[Xmca-l] Re: CoExperiencing as a Philosophy of Practice.

[Larry Purss]

I hope my sending reports on my trying to understand the *work of
experiencing* and the *work of coexperiencing* may be helpful as a
particular aspect of CHAT.  I am finding Vasiliuk's way of com/posing his
understanding is a way in to multiple layers of psychology.

On page 33 he has a section exploring *the Semiotics of Psychotherapeutic
Situation and the Psychotechnics of Understanding*. In this section he
outlines an orientation that is the opposite of *manipulation*
[understanding IN ORDER TO do something - influence, cure, correction].
Vasiliuk is marking an approach that develops a particular type of
*equipment* [equipped with psychotherapeutic *schemes* IN ORDER TO
*respond* to the client's entire, complex, dynamic streams of
*symbolization*.

This focus on *response* as coexperiencing understanding that is the
opposite of *manipulation*. THIS response style is Vasiliuk's
psychotherapeutic *reliance* meaning the focus of the work of experiencing
and coexperiencing.

In Vasiliuk's own words:

"In putting THIS reliance [topic, subject matter -LP] into practice, the
therapist does everything to understand the patient and to give him THIS
understanding rather than try to understand in order to do something -
influence, cure, or correct. Psychotherapeutic understanding  CREATES an
intensified dialogic FIELD that, in accordance with the "silence principle"
(Kop'ev,  1992) appeals to the patients freddom - his freedom of
expression, of will, of self-awareness"

I believe THIS reliance [as a type of understanding] within the work of
coexperiencing [AND SILENCE] is the  layer of consciousness that I am
marking and amplifying. THIS reliance is the opposite of *manipulation*
and *incarnates* a different type of *situation* [field]
Larry


On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> To move back to a particular example exploring this hybrid coexperiencing
> in a liminal place.
> Vasiliuk on page 32 [of coexperiencing article] is defining what is
> simultaneously  a *topic* and a *subject matter* and an *explanatory model*.
>
> Vasiliuk writes:
>
> A *problem* must be regarded not as a natural *thing* that the client
> *has* before and independently of psychotherapy and that he brings in
> ready-made form to the psychotherapy session. A *problem* is a *symbolic
> object* that is building up during the psychotherapeutic process ITSELF.
> It is defined simultaneously as a *topic* that is being dialogically being
> agreed upon in communication between the client and the psychotherapist ,
> AS a *subject matter* of their joint activity upon that which they are
> agreeing upon, AND as an *explanatory model* for the client's complaints
> that they are gaining an agreement on ..."
>
> I hear Vasiliuk's voice as marking what Merleau-Ponty conceives of as 1st
> order dialogue. I marked the word *ITSELF* to highlight this place where
> the *topic* the *subject matter* and the *explanatory model* con/verge.
>
> Moving back to the general this process of convergence is occurring across
> multiple *subject matters* as philosophy of practice.
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>> and I think there is a dire need for such a convergence as well.
>> One of the contributing factors to the anti-science currents which can
>> lead to great medical, political and social problems is antipathy to one
>> particular, dominant *style* of science, and I think entanglement between
>> science and the arts promotes a broader feel for different styles of
>> science.
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>
>> On 7/11/2015 12:15 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>
>>> Larry, I strongly believe that there is a convergence of humanities and
>>> social/behavioral sciences going on as one thread of academic discourse
>>> congenial to CHAT. A real good location for pursuing it is. The Comm dept
>>> at UCSD, if we add the arts as part off the mix.
>>> That's my story at least. :-)
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought I would add the last paragraph of Alex Kozulin's review of
>>>> Vasiliyuk's book.
>>>>
>>>> By choosing the literary model of human experiencing, Vasilyuk affirms
>>>> his
>>>> adherence to the humanistic, rather than scientific approach to human
>>>> psychology. His work can also be seen as a blueprint for the future
>>>> convergence of humanistic psychology with Vygotsky’s cultural-historical
>>>> theory of human development .
>>>>
>>>> This premonition that some  new convergence is on the horizon. The
>>>> coming
>>>> intersection forming a hybrid character.
>>>> Do others agree that we may be moving in the direction of a *literary
>>>> model*?
>>>> The discussion of White's narrative approach [using Bruner's notion of
>>>> scaffolding] may be an example.
>>>>
>>>>   Vasilyuk's key understanding as expressed in his concept of
>>>> consciousness
>>>> that has two essential aspects [and their relations]
>>>> *stratigraphy* as layered registers of depth or height. Each *layer* is
>>>> a
>>>> life-world.
>>>> *structure* of the smallest molecule as unit of consciousness IS a
>>>> *mental
>>>> image*  A mental image having the structure of the two magnetic poles
>>>> and
>>>> the dynamic of consciousness moving within this dynamic *image*  like
>>>> the
>>>> flow of plasma.  Depth of layers AND mental images interact generating
>>>> consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> Vasilyuk's philosophy of practice as 1st order word that is originating
>>>> within the liminal spaces on the boundaries OF humanistic THEORY and
>>>> cultural historical THEORY of human development.
>>>>
>>>> Consciousness as the originating site of meaning-GENERATION forming
>>>> within
>>>> co-experiencing *situations*.  In other words situated consciousness as
>>>> working experience.
>>>>
>>>> This is a fragment but does express a *tone*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mike, the declaration that cultural mediation [in particular the
>>>>> symbolic
>>>>> level] is a key element can put aside psychoanalysis and psychotherapy
>>>>> and turn to Vygotsky's own way of including this symbolic level of
>>>>> coexperiencing. Listen for the implicit movement marking the felt sense
>>>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> having *fallen away* from a *source* and then finding one's way back to
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> *source* [and in this return entering *deeper* levels.  I am referring
>>>>> to
>>>>> page 62 of Vasiliyuk's article "Prayer Silence, Psychotherapy".
>>>>>
>>>>> Vygotsky is exploring  a *deeper* layer for experiencing suffering.
>>>>> Not a
>>>>> hedonistic flight from suffering, not masochistic consolation, not
>>>>>
>>>> routine
>>>>
>>>>> platitudes [always a silver lining] but a spiritual sublimation of
>>>>>
>>>> sorrow.
>>>>
>>>>> Elevating and deepening into the layer of experiencing the *source* by
>>>>> transforming this suffering by return to the eternal.
>>>>> Vygotsky images his life as *my star* in the heavens *marked* by
>>>>> sorrow.
>>>>> His personal life and his Jewish life *marked* by sorrow. BUT this star
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>> IN THE HEAVENS.  So the meaning of suffering [the falling away from the
>>>>> source] is not in fleeing from the suffering but in returning to the
>>>>> *source* [the eternal, the deepest layer of consciousness] . The
>>>>> meaning
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>> *found* in the ELEVATION of suffering, elevtion on the wing OF A PRAYER
>>>>>
>>>> TO
>>>>
>>>>> GOD. The transformation of suffering IN GOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vygotsky's metaphor is a personal particular  *image* expressing a
>>>>> deeply
>>>>> felt layer of experience. But within the particular unique felt image
>>>>>
>>>> there
>>>>
>>>>> is a general [not universal] plot [mytheme] that is historically
>>>>> traceable developing  symbolic cultural imaginary.
>>>>>
>>>>> The plot can shift what is *source* [God, sublime, the *self*] and this
>>>>> can be historically traced[including the work of experiencing the
>>>>>
>>>> authentic
>>>>
>>>>> true *self* in psychology].
>>>>>
>>>>>   Suzanne Kirschner has traced these transformations in this myth from
>>>>> religious origins, transformed within the Romantic movement, and
>>>>> shifting
>>>>> into psychological theories today.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point I am offering is that Vygotsky as Vasilyuk his project was
>>>>> touched by this mytheme. Peirce in his speculative musings, also was
>>>>>
>>>> pulled
>>>>
>>>>> into this mytheme.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not suggesting this plot is fundamental or foundational but the
>>>>> yearning for this plot to be universal envelops and embodies us into
>>>>> this
>>>>> particular myth and is experienced as a deeply felt *truth*. It is only
>>>>>
>>>> one
>>>>
>>>>> of the *key elements* but it is a significant one of the keys to the
>>>>> philosophy of practice.
>>>>> The shift to secular themes [such as naturalism] does not change the
>>>>> underlying plot structure but does change the images that *have us*.
>>>>> Vygotsky saw his *star* ELEVATED to the heavens that transforms
>>>>> suffering
>>>>> which is the experience existing within a symbolic truth,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:00 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Larry--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your continuing explication of your reading of Vasiliuk.
>>>>>> Putting
>>>>>> aside psychoanalysis and psychotherapy for a moment, I am totally
>>>>>> behind
>>>>>> the delaration
>>>>>> that  *cultural mediation OF experience* which is a KEY ELEMENT", plus
>>>>>> co-experiencing as the necessary condition for that cultural
>>>>>> mediation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Vasilyuk is developing the *philosophy of Practice* as a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> psychotechnical
>>>>
>>>>> *system*.
>>>>>>> He says in his historical outline of the different *basic
>>>>>>> foundations*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which psychology has relied [from suggestibility to *becoming aware*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> *emancipation* to reliance on learning  to reliance on experiencing to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> current reliance on experiencing [as existential/humanistic] which is
>>>>>>> intersecting with todays reliance on productively producing internal
>>>>>>> psychological transformations oriented to enriching the meaning of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> being.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vasilyuk says the task exploring the changing reliances of psychology
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> practice is not to describe the *factual* history of psychology and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> reliances of psychotherapy but to elicit the logic of history. In
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> other
>>>>
>>>>> words to *listen* to the evolving IMPLICIT plot that gives meaning and
>>>>>>> direction to the subsequent acts of the development of psychology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> (page
>>>>
>>>>> 11)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the key elements Vasilyuk identifies is the concept of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *cultural
>>>>
>>>>> mediation of experiences*. He says:
>>>>>>> Historically cumulative experiencings with standard situations
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> crystallize
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in various SYMBOLIC FORMS; when a person experiences crises, his
>>>>>>> consciousness might get connected to these symbolic forms, an so the
>>>>>>> process of experiencing, without losing its personality-oriented
>>>>>>> uniqueness, gains ADDITIONAL DEPTH AND PRODUCTIVITY. (page 18).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is this additional depth and productivity as symbolic that
>>>>>>> Vasilyuk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> generating within his evolving implicit *plot* oriented to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> transforming
>>>>
>>>>> psychology in order to enrich the meaning of being.  This is also the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> theme
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vasilyuk is relying on in his other article *Prayer, Silence, and
>>>>>>> Psychotherapy*. This is the living symbol of prayer on the boundary
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> experiencing and silence/stillness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is Vygotsky exploring the *depth* of symbolism in his own words:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ophelia's tragedy [a personification] is exactly LIKE a lyrical
>>>>>>> accompaniment, that towers over the entire play, which is full of the
>>>>>>> dreadful torment of INEXPRESSIBILITY, of the most profound dark,
>>>>>>> mysterious, and SACRED melodies that in some incomprehensible and
>>>>>>> miraculous way REVEAL AND EMBODY what is most exciting, most
>>>>>>> allusive,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> touchingly important, what is DEEPEST AND DARKEST, but what is most
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> tragic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that is OVERCOME and enlightened, and what IS MOST MYSTICAL in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> play. Thus tragedy turns into PRAYER .... as though with an
>>>>>>> oblational
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> expiatory and PRAYERFUL light, it gives religious illumination to the
>>>>>>> tragedy." (page 61 of Vasilyuk's article.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vasiliuk then comments: "No matter how much the devotees of Marxist
>>>>>>> materialism try to conceal Vygotsky's religiosity from themselves and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> us,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is perfectly obvious that THESE words [LP -1st order words]  could
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have been written by a person with deep personal EXPERIENCE with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> prayer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (page 61).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To sum up, I am MARKING [for orientation purposes]  the concept of
>>>>>>> *cultural mediation OF experience* which is a KEY ELEMENT of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> coexperiencing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> psychotherapy AS philosophy of practice. I believe that the same
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *symbolic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gravity* can be expressed through changing images. The plot of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "falling
>>>>
>>>>> away from* and *returning to* can be expressed in multiple symbols
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> such
>>>>
>>>>> as turning away from God, turning away from the natural sublime,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> turning
>>>>
>>>>> away from one's true authentic self, These images are expressing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *reliances* but are sharing the same symbolic plot as the cultural
>>>>>>> mediation of experiencing. The IMPLICIT deepening of coexperience
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> now emerging in Russia since the 1980's that Vasilyuk is plotting may
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> implicitly enveloped in this same mytheme of falling away from *the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> source*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and then the return to this *source.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The book *The Religious and Romantic Roots of Psychoanalysis* by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suzanne
>>>>
>>>>> Kirschner has plotted this particular myth flowing through Western
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ways
>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> experiencing the meaning of being. She is tracing the roots of the
>>>>>>> emergence of Freudian psychoanalysis but it is the more general
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> philosophy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of practice as including this KEY ELEMENT of cultural mediation as
>>>>>>> deepening coexperiences that I am highlighting.
>>>>>>> As Vasilyuk says: the task is to LISTEN FOR *the evolving IMPLICIT
>>>>>>> plot that gives meaning and direction to the subsequent acts of the
>>>>>>> *development* of psychology [including the KEY symbolic element that
>>>>>>> *deepens* experience beyond the personal existential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
>>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>