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

[Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man



Hi Everyone,
This is not on the current threads directly but I thought you all
would be interested to take a look at the first 40 pages or so
from Wolff Michael-Roth's new book on LSV and Spinoza.

Robert Lake

https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Beth Ferholt <bferholt@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is a great quote from Vasilyuk, thank you Andy, and I agree, Chris,
> definitely some perezhivanie could come after the film Manchester ... but
> we don't see if it will or not.  Beth
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > Your post is so rich, Beth, .... Fedor Vasilyuk says, on the topic of
> > psychotherapy practice, that the very first thing a patient says when you
> > meet 'em should be what you work with.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the DVD of "Manchester" is not released here till February
> > 21. I'll certainly be watching it then though.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> > On 6/02/2017 3:02 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote:
> >
> >> Beth, I really like your point at the beginning about how interruptions
> >> can
> >> help us understand perezhivanie. Perhaps you were only referring to
> >> specific kinds of interruptions (politics and children), but I am also
> >> reminded of the way that many stories and films are periodically
> >> "interrupted," as we return to the outer frame of the narrator and his
> >> listener who briefly pause to reflect on the story-in-progress before
> >> plunging back in. Notably, in Fate of a Man this does *not* happen; the
> >> outer narrative only bookends the main story at beginning and end.
> >>
> >> This was a very rich post, and I suspect that everyone will be picking
> it
> >> apart for quite some time. But two very quick thoughts. You write: "I
> >> think
> >> perezhivanie is about truth, somehow, although I am not sure how."
> Later:
> >> "we won't understand this process until we see children as full people.
> >> And
> >> simultaneously as children." (Unlike, for instance, in Fate of a Man.)
> >> Perhaps the relevance of truth to perezhivanie has something to do with
> >> the
> >> fact that people cannot genuinely co-create something in the sense of
> >> playmakers if one is deceiving the other? If the adult deliberately
> >> misleads the child for his own welfare (as in Life Is Beautiful),
> however
> >> ethical, there is a hierarchical relationship implied which would appear
> >> to
> >> be at odds with the spirit of shared perezhivanie.
> >>
> >> Second, re. Manchester By the Sea: I wonder if an alternate reading
> might
> >> be that perezhivanie *is* possible, but it has only barely started by
> the
> >> movie's end. I see any potential perezhivanie occurring not with the
> >> ex-wife, but with the teenager. Might the intimate way that they bicker
> >> and
> >> argue, and develop a distinctive rapport, have anything to do with this?
> >> The teenager seems to be teaching Casey Affleck something no one else
> can
> >> tell him....I'm not sure.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> On Sunday, February 5, 2017, Beth Ferholt <bferholt@gmail.com
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bferholt@gmail.com');>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the calling out to Monica and me, Mike and Andy -- I had to
> >>> stop
> >>> checking XMCA for a couple of weeks so I did not see the discussion or
> >>> your
> >>> notes to me in the chain, until today.  One of the the strengths of
> XMCA
> >>> is
> >>> that it creates a conversation that can include people who can not
> always
> >>> respond that very day, or even week, due to various forms of
> >>> interruption!
> >>> Often these "interruptions" are children or political events, which can
> >>> help us to understand perezhivanie.
> >>>
> >>> As well as spending time at JFK, recently, many of us here in New York
> >>> have
> >>> been attending local protests to keep our neighborhoods feeling safe
> for
> >>> everyone.  I live in a neighborhood in Brooklyn that includes several
> >>> Muslim communities and several Jewish communities (as well as a few
> >>> Russian
> >>> and Polish communities), and at the local protests these past few weeks
> >>> some people have had photographs of their family members who were
> killed
> >>> by
> >>> the Nazis attached to the back of their "never again" signs. Also we
> all,
> >>> Muslim, Jewish, etc. families, have been often bringing  our children
> to
> >>> the protests.
> >>>
> >>> So I have been thinking a lot about children and hope, during the past
> >>> few
> >>> weeks.  It is within this frame that I saw this film.  I think the film
> >>> was
> >>> expecting us to see the child as only benefitting from the main
> >>> character's
> >>> lying, saying that he was the child's father, and of course the child
> did
> >>> benefit, but I think that perezhivanie is about truth, somehow,
> although
> >>> I
> >>> am not sure how.
> >>>
> >>> My second thought is that Manchester by the Sea must have been
> >>> referencing
> >>> this film, with its return-to-the-space-where-the-house-was scene, and
> >>> also
> >>> with the choice to replace the lost self (as father) / family or no.  I
> >>> think it might help this conversation if we all saw both films,
> actually.
> >>> Two thoughts on this methods suggestion for our conversation, before I
> >>> return to the topic itself.
> >>>
> >>> 1) It is odd how closely the two films are related, as I did not know
> >>> that
> >>> the two films were related when I told Chris to see Manchester by the
> Sea
> >>> in relation to thinking about perezhivanie.  I told Chris when I saw
> him
> >>> in
> >>> person, and I think that discussions about perezhivanie are often
> >>> different
> >>> in person.  We learned at LCHC in the 2004/5 playworld projects that
> >>> these
> >>> in person discussions about perezhivanie have a pronounced proleptic
> >>> structure, mirroring the topic of study, such that the conclusion of
> the
> >>> discussion appears at the start: It feels like magic is happening.  (I
> >>> think this has something to do with how good teachers see the things in
> >>> their classroom that are useful or no before they happen or "behind
> their
> >>> heads" ... when you are very present you have this "sixth sense," which
> >>> is
> >>> really an experience of time moving in two directions at once ... being
> >>> very present can often require a lot of in person time and being with
> >>> children speeds up the process.)
> >>>
> >>> 2) It is a strength that the XMCA conversations can continue through
> all
> >>> of
> >>> our different schedules.  It is a negative that they are not in person,
> >>> and
> >>> seeing films together can really help.  This is where we went on the
> >>> perezhivanie facebook page when it was briefly in English and in
> Russian
> >>> --
> >>> with a film, and it was very helpful.  (Of course I am thinking of this
> >>> while considering the changing role and form of LCHC and Mike's
> >>> participation in LCHC and XMCA.  I am thinking of the mistakes that are
> >>> communication.  A story about this that I thought of recently, which
> >>> shows
> >>> this point well, and seems worth retelling BECAUSE when studying
> >>> perezhivanie the form is often (always??) the study of the content: As
> a
> >>> newish graduate student Mike once said "thank you" to me when I made a
> >>> comment in the afternoon about an AM conversation that day.  Mike's
> >>> "thank
> >>> you" encouraged me to pay extra attention to this comment/thought of
> >>> mine,
> >>> which later became important in our analysis of a difficult-to-decipher
> >>> playworld event.  I was thinking of this event as I walked and talked
> >>> with
> >>> a doctoral student of my own -- I seem to have a heavily spacial memory
> >>> process and my student and I were walking through a doorway -- and I
> >>> suddenly realized that Mike could have been thanking me for holding the
> >>> door for him at this time in the past when his feedback was so
> important
> >>> to
> >>> me ... maybe he did not hear my comment, but just thanked me for
> holding
> >>> the door ... in fact it now appears to me that this was probably the
> >>> case!)
> >>>
> >>> The interesting thing to me about the above 2 points is the framing.
> It
> >>> IS
> >>> the "()" within the "()" that interests me. Maybe Framing is all
> >>> communication or all thought or consciousness ... Bateson? ... but I
> >>> think
> >>> we need to tackle framing head on when discussing perezhivanie.  The
> two
> >>> films are very different in regards to framing, I think this is why
> they
> >>> are most interesting to think about together, but first I have two
> >>> citations for thinking about time that I use frequently in my writing
> on
> >>> perezhivanie.
> >>>
> >>> These seem worth repeating here, as this thinking about time in
> >>> space/time
> >>> seems to me to be thinking about framing ... the "()" makes us double
> >>> back
> >>> in time as we read -- :
> >>>
> >>> (As to Performance, Alfredo copied the Schechner quote above.)
> >>>
> >>> Dewey's relation of the notion of object to prolepsis (on XMCA):
> >>> Mike (2007) used the term “temporally double sided” to describe this
> >>> phenomenon of growing back and towards the future and the past
> >>> simultaneously.
> >>>
> >>> What I am (still) thinking about, now, most often:
> >>> It is the juxtaposition of temporal double sidedness with stages that
> >>> creates perezhivanie. What Schechner argues is that this juxtaposition
> >>> provides the rhythm that allows us to raise ourselves up and hover,
> >>> suspended momentarily in a state of being simultaneously ourselves and
> >>> not
> >>> ourselves: our past and future selves (someone else).
> >>>
> >>> So my first point is about framing and my second is about children.
> The
> >>> Fate Of Man is all about the frames / "()". The stories are nested
> within
> >>> eachother, repeating themselves, maybe even sort of like a fractal, or
> >>> anyhow a spiral?  I have some congenital prosopagnosia, getting worse
> as
> >>> I
> >>> age and definitely bad with a film like this.  I kept thinking we were
> >>> back
> >>> at the ferry as the form of the conversation and context images
> repeated
> >>> themselves, as I could not recognize the face of the character who was
> >>> the
> >>> audience for our hero's story!  Manchester by the Sea, on the other
> hand,
> >>> had no frames.  We just jumped right in and rode it through. I only saw
> >>> Manchester once but do others think this is true? relevant?
> >>>
> >>> I think that the question of children's position in relation to adult
> >>> perezhivanie is central in both of these films. The children in both of
> >>> these films appear to want the main characters to try again at being
> >>> fathers.  This is a critique of films about children -- I can not think
> >>> of
> >>> the name of the person who made this critique, but I can find it for
> >>> anyone
> >>> if needed -- : We adults often make films not about children but about
> >>> our
> >>> own childhoods.  We make films about children who are no longer with
> us.
> >>> But is this really best for the films, as films are usually best when
> >>> they
> >>> are somehow in dialogue with their topic, this is a characteristic of
> the
> >>> medium, no?
> >>>
> >>> If you do not have some pretense, some playing again, you can not have
> >>> perezhivanie.  But I think that Fate of Man is not about perezhivanie,
> >>> although in a different way than Manchester by the Sea is not about
> >>> perezhivanie.  In Manchester by the Sea there is no other with whom to
> >>> perezhivanie because the main character and his former wife still love
> >>> each
> >>> other, or at lease he still loves her and she returns enough of the
> love
> >>> to
> >>> keep him loving her, and neither of them can pull the other up because
> >>> they
> >>> both hit bottom together and in the same story.  In Fate of Man there
> is
> >>> is
> >>> no chance for perezhivanie because the other needs to be involved in
> some
> >>> honest way, or there is no dialogue.
> >>>
> >>> In Fate of Man the hero seems to me to be playing out his memory in the
> >>> real world.  A child is not an other with whom one can ever
> perezhivanie.
> >>> This is not perezhivanie as there is no real world as a player, and
> this
> >>> is
> >>> why our hero's heart will fail him.  He did not reach bottom and then
> >>> start
> >>> to pull himself up by connecting with another with great bravery.
> >>> Instead,
> >>> as he says himself, he just snapped -- he is now living in a dream.
> >>>
> >>> As Larry put it, above in this chain: "In other words, navigating
> through
> >>> the suffering and existential emptiness is not a hero’s journey." And
> >>> this
> >>> point is relevant, again, to our method for studying perezhivanie.  I
> >>> don't
> >>> think we can manage this one on our own (XMCA), even as a group that
> >>> allows
> >>> for conversations over extended time periods.
> >>>
> >>> If form and content are related in this process, I'd say that we won't
> >>> understand this process until we see children as full people.  And
> >>> simultaneously as children.  Children have something to tell us about
> >>> this
> >>> process that no one else can tell us, and they are not going to tell us
> >>> this in a way that those of us who are researchers/scholars can listen,
> >>> without the bridge of the teacher voices.  How to include these voices
> in
> >>> our research is key.  And the answer has something to do with art, as
> >>> well
> >>> as with time and space.
> >>>
> >>> I am going to send this as it is long enough already, and then catch up
> >>> with the related chains after I do ... And I won't say more now, but I
> >>> agree with all the people who thought this was a great pick to start
> the
> >>> discussion.  Many levels to discuss and I also found many aspects of
> the
> >>> film related to perezhivanie in many ways! Beth
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How about a documentary movie about the first Trump voter who dies as a
> >>>> result of repeal of Obama Care? That would be a perezhivanie within a
> >>>> perezhivanie!
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> >>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> >>>> On 21/01/2017 12:03 PM, Helena Worthen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I am late to this discussion, but I have been paying attention. I was
> >>>>> reluctant to expose myself to the emotional challenges of the film. I
> >>>>>
> >>>> knew
> >>>
> >>>> that between the majestic music, the stunning black and white images,
> >>>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> beautiful human faces and bodies (and some very ugly ones), and the
> >>>>>
> >>>> twists
> >>>
> >>>> of the story, I was going to be deeply moved. However, I have been
> >>>>>
> >>>> reading
> >>>
> >>>> two books by Svetlana Alexievich -- Voices from Chernobyl and
> Secondhand
> >>>>> Time - which tell equally heartbreaking, horrifying stories of
> >>>>>
> >>>> suffering.
> >>>
> >>>> Reading her work inclines me to place the film in the context of the
> >>>>>
> >>>> period
> >>>
> >>>> of deStalinization after Kruschev's 1956 speech to the 20th Congress
> of
> >>>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> CPSU, which gave the signal that it was permissible to begin to talk
> >>>>>
> >>>> freely
> >>>
> >>>> about Soviet history. It was a period of trying to build a story that
> >>>>>
> >>>> could
> >>>
> >>>> explain and honor, if not justify, the extreme suffering of the Soviet
> >>>>> people. This film seems to me to set out to accomplish that. So does
> >>>>> Alexievich's book, which is a compilation of interviews done between
> >>>>>
> >>>> 1991
> >>>
> >>>> and 2012, with people who had something to say (good and bad) about
> the
> >>>>> Soviet regime and the experience of its dissolution. She got the 2015
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nobel
> >>>
> >>>> Prize for this book.  And I sense that Andy, or someone, is
> anticipating
> >>>>> that the US is going to have to produce some works of scholarship or
> >>>>>
> >>>> art,
> >>>
> >>>> or both, that attempt to explain what is happening now here in the US
> --
> >>>>> for example, this afternoon, under President Trump.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Helena Worthen
> >>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>>>> Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For some reason I couldn't see the subtitles showing up in Fate of a
> >>>>> Man
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the first time, so I started to watch it dubbed in English instead.
> >>>>>> But
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> mannered Hollywood accents definitely were not exactly helping to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> convey
> >>>
> >>>> the "real Russian soul" Robbins talks about! It felt like I was being
> >>>>>> asked
> >>>>>> to imagine Cary Grant inhabiting Andrei's perezhivanie-ing body.
> So, I
> >>>>>> started over with the subtitled version.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here are some quick initial reflections: wonderful movie, and in
> >>>>>> Andrei
> >>>>>> one
> >>>>>> of the more memorable characters I have seen. But I also found
> myself
> >>>>>> thinking how big a difference there is between watching a film on my
> >>>>>> 12-inch laptop with headphones (my only option at the moment), and
> >>>>>> sitting
> >>>>>> back and immersing yourself in a darkened theater or at least on a
> >>>>>> widescreen TV without any other distractions, allowing ourselves to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> "fall
> >>>
> >>>> into this space" by virtue of our very awareness of the illusion
> >>>>>> generated
> >>>>>> by the frame, as Beth and Monica put it. This difference becomes
> even
> >>>>>> bigger if the screen you're viewing it on also enables you to
> quickly
> >>>>>> check
> >>>>>> email from time to time during the movie, as many people do these
> >>>>>> days.
> >>>>>> If
> >>>>>> we are to consider the film experience as a model (analogy?) for
> >>>>>> perezhivanie or even a certain kind of simulation of it, this effect
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> that
> >>>
> >>>> occurs when we lose ourselves in a film would be undermined by an
> >>>>>> especially small frame or poor viewing conditions. At what point
> does
> >>>>>> "the
> >>>>>> knowledge that the movement we experience is just an illusion" (p. 2
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> their article) undermine the perezhivanie-like quality of film as
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> opposed
> >>>
> >>>> to forming an integral part of it? And, might the way distraction
> >>>>>> functions
> >>>>>> to undermine perezhivanie in the context of film in any way mirror
> how
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> we
> >>>
> >>>> "distract" ourselves in the course of living lives from conscious
> >>>>>> engagement with the perezhivanie we are otherwise undergoing? Is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> viewing
> >>>
> >>>> a
> >>>>>> film on a 12-inch screen while checking email and calling it an
> >>>>>> "experience" in any way analogous to the self-deceptions and escapes
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>> engage in during the course of either experience-as-struggle or
> >>>>>> experience-as-contemplation? I did not check email while watching
> Fate
> >>>>>> of a
> >>>>>> Man, by the way. Just in case you're wondering.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for the film itself: I was struck by the incidental way in which
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> earlier loss of his childhood family is introduced and acknowledged
> at
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> very outset, and how this contrasts with the dramatic ongoing
> >>>>>> perezhivanie
> >>>>>> that ensues going forward: it is as if this early loss is "taken for
> >>>>>> granted" as also part of the Russian experience.  We are not privy
> to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> any
> >>>
> >>>> perezhivanie he might have presumably undergone before that point; it
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> is
> >>>
> >>>> simply not "within the frame." At several points, I was reminded of
> >>>>>> Satyajit's World of Apu (last movie in his trilogy), where there was
> >>>>>> also a
> >>>>>> set of early losses and a relationship formed with a "son." Have any
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> seen it? I think it would also be a good example of perezhivanie.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would not want to overemphasize the use of literary motifs, since
> >>>>>> Bondarchuk was presumably not making any references to the concept
> of
> >>>>>> perezhivanie as such. But there were several devices that evoked
> Beth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>
> >>>> Monica's passage from To The Lighthouse ("Time stand still here"), and
> >>>>>> their metaphor of a life (or more specifically, a perezhivanie
> within
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> life) spiraling back over itself to bring two disparate moments into
> >>>>>> juxtaposition in a way such that "your life becomes
> three-dimensional
> >>>>>> again" (p. 2). One occurs in the various scenes when Andrei gazes up
> >>>>>> at
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> sky in reverie and all we see are clouds, or the scene where he lies
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> grass after his first escape and the camera pans back as it becomes
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> very
> >>>
> >>>> quiet, leaving nothing but him swallowed up in the vastness of nature.
> >>>>>> There is a certain timeless quality to these scenes, a sense that he
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>> momentarily transcending the linear temporal flow of his life as he
> >>>>>> either
> >>>>>> stands outside it and "stands still" in it. It could be a thousand
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> years
> >>>
> >>>> passing by in those clouds, or just the 17 years of his second phase;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> it
> >>>
> >>>> suddenly doesn't matter. Another thing I noticed was the use of the
> two
> >>>>>> musical themes: the love song the accordionist plays for him and
> >>>>>> Irina,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> the festive music incongruously piped in at the concentration camp
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> during
> >>>
> >>>> that amazing scene around Part 1, minute 45 where the prisoners are
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> being
> >>>
> >>>> marched in and the crematorium is going full blast down the road. At
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> some
> >>>
> >>>> point (I couldn't relocate it) Andrei has a flashback where he
> revisits
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> love song and his memories of Irina; then at minute 20 in Part 2,
> >>>>>> while
> >>>>>> processing his family's death after coming home from the war, he
> finds
> >>>>>> himself hearing the concentration camp song on the record player and
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>> suddenly transported back to that traumatic experience. Yet he does
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> smash the record right away; he stares at it for a minute, almost as
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>> he
> >>>>>> is resituating these two moments in relation to each other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps I am overanalyzing, but I found both these motifs to speak
> to
> >>>>>> Beth
> >>>>>> and Monica's examples in the way they bring two moments back into
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> contact
> >>>
> >>>> with each other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Finally, Mike and Andy's discussion in the Misha thread about the
> >>>>>> watching
> >>>>>> of a film functioning as perezhivanie for those viewers for whom it
> >>>>>> reflects and repeats their own experience, raises a question about
> the
> >>>>>> difference between extended perezhivanie and the personal
> re-enactment
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> of
> >>>
> >>>> one's perezhivanie within a much smaller time scale (the two or three
> >>>>>> hours
> >>>>>> spent watching the movie). I hope at some point we could delve more
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> into
> >>>
> >>>> this issue of time frame and time scale in various forms of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> perezhivanie.
> >>>
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thank you Marc! It was the third "plane" which was my intention in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> providing "Fate of a Man" for discussion. You picked out what were
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> me
> >>>>>>> also the main (but by no means the only) instances of perezhivanija
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> movie.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It seems to me that Sokolov (the author) offers one perezhivanie in
> >>>>>>> particular as the main theme of the movie. At the beginning of the
> >>>>>>> movie,
> >>>>>>> the man and boy walk up the path to the camera and at the end of
> the
> >>>>>>> movie
> >>>>>>> they walk off together again. So this is the central theme. As you
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> say,
> >>>
> >>>> when Sokolov's family has all been killed, even his talented war-hero
> >>>>>>> son
> >>>>>>> who was going to be a famous mathematician, his life has become
> >>>>>>> meaningless. I really liked your reflections of Sokolov's
> reflections
> >>>>>>> too.
> >>>>>>> He sees the young orphan boy who, he discovers, has no family and
> >>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>> even know what town he comes from, but is aimlessly living on
> pieces
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> of
> >>>
> >>>> rubbish. He sees that the two of them are in the same situation. So
> >>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>> some time mulling this over a they sit together in the truck, he
> lies
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> to
> >>>
> >>>> the boy and tells him that he is the boy's father, and they embrace.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> But
> >>>
> >>>> the boy questions this and he reasserts his claim and the boy accepts
> >>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>> The man is able to define a new meaning for his life; he has done
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> autonomously without the help of a therapist, but he still needs
> >>>>>>> another,
> >>>>>>> the boy, to embody that meaning. But he knows it is his own
> >>>>>>> invention.
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>> boy on the other hand has to be made to believe it is true; he is
> not
> >>>>>>> sufficiently mature to manufacture this meaning himself, but as a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> child
> >>>
> >>>> he
> >>>>>>> can be guided by an adult. As you say, Marc, it is very significant
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> when
> >>>
> >>>> Sokolov tells us how he is now, again, worried about his own death.
> >>>>>>> What if
> >>>>>>> I died in my sleep? that would be a shock for my son!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For me, this reflection causes me to look back on the man's whole
> >>>>>>> struggle
> >>>>>>> during the war: in the first phase he does not differentiate
> between
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> his
> >>>
> >>>> life as a father and husband and his life as a Soviet citizen - war is
> >>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>> duty and he is confident, as is everyone else, of victory. His
> >>>>>>> bravery
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> driving his truck to the front line under fire reflects the fact
> that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> he
> >>>
> >>>> has never imagined his own death. Then he finds himself prostrate
> >>>>>>> before 2
> >>>>>>> Nazi soldiers who we assume are going among the wounded shooting
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> anyone
> >>>
> >>>> who
> >>>>>>> has survived. But surprisingly, he is allowed to live, but is to be
> >>>>>>> used as
> >>>>>>> a slave. Sokolov has been confronted by his own mortality for the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> first
> >>>
> >>>> time and he chooses life, but accepts slavery (Sartre and Hegel both
> >>>>>>> thematize this moment in their philosophy). In this second phase of
> >>>>>>> Sokolov's life he is a survivor. Everything hinges on surviving and
> >>>>>>> returning to his wife and family. As you point out, Marc, his later
> >>>>>>> reflections on this are particularly poignant, when he discovers
> the
> >>>>>>> futility of this hope. Eventually, the life of forced labour
> becomes
> >>>>>>> unbearable. He cries out: "Why are we forced to dig 3 cubic metres
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> when
> >>>
> >>>> 1
> >>>>>>> cubic meter is enough for a grave!" Sokolov has accepted and
> embraced
> >>>>>>> death
> >>>>>>> after all. (Transition to the third phase.) To his German masters
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> an unendurable act of defiance. As David points out, there are
> flaws
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> in
> >>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> scene which follows, but ... he confronts his own death defiantly,
> >>>>>>> stares
> >>>>>>> it in the eye, spits on it, and his life again gains meaning as a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> "brave
> >>>
> >>>> Soviet soldier" unafraid of death even in such an impossible moment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not
> >>>
> >>>> only does he survive, but takes the Nazi Colonel prisoner and hands
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> war
> >>>>>>> plans over to the Red Army. Now, when he is offered the chance to
> >>>>>>> return to
> >>>>>>> his wife as a war hero he declines and asks to be sent back to the
> >>>>>>> front.
> >>>>>>> His life has adopted this new meaning which casts his life as a
> >>>>>>> father
> >>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>> the shade. He no longer fears death. But he is persuaded to take
> time
> >>>>>>> off
> >>>>>>> and learns of the death of his family. As Marc relates, the
> continued
> >>>>>>> survival of his son, who is now also a war hero, provides continued
> >>>>>>> meaning
> >>>>>>> and integrates the two themes in his life. This takes work, as Marc
> >>>>>>> points
> >>>>>>> out, and he has the assistance of an older man, in achieving this
> >>>>>>> redefinition of his life. But tragically, with the death of his son
> >>>>>>> (and NB
> >>>>>>> the end of the war, albeit in victory) his life is again without
> >>>>>>> meaning.
> >>>>>>> Fourth phase. He has survived, but has no purpose. By becoming a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> father
> >>>
> >>>> again (Fifth phase), he regains the fear of death and meaning in his
> >>>>>>> life.
> >>>>>>> It is real work, and we witness this psychological turmoil as he
> >>>>>>> copes
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>> the idea that this scruffy orphan boy could be a son to him, and
> >>>>>>> eventually
> >>>>>>> he manages it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The transition between each phase is a critical period during which
> >>>>>>> Sokolov's personality is transformed. Note also, that there is a
> >>>>>>> premonition of this perezhivanie in Sokolov's earlier life: his
> >>>>>>> family
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> wiped out in the Civil War and the famine of 1922, then he meets
> his
> >>>>>>> wife-to-be, also raised in an orphanage, and they together create a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> life
> >>>
> >>>> and have 17 happy years before the Nazi invasion intrudes. So from the
> >>>>>>> beginning of the movie we are introduced to the main theme.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> These are the main moments in the movie, which caused me to select
> it
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> discussion rather than any other movie. Also, there is no doubt
> that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> in
> >>>
> >>>> producing this movie in 1958 the Soviet government was engaged with
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> its
> >>>
> >>>> people, in a process of collective perezhivanie and by reflecting on
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> collective perezhivanie during the period of the war, before and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> after,
> >>>
> >>>> they aim to assist the people in collectively assigning meaning to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> this
> >>>
> >>>> terrible suffering and like the man and his "son" walking again into
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>> future. As a propaganda movie, of course, it is open to much
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> criticism,
> >>>
> >>>> but
> >>>>>>> that is hardly the point. I appreciate Marc's analysis in terms of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> other concepts he has introduced. I wouldn't mind a recap on these.
> >>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>> terms of Vasilyuk's concepts, Sokolov's life-world is *simple and
> >>>>>>> difficult*. The boy's life world is *simple and easy*.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we continue to discuss "Fate of a Man", while I open another
> >>>>>>> movie
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> analysis? I think there are at least 10 subscribers to this list
> who
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> published in learned journals on the topic of perezhivanie in
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> childhood.
> >>>
> >>>> Perhaps one of you would like to reflect on the boy's perezhivanija?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> >>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decisi
> >>>>>>> on-making
> >>>>>>> On 18/01/2017 5:14 AM, Marc Clarà wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi, all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> and thank you, Andy, for sharing this amazing film, which I didn't
> >>>>>>>> know. I
> >>>>>>>> think it will be very useful to share and discuss our respective
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> views
> >>>
> >>>> on
> >>>>>>>> perezhivanie.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In my view, the film could be analyzed in terms of perezhivanie in
> >>>>>>>> three
> >>>>>>>> different planes. First, we could consider the person who watches
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> film,
> >>>>>>>> and we could study how the meaning she forms for the film
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> restructures
> >>>
> >>>> her
> >>>>>>>> relationship with aspects of her real life -such as, for example,
> >>>>>>>> her
> >>>>>>>> own
> >>>>>>>> death or the death of a beloved one, etc. (perhaps this is a
> little
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> bit
> >>>
> >>>> like what Beth and Monica, or Veresov and Fleer, do with their study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>
> >>>> playworlds?). In this plane, which would be perhaps the most
> >>>>>>>> naturalistic
> >>>>>>>> one, the film could be studied as an human-made cultural artifact
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>
> >>>> restuctures psychological functions; here, the meaning formed for the
> >>>>>>>> film
> >>>>>>>> by who watches it and uses it as mediator in her relation to her
> >>>>>>>> real
> >>>>>>>> life
> >>>>>>>> would be an m-perezhivanie.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In a second plane, we could proceed as if the film was real life,
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> could consider Sokolov telling his story to the man he meets by
> the
> >>>>>>>> river
> >>>>>>>> (a little bit like Carla telling her story to me). In this plane,
> >>>>>>>> Sokolov's
> >>>>>>>> narrative (i.e., what is showed to us as narrated flashback) could
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> considered as a cultural artifact that Sokolov uses to relate to
> all
> >>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> happened to him. At this plane, the meaning of this narrative
> would
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie that, in that moment, mediates the relationship
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> between
> >>>
> >>>> Sokolov and the war events he experienced years ago (but these events
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> still very present to him, so although relating to past events,
> >>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> here a Sokolov's activity [towards the past war events] which is
> in
> >>>>>>>> present
> >>>>>>>> -this echoes Christopher when, within our conversations, said:
> “Part
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>
> >>>> this might also be a question of what it means to describe and
> >>>>>>>> represent
> >>>>>>>> one's own perezhivanie figuratively/narratively (whether to
> others,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>> oneself), as opposed to living that perezhivanie. Especially if
> the
> >>>>>>>> attempt
> >>>>>>>> to capture/represent one's own perezhivanie is, perhaps, also
> >>>>>>>> central
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> the living of it?”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In a third plane, we could proceed as if Sokolov's narration was
> not
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>
> >>>> retrospective narration, but the on-time sequence of events with
> >>>>>>>> on-time
> >>>>>>>> Sokolov's explanation of these events (in the moments in which the
> >>>>>>>> narrator
> >>>>>>>> voice is assumed within the flashback). In this plane, there are
> >>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>> interesting perezhivanie phenomena. Clearly, there is a Sokolov's
> >>>>>>>> activity
> >>>>>>>> of experiencing-as-struggle, which initiates when he realizes that
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> all
> >>>
> >>>> his
> >>>>>>>> family, except one son, had been killed 2 years ago. At this
> moment,
> >>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>> life becomes meaningless; the meaning (m-perezhivanie) he uses to
> >>>>>>>> relate
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> all his life (including the past) at this moment is expressed in
> his
> >>>>>>>> conversation with his oncle: “it's got to be that this life of
> mine
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>
> >>>> nothing but a nightmare!”. In this moment, Sokolov's past in the
> >>>>>>>> prision
> >>>>>>>> camp becomes also meaningless: then, his link to life (the
> >>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie
> >>>>>>>> that made being alive meaningful to him) was meeting his family;
> but
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> at
> >>>
> >>>> that time his family was already dead, so when he discovers it, he
> >>>>>>>> realizes
> >>>>>>>> that this m-perezhivanie (the idea of meeting his family) was
> >>>>>>>> linking
> >>>>>>>> him
> >>>>>>>> to death, not to life, so all his efforts to surviving become
> >>>>>>>> meaningless:
> >>>>>>>> “Every night, when I was a prisioner, I talked with them. Now it
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> turns
> >>>
> >>>> out
> >>>>>>>> that for two years I was talking with the dead?”. In this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> conversation,
> >>>
> >>>> however, his oncle offers him an alternative m-perezhivanie to relate
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> his life: he still has a son, so the m-perehivanie of meeting his
> >>>>>>>> family
> >>>>>>>> can still turns Sokolov's life meaningful: “you've got to go on
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> living.
> >>>
> >>>> You
> >>>>>>>> have to find Anatoly. When the war is over, your son will get
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> married,
> >>>
> >>>> you
> >>>>>>>> will live with them. You will take up your carpentry again, play
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>> grandkids”. It takes some time to Sokolov to enter into this
> >>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie, but he does it and his life becomes meaningful
> >>>>>>>> again:
> >>>>>>>> “and
> >>>>>>>> then, unexpectedly, I've got a gleam of sunlight”. But, then,
> >>>>>>>> Anatoly
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>> dies. How to keep living? Here, Sokolov holds the m-perezhivanie
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> linked him to life until that moment, and therefore, he needs a
> son;
> >>>>>>>> pretending being the father of Vanya turns his life meaningful
> >>>>>>>> again.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Another interesting thing, still at that level, is how Sokolov's
> >>>>>>>> relation
> >>>>>>>> with his own immediate death changes along the different occasions
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>> he faces it. I thing here there are examples of
> >>>>>>>> experiencing-as-contemplation -in my view, this is not
> >>>>>>>> experiencing-as-struggle because the situation of impossibility
> (the
> >>>>>>>> immediate death) is removed existentially (Sokolov's life is given
> >>>>>>>> back to
> >>>>>>>> him), so that there is not a permanent situation of impossibility
> >>>>>>>> which is
> >>>>>>>> initially meaningless and is turned into meaningful. In each
> >>>>>>>> occasion
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> which Sokolov is faced with his immediate death, the
> m-perezhivanie
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> mediates this relationship is different. When he is captured, his
> >>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie is expressed as: “here's my death coming after me”.
> >>>>>>>> When he
> >>>>>>>> is conducted to meet the nazi official, the m-perezhivanie is
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> expressed
> >>>
> >>>> as:
> >>>>>>>> “the end of your misery”, “to my death and my release of this
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> torment,
> >>>
> >>>> I
> >>>>>>>> will drink”. In the first, the death is running after Sokolov; in
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> second, it is Sokolov happily going to meet death. Later, at the
> end
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> film, he faces his immediate death again, and the m-perezhivanie
> is
> >>>>>>>> expressed as: “I'm really worried that I might die in my sleep,
> and
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> would frighten my little son”.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well, just some thoughts after watching this wonderful film.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Marc.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2017-01-15 0:06 GMT+01:00 Christopher Schuck <
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> schuckcschuck@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, definitely that article! And specifically, when I used
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "pivoting"
> >>>
> >>>> I
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> couldn't help but think of Beth's earlier example about how a
> child
> >>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>> use a stick as a pivot for a horse. Perhaps a somewhat different
> >>>>>>>>> application but related, no?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> >>>>>>>>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Chris, all,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> your post is totally relevant to Beth's and Monica's article in
> the
> >>>>>>>>>> special issue. They write about film and perezhivanie (quoting
> >>>>>>>>>> Sobchack)
> >>>>>>>>>> the following:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The reason that film allows us to glimpse the future is that
> there
> >>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>> connection between filmic time and ‘real’ time: “The images of a
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> film
> >>>
> >>>> exist
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> in the world as a temporal flow, within finitude and situation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> fascination of the film is that it does not transcend our
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> lived-experience
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> of temporality, but rather that it seems to partake of it, to
> share
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it”
> >>>>>>>>>> (1992, p. 60).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And later
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Specifically, the way that the flow of time becomes
> >>>>>>>>>> multidirectional is
> >>>>>>>>>> that “rehearsals make it necessary to think of the future in
> such
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> to create a past” (1985, p. 39). As Schechner ex-plains: “In a
> very
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> real
> >>>>>>>>>> way the future – the project coming into existence through the
> >>>>>>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> rehearsal – determines the past: what will be kept from earlier
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> rehearsals
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> or from the “source ma-terials” (1985, p. 39)."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.e
> >>>
> >>>> du>
> >>>>>>>>>> on behalf of Christopher Schuck <schuckcschuck@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: 14 January 2017 21:43
> >>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But that's both the limitation and strength of art or fictional
> >>>>>>>>>> narrative
> >>>>>>>>>> as opposed to real life, isn't it? That art focuses our
> attention
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>
> >>>> highlights certain features in a way that is idealized and
> >>>>>>>>>> artificially
> >>>>>>>>>> "designed" to convey something more clearly and purely (but less
> >>>>>>>>>> organically and authentically) than it would be conveyed in the
> >>>>>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> living it, or observing someone else living it? One way to get
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> around
> >>>
> >>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> would be, as David says, to analyze the film in terms of clues as
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> stages of emergence. But maybe another way to use the film would
> >>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> view
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> it not so much as a complete, self-sufficient "example" of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> a *tool *for pivoting back and forth between the concept of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> imaginatively constructed (through fiction), and the concept of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie as imaginatively constructed (through our real
> living
> >>>>>>>>>> experience and observation of it). So, it would be the
> *pivoting*
> >>>>>>>>>> between
> >>>>>>>>>> these two manifestations of the concept (designed vs. evolved,
> as
> >>>>>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> it) that reveals new insights about perezhivanie, rather than
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> understanding
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the concept from the film per se.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think there's a good reason why Andy started a new thread on
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> this:
> >>>
> >>>> he's a
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> very tidy thinker (quite unlike yours truly) and he knows that
> one
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> why xmca threads are seldom cumulative is that they digress to
> >>>>>>>>>> related
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> problems without solving the immmediate ones.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, of course, a film allows us to consider an example of
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "perezhivanie",
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> but it is a designed perezhivanie rather than an evolved one; it
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> explicitly display the various stages of emergence required for
> a
> >>>>>>>>>> genetic
> >>>>>>>>>> analysis, unless we analyze it not as a complete and finished
> work
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>
> >>>> art
> >>>>>>>>>> but instead for clues as to the stages of its creation (the way
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> that,
> >>>
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> example, "Quietly Flows the Don" was analyzed to determine its
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> authenticity).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I remember that In the original short story, the schnapps
> >>>>>>>>>>> drinking
> >>>>>>>>>>> scene seemed like pure sleight of hand: an artistically
> >>>>>>>>>>> gratuitous
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> of what eventually gave Soviet social realism such a bad name.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>>>>>> Macquarie University
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Carol Macdonald <
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCa-ers
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have watched it through now, thank you Andy, but right now
> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> empirical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> psychological categories come to mind.  I will watch it again
> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> meanwhile let my fellows with more recent experience of
> >>>>>>>>>>> /perezhivanie/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the discussion further.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is a kind of timeless story, and modern film techniques
> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> more explicit. At the least I would say it has for me a Russian
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of suffering, perhaps because of their unique
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> experience
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it. But having said that, WWII must have generated other similar
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> experiences, apart from the first part about Andrei's family
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> dying
> >>>
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> famine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carol
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 January 2017 at 02:15, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I watched it in two parts with subtitles:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16w7fg_destiny-of-a-man-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1959-pt-1_creation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16wat4_destiny-of-a-man-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1959-pt-2_creation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decision-making
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2017 2:35 AM, Beth Ferholt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for taking us to a shared example.  I think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cultural Historical Activity Theory
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
> >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Beth Ferholt
> >>> Assistant Professor
> >>> Department of Early Childhood and Art Education
> >>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York
> >>> 2900 Bedford Avenue
> >>> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
> >>>
> >>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
> >>> Phone: (718) 951-5205
> >>> Fax: (718) 951-4816
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Beth Ferholt
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Early Childhood and Art Education
> Brooklyn College, City University of New York
> 2900 Bedford Avenue
> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
>
> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
> Phone: (718) 951-5205
> Fax: (718) 951-4816
>



-- 
Robert Lake  Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Social Foundations of Education
Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
Georgia Southern University
P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA  30460
Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be
born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John
Dewey-*Democracy
and Education*,1916, p. 139