstractness, so the words
> > > >> "unity" and "unit" are somewhat more distinct and less linked than
> > > >> "edintsvo" and "edintsva".
> > > >>
> > > >> There are other problems that are similar. When Gonzalez Rey uses
> the
> > > word
> > > >> "final moment" to refer to the final period of Vygotsky's thinking,
> he
> > > >> leaves the anglophone reader the impression that he is referring to
> > > >> Vygotsky's deathbed thoughts. On the other hand, when Veresov and
> > Fleer
> > > >> use
> > > >> "factor" to translate the same Russian word that Gonzalez Rey is
> > using,
> > > >> they are giving us something more quantitative than Vygotsky
> intended,
> > > and
> > > >> their translation of "dalee nerazloshim'im chastyami etava edinstva"
> > > >> into  "vital and further indivisible part of the whole" is quite
> > opaque
> > > in
> > > >> English (notice that here Veresov and Fleer use "whole" to translate
> > > >> "edinstva" rather than "unit"!) At some point you have to accept
> that
> > > you
> > > >> can change Russian words into English words as if you were
> exchanging
> > > >> rubles for dollars, but you still won't be able to buy a samovar at
> > > >> Walmart.
> > > >>
> > > >> David Kellogg
> > > >> Macquarie University
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Larry, all,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> our arguments in the 2014 address a science education literature in
> > > which
> > > >>> the constructivist perspective is the leading perspective; We note
> > that
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> assertion that people learn from experience is everywhere taken for
> > > >>> granted
> > > >>> but nowhere accounted for. We resort to pragmatist and
> > phenomenological
> > > >>> literature along with Vygotsky's insights to point out the need to
> > > >>> account
> > > >>> for learning as something that cannot be the result of an
> > individual's
> > > >>> construction; in experience there is always something in excess of
> > what
> > > >>> you
> > > >>> intended, and this is a basic feature of doing, of performing. I
> take
> > > >>> that
> > > >>> to be your "trans" in the trans/zhivanie word, Larry, which already
> > is
> > > >>> denoted in the word PERezhivanie.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But I do not wish to move our discussion too far away from Marc's
> > paper
> > > >>> and the Perezhivanie special issue. We also risk disengaging many
> > that
> > > >>> have
> > > >>> not have the privilege we've had to have the time to read so many
> > > >>> articles
> > > >>> in just few days into the new year. I think we are a point in the
> > > >>> discussion where a pretty clear point of agreement/disagreement,
> and
> > > >>> therefore of possibility for growth, has been reached with regard
> to
> > > the
> > > >>> view of perezhivanie as "an experience" and as the "working over
> > it". I
> > > >>> think that to allow as many as possible to follow, and hopefully
> also
> > > >>> engage, I think it will be helpful to bring the diverse
> perspectives
> > > and
> > > >>> theoretical accounts to matter in accounting for some actual
> > material.
> > > >>> And
> > > >>> there are a number of cases described in the articles, including
> > Marc's
> > > >>> case of a teacher, as well as everyday facts, such as those brought
> > by
> > > >>> Beth, and in Beth's article...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I take the task for myself too, but Saturday morning need to attend
> > to
> > > >>> other things!
> > > >>> A
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ________________________________________
> > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
> > edu
> > > >
> > > >>> on behalf of lpscholar2@gmail.com <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > > >>> Sent: 07 January 2017 18:26
> > > >>> To: Andy Blunden; Peter Smagorinsky; eXtended Mind, Culture,
> > Activity;
> > > >>> Larry Purss
> > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Andy, Peter, i hope the intention to move beyond politeness to
> > struggle
> > > >>> with this topic materializes.
> > > >>> In this vein i want to introduce exploration of the ‘excess’ of
> > actual
> > > >>> over intended meaning as he sketched his introduction to
> > ‘experience’.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Citing Dewey, Alfredo says that this excess of actual learning over
> > > >>> intended learning INCLUDES what Dewey refers to as ‘attitudes’ and
> > > these
> > > >>> ‘attitudes’ are FUNDAMENTALLY what count in the future.
> > > >>> Alfredo and Roth  then add this summary statement :
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There is therefore, a need to theorize experience in terms that do
> > not
> > > >>> assume control and rationality as the sine qua non of learning. It
> > also
> > > >>> implies a need to develop analytical accounts that retain the
> > > >>> ‘uncertainty’
> > > >>> that is an ‘integral part’ of human experience.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Where are Alfredo and Roth leading us with this sketch of
> experience?
> > > To
> > > >>> highlight ‘attitudes’ that occur in the excess of actual over
> > intended
> > > >>> learning? The word ‘attitudes’ generates images of (atmosphere) and
> > > >>> (moods)
> > > >>> that ‘flow’ like cascading waterfalls that can be imaged as (force)
> > or
> > > as
> > > >>> (receptive). Attitudes that flow to places where they are received
> > > >>> within a
> > > >>> certain attitude of care and concern. Not as forceful an image as
> > > moving
> > > >>> only  with control and rationality.  Describing ‘weaker’ thought
> that
> > > >>> remains uncertain but that also opens us to the other’s peril and
> > > plight.
> > > >>> Possibly a post-analytic motion that exceeds the intended by
> > > >>> living-through
> > > >>> the actual that develops ‘attitudes’ that are fundamentally what
> > count
> > > >>> for
> > > >>> the future.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From: Andy Blunden
> > > >>> Sent: January 7, 2017 5:00 AM
> > > >>> To: Peter Smagorinsky; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> OK Peter, what you say is all very true I am sure, but it
> > > >>> entails conflating activity and action (as mass nouns) and
> > > >>> context and mediation, and makes the required distinction
> > > >>> much like one could find multiple meanings for the word
> > > >>> "and" by listing the different phrases and clauses which can
> > > >>> be linked by "and."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Andy
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> Andy Blunden
> > > >>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > > >>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> > decision-making
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 7/01/2017 11:42 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Let me try to illustrate.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Reading as mediated action: The cultural-historical
> > > >>>> context of reading mediates how one’s attention and
> > > >>>> response are channeled in socially constructed ways. So,
> > > >>>> in one setting, say at home or reading in the company of
> > > >>>> friends, a novel might bring a reader to tears, or invite
> > > >>>> readers to share personal stories that parallel those of
> > > >>>> the plot lines, or laugh out loud. But another setting, a
> > > >>>> formal school or university class, would have historical
> > > >>>> values and practices that mute emotional and personal
> > > >>>> responses, and promote a more sober, analytic way of
> > > >>>> reading and talking that fits with specific historical
> > > >>>>   critical conventions and genres, and discourages others.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Reading as mediating action: The act of reading can be
> > > >>>> transformational. In reading about an talking about a
> > > >>>> character’s actions, a reader might reconsider a value
> > > >>>> system, become more sympathetic to real people who
> > > >>>> resemble oppressed characters, etc. In other words,
> > > >>>> reading a text may serve a mediational process in which
> > > >>>> textual ideas and exemplars enable a reader to think
> > > >>>> differently.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> *From:*Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
> > > >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:28 AM
> > > >>>> *To:* Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>; eXtended Mind,
> > > >>>> Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Can you explain in a paragraph or two,. Peter, rather than
> > > >>>> asking us all to read 10,000 words to extract an answer?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Andy
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Andy Blunden
> > > >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
> > > >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> > decision-making
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 7/01/2017 11:23 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      Andy and others, I tried to work out the mediated/mediating
> > > >>>> question
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> in the area of reading....see if this helps.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>      Smagorinsky, P., & O'Donnell-Allen, C. (1998). Reading as
> > > mediated
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> and mediating action: Composing meaning for literature through
> > > multimedia
> > > >>> interpretive texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 198-226.
> > Available
> > > >>> athttp://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/RRQ/RRQ1998.pdf
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>      -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>      <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>  [mailto:
> > > xmca-l-bounces@
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>      Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 7:12 PM
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      To:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      I have never understood this supposed distinction, Alfredo,
> > > between
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> "mediated activity" and "mediating activity" given that all
> activity
> > is
> > > >>> mediated and all activity mediates.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>      Also, could you spell out what you mean by the "tension"
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      between perezhivanie as meaning and perezhivanie as struggle.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      Andy
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      Andy Blunden
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      http://home.mira.net/~andy <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>      http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> decision-making
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>      On 5/01/2017 6:26 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          Thanks Marc for your careful response.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          I am familiar to Vygotsky's notion of cultural mediation
> > and
> > > I
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> am aware and acknowledge that it was elaborated as a means to
> > overcome
> > > >>> dualism, and that it is not analog to a computational approach.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          When I brought the computing analogy, I did so with
> regard
> > > not
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> to the concept of cultural mediation in general, but to the way it
> > can
> > > be
> > > >>> (and is) deployed analytically. I react to what it seems to me a
> > > >>> dichotomy
> > > >>> between a "meaning" as something that is static (thereby a form of
> > > >>> "representation" or reflection of the relation with the environment
> > > >>> instead
> > > >>> of​refraction)​​  and the experiencing-as-struggling, which is
> > > described
> > > >>> as​transformation or change. If so, mediation here would seem to be
> > > part
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> a methodological device that first dissects "a type of meaning"
> from
> > "a
> > > >>> type of activity" (or a given state from the process that changes
> > that
> > > >>> state), and then unites it by adding the term "mediation." And this
> > may
> > > >>> be
> > > >>> my misreading, but in that (mis)reading (which perhaps is mostly
> due
> > to
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> fact that in your empirical illustration only the initial and end
> > > >>> product,
> > > >>> i.e., perezhivanie, are described, but not the
> > > experiencing-as-struggle,
> > > >>> that is, the moving between the two), mediation here seems to do as
> > > >>> analytical concept precisely what you were afraid our monism was
> > doing:
> > > >>> explaining nothing. Only the end products but not the process of
> > > >>> producing
> > > >>> perezhivanie are revealed. This may be problematic if one attends
> to
> > > what
> > > >>> Veresov argues in the paper I shared yesterday, where he defends
> the
> > > >>> notion
> > > >>> of mediation but also specifies that Vygotsky speaks of *mediating
> > > >>> activity* (as opposed to *mediated* activity). That is, not
> mediation
> > > by
> > > >>> signs as products, but mediating activity as the activity of
> > producing
> > > >>> signs (which again is an activity of producing social relations,
> > > perhaps
> > > >>> what you refer as "holistic meanings"?). What do you think?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          I did not think you were trying to deny the influence of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Spinoza, and I do not think we ever said that Perezhivanie was
> > > primarily
> > > >>> a
> > > >>> move from Cartesian Dualism to Monism, as you suggest in your
> post. I
> > > >>> copy
> > > >>> and paste from my prior post:  "The fact is that Vygotsky was
> > building
> > > a
> > > >>> theory on the unity of the affect and the intellect that was to be
> > > >>> grounded
> > > >>> on Spinoza, and what we try to do is to explore how perezhivanie,
> as
> > a
> > > >>> concept being developed during the same period (but not finalised
> or
> > > >>> totally settled!), could be seen from the perspective of the
> > Spinozist
> > > >>> Vygotsky."
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          I totally believe that bringing the distinction between
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> perezhivanie as meaning, and perezhivanie as struggle, is totally
> > > >>> relevant,
> > > >>> and Beth Ferholt's vignettes of Where the Wild Things Are do indeed
> > > >>> illustrate this. We really need to address this tension, which as
> > > Beth's
> > > >>> examples and as our own everyday experience shows, is a tension
> that
> > > >>> matters not just to books and to theories but to living persons
> > > >>> (children,
> > > >>> teachers), a tension that moreover is present and mentioned in all
> > the
> > > >>> articles of the symposium. The papers offer different proposals,
> and
> > I
> > > >>> think is so great we have the chance to discuss them! I too, as
> you,
> > am
> > > >>> very interesting in hearing others about the questions you had
> > > concerning
> > > >>> sense and meaning.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          Alfredo
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>          <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>>>          <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>  on behalf of
> > Marc
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Clarà
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          <marc.clara@gmail.com> <mailto:marc.clara@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          Sent: 04 January 2017 22:31
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and Perezhivanie!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          Thank you very much, Alfredo, for sharing this excellent
> > > paper
> > > >>>> by
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          Veresov, and thanks also for your responses, which really
> > > >>>> helped
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> me to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          better understand your points. My main doubt about your
> > > >>>> proposal
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          was/is caused by the statement that the idea of cultural
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          mediation/mediator implies a cartesian dualism. This
> shocks
> > > me
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          because, to me, the idea of cultural mediation is
> > absolutely
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> crucial
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          (in fact, the keystone) for the construction of a monist
> > (and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          scientific) psychology that does not forget mind –that
> is,
> > a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> cultural
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          psychology. From your response, however, I realized that
> we
> > > may
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          approaching the idea of mediation in different ways. I
> talk
> > > of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          mediation and mediators in a quite restricted way. The
> > > starting
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> point
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          of my understanding of mediation is a dialectical
> > > relationship
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          (organic, transactional) between the subject and the
> world
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> (Vygotsky departs from the scheme stimulus-response, from
> > reflexology).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          This relationship, that Vygotsky calls primitive
> > > psychological
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          functions, would be basically biological. However, in
> human
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> beings
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          this relationship is mediated by cultural means: signs
> and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> tools; or
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          primary, secondary and terciary artifacts. These cultural
> > > means
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          reorganize the primitive functions (dialectic S-O
> > > >>>> relationship),
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> which
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          become then higher psychological functions (S-M-O) (see
> for
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> example,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          The problem of the cultural development of the child, in
> > The
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Vygotsky
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          Reader). Now, the subject, the cultural mediators, and
> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> object form
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          an inseparable dialectical unit, so that the subject acts
> > on
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          (transforms) the object through the prism of the cultural
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> mediators,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          the object acts on (transforms) the subject also through
> > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> prism of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          the cultural mediators, and the cultural means are
> > themselves
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> also
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          transformed as a consequence of their mediation in this
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> continuous
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          dynamic dialectical tension. Here, for me, it is
> important
> > > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> idea
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          that the cultural means are as material (if we assume a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> materialist
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          monism) as all the rest of the world; in fact, are parts
> of
> > > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          material world which become signs or tools (and can be
> > > >>>> therefore
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          socially distributed). This permits the introduction of
> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> scientific
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          study of mind-consciousness (as mediating systems of
> > signs),
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> because
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          mind is not anymore something immaterial and
> unobservable,
> > > but
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> it is
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          as material and observable as the rest of the natural
> > world.
> > > It
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> is
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          from this view that, for me, the idea of cultural
> mediation
> > > is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          keystone of a monist psychology that includes mind. Thus,
> > > when
> > > >>>> I
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> speak
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          of mediators, I refer to the cultural means which mediate
> > in
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> S-O
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          dialectics; I am especially interested in signs/secondary
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> artifacts.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          Here, it is perhaps necessary to insist that when I talk
> of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> studying
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          mediators (and their semantic structure), this doesn't
> mean
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> they
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          are taken out from the activity (the flux of live) in
> which
> > > >>>> they
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          mediate (since out of activity they are not signs
> anymore);
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> here, I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          think Vygotsky tries again to overcome another old
> > dichotomy,
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          functionalism-structuralism one. I hope that all this
> makes
> > > >>>> also
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> clear the difference between this view and that of computational
> > > >>> psychologies (which in general are profoundly and explicitly
> dualist
> > > and
> > > >>> not dialectic).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          Back to perezhivanie, I'm not obviously trying to deny
> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> influence
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          of Spinoza on Vygotsky's thinking (this is explicit in
> > > >>>> Vygotsky's
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          writings, especially in “The teaching about emotions”, in
> > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Vol.6 of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          the Collected Works). But I have doubts that Vygotsky's
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> introduction
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          of the concept of perezhivanie is to be regarded
> primarily
> > > as a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          movement towards monism (from a previous cartesian
> > dualism),
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          this movement questions the concept of cultural
> mediation.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Instead,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          and I think that this is in line with some of
> González-Rey
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          observations in his paper, my impression is that the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> introduction of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          the concept of perezhivanie responds more to a movement
> (a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> further
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          step) towards holism (something that, in my
> understanding,
> > > can
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> also be
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          found in Spinoza). Thus, I think that the word meaning is
> > > still
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          unit of analysis in the last Vygotsky -and therefore, the
> > > idea
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          cultural mediation is still crucial (in fact, in The
> > problem
> > > of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          environment, he connects the concept of perezhivanie,
> which
> > > has
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> just
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          introduced, to the development of word meaning
> [p.345-346,
> > > also
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> cited
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          in my paper]). However, in my view, in the last Vygotsky
> > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> focus is
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          not anymore primarily on the word-meaning as formed for
> > > things
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> (or
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          collections of things, as in the ontogenetic research
> with
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Sakharov), but the focus is now in the formation of meaning for
> > > holistic
> > > >>> situations.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>          Best regards,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          Marc.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>          2017-01-03 19:16 GMT+01:00 Alfredo Jornet Gil<
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Hi Marc, all,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              thanks for joining and for your interesting work,
> > which I
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> follow
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              since I became aware of it. I appreciate the way in
> > your
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> paper you
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              show careful and honest attention to the texts of the
> > > >>>> authors
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              involved, but perhaps most of all I appreciate that
> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> paper makes
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              the transformational dimension related to struggle
> and
> > > >>>> change
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              salient, a dimension all papers deemed central to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> perezhivanie. And I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              have learned more about Vasilyuk by reading your
> paper.
> > > But
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> I also
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              see that we have approached the question of
> > perezhivanie
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> differently
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              and I think that addressing the questions that you
> > raise
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> concerning
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              our article may be a good way to both respond and
> > discuss
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> your paper.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              I am aware that our use of the term monism may be
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> problematic to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              some, and N. Veresov, who has recently written about
> > this
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> (see
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              attached article), warns against the dangers of
> simply
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> moving from
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              dualism into an undifferentiating monism that
> > relativizes
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> everything,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              making development un-studiable. This seems to be the
> > way
> > > >>>> in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> which
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              you have understood our argument, and of course this
> is
> > > not
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> what we are or want to be doing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Probably many will think that *dialectical
> materialism*
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> rather than
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              monism is the proper term, and I could agree with
> them;
> > > we
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> do in fact
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              use dialectical materialism there and elsewhere. Yet,
> > we
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> wanted to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              emphasise the Spinozist influence (an influence that
> > also
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> runs
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              through Marx) and so we found it appropriate to use
> the
> > > >>>> term
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> monism,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              a term that Vygotsky uses before arguing that Spinoza
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> "develops an essentially materialistic view"
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              (Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 124). For us, the aim is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> working out
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              ways to empirically examine and formulate problems in
> > > ways
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> that do
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              not reify a mind-body dualism.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              Although overcoming dualism is foundational to the
> CHAT
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> paradigm, I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              would however not say that Vygotsky did get to solve
> > all
> > > of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              problems that Cartesian dualism had created for
> > > psychology,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> even
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              though he recognised those problems brilliantly as
> > early
> > > as
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> in the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              "Crisis". It should suffice to cite Vygotsky's own
> > > remarks,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> which we quote in the paper (and which A.N.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Leont'ev mentions in the introduction to the
> collected
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> works), where
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Vygotsky explicitly critiques some of his own prior
> > ideas
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> for failing
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              to overcome dualism. We agree with those who, like F.
> > G.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Rey, see
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Vygotsky's project as a developing rather than as a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> finalised one.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              The fact is that Vygotsky was building a theory on
> the
> > > >>>> unity
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> of the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              affect and the intellect that was to be grounded on
> > > >>>> Spinoza,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> and what
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              we try to do is to explore how perezhivanie, as a
> > concept
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> being
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              developed during the same period (but not finalised
> or
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> totally
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              settled!), could be seen from the perspective of the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Spinozist Vygotsky.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              As you note, in our article we argue that, if one
> takes
> > > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Spinozist
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              one-substance approach, classical concepts used in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> non-classical
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              psychology, at least in the way they are commonly
> used
> > in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the current
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              literature, should be revised. One such concept is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> mediation. And I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              personally do not have much of a problem when
> mediation
> > > is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> used to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              denote the fundamental fact that every thing exists
> > > always
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> through
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              *another*, never in and of itself. But I do think
> that
> > it
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              problematic to identify MEDIATORS, such as "a
> meaning",
> > > as
> > > >>>> a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> means to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              account for or explain developmental processes and
> > > learning
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> events,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              precisely because it is there, at least in my view,
> > that
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> dualism creeps in.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              For example, I find it paradoxical that you are
> > concerned
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> that our
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              monist approach risks turning perezhivanie into a
> > useless
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> category
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              because it may be used to explain everything and
> > nothing,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> and yet you
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              do not seem to have a problem using the term
> mediation
> > to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> account for
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              the transformation of perezhivanie without clearly
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> elaborating on how
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              mediation does change anything or what it looks like
> > as a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> real
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              process. How is it different saying that a
> perezhivanie
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> mediates the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              experiencing-as-struggle from simply saying that it
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> "affects" or
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              "determines" it? Indeed, if perezhivanie mediates
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              experiencing-as-struggle, does not
> > > >>>> experiencing-as-struglgle
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> too
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              mediate perezhivanie? And do not both may be said to
> > > >>>> mediate
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> development, or development mediate them? Is not this explaining
> > > >>> everything
> > > >>> and nothing?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              I do believe you can argue that there is a difference
> > > >>>> between
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              mediation and classical psychology's cause-effect
> > > >>>> relations,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> but to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              show this you need to dig into the dialectical
> > > >>>> underpinnings
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> of the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              theory. In your paper, you offer a nice analysis of a
> > > >>>> lovely
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> case of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              a teacher who, in dealing with a challenge with one
> of
> > > her
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> students,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              changes her perezhivanie. I think you can rightly
> argue
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> there is
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              a semiotic transformation, and I fully support your
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> statement that by
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              studying discourse we can empirically approach
> > questions
> > > of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              psychological development. The contradictions you
> show
> > as
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> being
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              involved and resolved resonate really well with what
> I
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> experience as
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              a parent or as a teacher in the classroom. Yet,
> without
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> unpacking
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              what this "mediation" taking place between one
> > > perezhivanie
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> and the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              next one means as a concrete and real, the same
> > analysis
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> could be done taking an information processing approach:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              there is an situation that is processed
> (represented?)
> > in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> one way,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              which then leads to a (cognitive) dissonance, and
> then
> > > >>>> there
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> is a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              cognitive resolution by means of which the situation
> is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> presented
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              differently in consciousness (indeed, when seen in
> this
> > > >>>> way,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the term
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              perezhivanie and the term "representation" become
> > almost
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              indistinguishable). How is mediation, as an
> analytical
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> concept,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              helping here? And most importantly to the question of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> perezhivanie,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              how is this analysis going to show the internal
> > > connection
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> between
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              intellect and affect that Vygotsky formulates as
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> constitutive of the notion of perezhivanie?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              I believe that the key lies in understanding what
> > > Vygotsky
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> means when
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              he says that perezhivanie is a unit of analysis. I
> will
> > > not
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> repeat
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              here what already is written in at least a couple of
> > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> articles in
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              the special issue (Blunden, ours), that is the
> > difference
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> between
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              analysis by elements and unit analysis (Vygotsky
> > 1987). A
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> unit
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              analysis approach is consistent with Spinoza, for
> whom
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> cause-effect
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              explanations were not adequate, requiring instead an
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> understanding of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              self-development, perezhivanie as a kernel cell for
> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> development
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              of personality. And I think you may be after this in
> > your
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> article in
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              suggesting a form of continuous movement from
> > > perezhivanie
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              experiencing-as-struggle. But perhaps the major
> > > difficulty
> > > >>>> I
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> find is that, in positing Vygotsky's perezhivanie as "a type of
> > > meaning"
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              and Vasilyuk's perezhivanie (or
> > experiencing-as-struggle)
> > > >>>> as
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> a "type
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              of activity," it is difficult not to see here a
> > division
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> between
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              product and process, a division that then is
> > analytically
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> bridged by
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              the addition of a third term, mediation, that should
> > > bring
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> back the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              real movement between the product and the process.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              A different approach involves considering the
> concrete
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> extension of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              actual living and lived social relations, and look at
> > > them
> > > >>>> as
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              generative phenomena. What is there in the encounter
> > > >>>> between
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Carla
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              and the child that leads to change? For it is not
> > inside
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> mind,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              but in real life, in consciousness as the real
> relation
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> between people, that Carla is changed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              How is the semantic structure that you nicely present
> > and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> attribute
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              to Carla a product of the social relation between her
> > and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the child?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              I think that to rightfully situate perezhivanie as a
> > > >>>> concept
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> in a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Vygotskian framework, we ought to address its
> relation
> > to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the genetic
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              law of development.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              There is much more to disentangle, but this is long
> > > enough.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> I hope I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              have succeeded in making clear these ideas. Thanks so
> > > much
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              engaging in the discussion!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              Alfredo
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              ________________________________________
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              From:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>              <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > >>>>              <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>  on behalf
> of
> > > >>>> Marc
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Clarà
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              <marc.clara@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>              <mailto:marc.clara@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              Sent: 02 January 2017 22:14
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Happy New Year and
> Perezhivanie!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              Hi, all, and thank you so much, Alfredo, for your
> kind
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> invitation to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              participate in this discussion. My paper in the MCA
> > > special
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> issue
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              focuses on a distinction between a type of activity,
> > > which
> > > >>>> I
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> argue
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              that is what Vasilyuk called *perezhivanie*
> > > (experiencing)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> and a type
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              of semiotic mediator, which I argue that is what
> > > Vygotsky,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> in The
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Problem of the Environment, called *perezhivanie.* I
> > > argue,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> following
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Vasilyuk, that in experiencing activities (Vasilyuk's
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> perezhivanie),
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              this type of mediator is profoundly transformed – in
> > > fact,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              experiencing activities consist of the semiotic
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> transformation of this type of mediator.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              As Veresov and Fleer argue in their commentary,
> > > >>>> perezhivanie
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> (as a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              type of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              mediator) is for me a psychological phenomenon, one
> > which
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              course conceptualized from a specific theoretical
> > > >>>> framework.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> But the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              phenomenon is also visible from other theoretical
> > > >>>> frameworks
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> as well,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              as I mention in the paper. This phenomenon is my main
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> interest, and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              it is from this interest that I arrived at the
> concept
> > of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> perezhivanie (not the other way around).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Now, the phenomenon is that at least emotion,
> > reasoning,
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> volition
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              (formation of conscious purposes) seem to be
> decisively
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> mediated by
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              holistic situational meaning. My current research
> > concern
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> trying
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              to find ways to study and understand how this
> mediation
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> occurs and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              how these semiotic mediators are transformed and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> distributed. From
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              this view, I think that experiencing activities
> > > (Vasilyuk's
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              perezhivanie) may provide a good terrain to study
> these
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> issues
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              (especially regarding the mediation of emotion), as I
> > > tried
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> to exemplify in the paper.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Studying semiotic mediation, however, is of course
> not
> > > >>>> easy.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              Following Vygotsky, I assume that extended discourse
> is
> > > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              manifestation of thinking within certain
> psychological
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> conditions
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              (Vygotsky's Thinking and Speech, chapter 7), and I
> also
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> assume the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Vygotsky's law of the unity of the structure and
> > function
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> thinking
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              (Vygotsky's Thinking and Speech, chapter 6). From
> these
> > > two
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              assumptions, I propose that meaning (and its
> functions
> > in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> human
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              activity) can be scientifically studied by
> structurally
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> analyzing the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              narratives generated by subjects, considering that
> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> discourse
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              produced in the narrative is the point of departure
> of
> > > this
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> study,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              but that considerable analytical work must be done to
> > > move
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> from this
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              discourse to the full characterization of meaning. It
> > is
> > > in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              point where I find useful the work developed by
> > Greimas,
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> usefulness of which I only suggest in the paper.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              >From this background, I found many interesting ideas
> > and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> questions
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  in the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              other papers of the special issue. In this first
> post I
> > > >>>> will
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> propose
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              two of them for possible discussion. The first one
> was
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> raised by
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              González-Rey, when he introduces, in connection with
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> perezhivanie,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              the concepts of personality, and especially, of
> sense.
> > > So,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> which is
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              the conceptual (and-or
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              phenomenal) relation between perezhivanie and sense?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> González-Rey
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              suggests that both concepts are somewhat similar (and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> overcome by the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              concept of “subjective sense”); my opinion, partly
> > > >>>> expressed
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> in my
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              commentary, is that perezhivanie is a type of
> meaning,
> > > >>>> which
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> includes
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              different levels of depth, and that sense corresponds
> > to
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> deepest
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              level of meaning (which can be characterized as a
> > system
> > > of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> semic
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              oppositions). Therefore, sense wouldn't be in
> > opposition
> > > to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> meaning
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              (as “a microcosm of human consciousness”, as Kozulin
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> remembers in his
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              commentary), although it would be in opposition to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> manifested meaning (the surface level of meaning).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              The second issue was raised by Roth and Jornet, and I
> > > think
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> it goes
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              beyond the issue of perezhivanie itself. If I
> > understand
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> them well,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              they argue that Vygotsky's core proposal of cultural
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> mediation is
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              influenced by the Cartesian dualism (mind-matter),
> and
> > > >>>> that a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              promising approach to Cultural Psychology would be a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Spinozist
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              monism. I am actually very interested on the issue of
> > > which
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              epistemological position can best substantiate the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> construction of a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              cultural psychology, and that's why I feel inclined
> to
> > > take
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              opportunity to ask for your opinions about that.
> About
> > > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> proposal
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              of Roth and Jornet, I have some doubts. First, I
> don't
> > > see
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> why
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Vygotsky's proposals can be seen as dualist (in the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Cartesian sense)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              -I suspect that it is because of the analytical
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> distinctions?.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Anyway, in my understanding, Vygotsky explicitly
> > assumes
> > > a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              materialist monism (for example in The Crisis), and
> in
> > > fact
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> he constructs his proposal on mediation upon reflexology, which
> also
> > > >>> explicitly assumed a materialist monism (e.g.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Sechenov). Would a Spinozist monism be a better point
> > of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> departure? I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              don't know, in my understanding it is a more idealist
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> monism, and I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              don't clearly see what could be gained. In my
> opinion,
> > a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> scientific
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              psychology which includes the study of mind is only
> > > >>>> possible
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> if any
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              type of monism is assumed. However, in my view, for a
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> scientific
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              psychology, the ontological nature of the world is
> > > perhaps
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> less
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              important (it is an issue for metaphysics?), and I am
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> inclined to assume a neutral monism (e.g. Russell).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              So from this view, a materialist monism and a
> Spinozist
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> monism
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              wouldn't be so different, so from both views it could
> > be
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> assumed that
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              all is of the same nature and all is similarly
> knowable
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> (including
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              mind) [which is the ontological nature of the world
> and
> > > to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> what
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              degree it is knowable are issues that can be left to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> philosophy].
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              However, in my opinion, this does not mean that,
> while
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> assuming a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              monism, analytical distinctions cannot be done when
> > > >>>> studying
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              world. In that sense, I had the impression that Roth
> > and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Jornet
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              tended to dilute analytical distinctions in the name
> of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> monism; I
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              repeat that I don't know if I understood them well,
> but
> > > if
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> this was
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              the case, in my opinion, analysis would be impossible
> > > >>>> within
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the new
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              psychology suggested by Roth and Jornet, and,
> regarding
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> perezhivanie,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              there would be the danger, noted by Vygotsky in The
> > > Crisis
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              cautioned by Kozulin in his commentary, that by
> meaning
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> everything, perezhivanie ends by meaning nothing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              Best regards and happy new year,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              Marc.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              2017-01-02 9:12 GMT+01:00 Alfredo Jornet Gil<
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  Dear all,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  I would like to join David, Luisa, Ana, Henry and
> > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> others to wish
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  you all a Happy New Year! May it be full of joy,
> > > peace,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> and opportunity.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  I also would like to begin the year announcing
> our
> > > >>>> first
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> ?MCA
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  article discussion, ?although in fact corresponds
> > to
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> last issue
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  of the year
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              we
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  just passed, Issue 4 on Perezhivanie. This is a
> > very
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> special
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  *special* issue, not only because its topic has
> > > raised
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> lots of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  interest lately in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  CHAT community but also because, greatly
> > coordinated
> > > by
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Andy Blunden
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  and the rest of the editorial team, the issue
> takes
> > > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> form of a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  symposium where authors get the chance to present
> > and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> respond to
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  each others' ideas on the subject. In my view,
> this
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> allows having a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  rich and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              multidimensional
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  approach to a subject as important as
> perezhivanie.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  Following with the dialogical spirit in which the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> special issue was
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  assembled, we will focus on one lead article, but
> > > >>>> hoping
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> to also
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  engage ideas and insights present in or relevant
> to
> > > >>>> other
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  contributions in the issue. ?Marc Clarà's
> "Vygotsky
> > > and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Vasilyuk on
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  Perezhivanie: Two Notions and One Word" will be
> our
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> focus. The
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  article very nicely engages the lead work of
> > > Vygotsky,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> but also the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  less known ??(?in educational literature) but
> > totally
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> relevant works
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  of psychologist ?F. Vasilyuk and semiotician
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              A.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  J. Greimas, mobilising a number of key concepts
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> including those of
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>              semiotic
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  mediation and transformation.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  ?In addition to Marc, who will soon join us, I
> have
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> encouraged some
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  of
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  other authors in the special issue to also join
> as
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> "relevant
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  others," if time and circumstances allow them.
> > Let's
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> hope that this
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  will help keeping the symposium spirit up.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  Marc's article is attached to this e-mail and
> will
> > be
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> made open
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  access at the T&F pages as soon as people is back
> > > from
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> the holidays.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  The T&F link
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>              is
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  this:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  http://www.tandfonline.com/
> > doi/full/10.1080/10749039
> > > .
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> 2016.1186194
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  The link to the MCA Forum pages, where we
> announce
> > > our
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> discussions
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  and other xmca things, is here:
> > > >>>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                  I wish us all a very productive and interesting
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> discussion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>                  Alfredo
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>