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

[Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man

Beautiful, suggestive images!!

Thanks -- H

Helena Worthen
Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com

On Feb 9, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote:

> I am not well enough read to respond to these recent posts but was very
> interested to talk more about  "meta".  I have, since I began teaching
> preschool, thought that the feeling of a "spiral of consciousness" -- is
> that my own term or from someone else? -- what I mean is when you are
> stopped in your tracks by a sensation that you are walking above layers of
> time in one place, or even that you are floating above your self as your
> mind races in every widening spirals ... that this sensation was familiar
> because I had felt it often in childhood.  I connected it to young
> children's love of repetition and ritual.
> I often felt, as a teacher, that the children in my class were walking a
> bit above the ground most of the time.  They appeared to be touching the
> floor or the asphalt but they were not, usually.  This became clear in the
> misunderstandings between adults and children that make up the life of the
> preschool (sort of like the one I mentioned above, between me and Mike, but
> so much larger) -- but I also have some earliest memories of seeing things
> repeatedly growing and shrinking in a spiral rhythm as I would try to sleep.
> That is my two cents of response : ) : That something of the nested dolls,
> or the liar paradox (Hofstadter, 1979 is where I heard that --
> Epidemenides/liar paradox), is essential to perezhivaie ... not just a
> repetition.
> Beth
> Beth
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Responding to Robert's invitation,
>> My book title is not going meta. Instead, it goes to the very hard of
>> mathematical praxis. What is it that allows a mathematician to see in the
>> moves of another a typical mathematical move rather than the move of
>> another. What is it in the doing that makes it mathematical rather
>> scientific, commonsense, chemical... And the book is concerned with showing
>> the sociogenesis of the mathematics of mathematics, the origin of
>> mathematical reasoning AS social relation (more accurately, because of the
>> ideality of mathematics, a societal relation---see Il'enkov, the ideal, the
>> general [obshee]).
>> For the remainder of the paragraphs of the unsigned message, I do not
>> understand a thing. I thought I understood Heidegger a bit, have read many
>> of his works many times. But I do not see how anything in these paragraphs
>> arises out of the thinking of Heidegger, or anyone else who took up and
>> developed the philosopher's thinking, like Derrida or Nancy . . .
>> Michael
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------
>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>> Applied Cognitive Science
>> MacLaurin Building A567
>> University of Victoria
>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
>> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
>> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> For meta question I defer to Professor Roth himself.
>>> (Included in this email).
>>> Robert
>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:40 PM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Beth, Robert, and the others forming a “(we)”.
>>>> Beth said it is the “()” within the “()” that interests her [as being].
>>>> Maybe Framing is ALL communication, ALL thought, ALL consciousness ....
>>>> Bateson?.... but Beth thinks we need to tackle framing head on [face
>>> into]
>>>> when discussing perezhivanie.
>>>> Now I noticed that Wolff-Michael Roth included in the title of his book
>>>> the phrase – mathematics of mathematics -  and my mind wondered to
>>>> conjecture if this is going “meta” and if “()” is also going “meta”.
>>>> Could Beth’s “()” as symbolic also have another aspect [or side] that
>> is
>>>> () = bracket and the doubling  “()” = bracketing the bracket.  These
>>> moves
>>>> as examples of going “meta” which also plays with saying/not saying or
>>>> revealing/concealing that Ed Wall recently posted when he said:
>>>> The truth of the proposition, in effect, resides in the possibility of
>>>> bringing its referents into the light (here is where aletheia takes a
>>>> part); I.e. uncovering. That is, on the LEVEL of ‘apophantic as’ things
>>> are
>>>> propositionally either true or false, but on the LEVEL of the
>>> ‘hermeneutic
>>>> as’ they are neither.
>>>> However, the ‘apophantic as’ IS (its being) grounded in interpretation,
>>>> I.e. the ‘hermeneutic as’ (its being). For Heidegger (and this is an
>>>> oversimplification) ‘hermeneutic truth’ IS in effect (in use)
>> DISclosure.
>>>> ..... complicated because if one surfaces [metaphor of LEVELS] to the
>>>> apophantic then, in effect (in use) there is a covering back up
>>>> (closure).... Also, and this is most important, the consequent would
>> not
>>> be
>>>> an understanding of Trump’s speech, but an understanding (interpreting)
>>> of
>>>> how  “(I)” understand (interpret) Trump’s speech.
>>>> I am travelling back and forth exploring saying as () generating
>> effects
>>>> IN USE, and then doubling back and exploring the () generating effects
>> IN
>>>> USE through “()” interpretation of the uses.  To go hear would have to
>>>> bring in Umberto Eco who pleads for us to make a distinction between
>>> ‘use’
>>>> and ‘interpretation’ AS aspects of semiosis and semiotic but this is
>> for
>>>> another turn.
>>>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>>>> From: Beth Ferholt
>>>> Sent: February 5, 2017 6:38 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>> canY
>>>> 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-
>>> decision-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
>>> --
>>> 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*Those who have
>>> never despaired have neither lived nor loved. Hope is inseparable from
>>> despair. Those of us who truly hope make despair a constant companion
>> whom
>>> we outwrestle every day owing to our commitment to justice, love, and
>>> hope* (
>>> Cornel West, 2008, p. 185).
> -- 
> 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