[Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day

Sun Aug 12 17:57:37 PDT 2018

Annalisa,

don't you think that a very good example of how not to invite participation or cooperation is by accusing participants, as you do, of not having "courage" or "curiosity" of discussing a given topic rather than another? As if the suggested topic had to be followed in some pre-give way, or else it was a sign of courage or lack of curiosity. I personally think it would be great that others would take up on your thread in the terms that you initially may have intended (as per your later post, it seems it was positive regard) but, alas, as Hutchins may have suggested, social relations/systems have this quality: they are not reducible to the intentions of individuals. And in fact, by pointing out of the transformative potential of dealing with anxiety, I would have said that the discussion was suggesting that either/or positions (unconditional positive-unconditional negative) may be an idealized simplification of an otherwise dialectical, more complex reality. So, just as you seem to assume that people has not followed your thread and truly engaged with you, they might indeed have been trying to and in fact doing so. But, who are we to judge?

People always participate from where they are, just as learners do what they can do (in the social, ZPD sense of the "can do"), and not more or otherwise. Even when the teacher is trying to teach them a lesson on whatever subject, students keep learning lots of things *despite* the teacher's intentions, most of this learning having little to do with what the teacher intended. Dewey speaks of "collateral learning", and Biesta speaks of  "the beautiful risk of education". I invite you, as I invite Peter S. to welcome the risk of being with others in this list for learning together, without necessarily being able to prescribe what this learning is going to be.  In fact, although you end up asking about love and Vygotsky, in your initial post you also ask the following:
"How does Vygostkian theory account for the unconscious, and also threats to self (as an internalized structure)?" Given that question, I don't think Chuck's post and article and ensuing conversation about anxiety should come as a surprise, or as something to regret, and much less, something to throw up on others. I am  grateful for the sharing of the work, as you overtly were, and for the opportunity that came along with it. Peter Jones, as you noted, wisely opened another thread, and this is the way discussions go, they lead to new topics, etc.

This may be a spin off of your initial intention, but it really is part of whatever you are part of when you generously first post and open for others to respond. You may not have intended to disturb anyone, but you may have done so. And someone else may not have intended to make you feel that you are being shut down for being a woman, but you have felt that way. It may be that trying to find out what the real "intention" or "true motivation" of the other was when saying this or that really does not help when cooperation is the goal. Nor does it help telling others what exactly a conversation should and should not be about. Treating others as you would treat someone else in the type of relation you would like to achieve is a better strategy, I believe, and this should not go by the price of loosing your integrity or identity.

That said, yes, I too wished that novices, women, people of all ethnic/cultural backgrounds would participate more in this list. We are in fact working on a website that shall complement this list and which we are hoping will help achieving this. Meanwhile, in my humble opinion, posts like the last one you wrote do not help.

And back to the scholarly topic, you ask (among other things),
"Was it the case that Vygotsky was interested in opening that up for examination (the "that" being positive regard), because it has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition. Though sometimes it almost feels that he set emotion to the side to deal with later. Or am I wrong about that."  To me Vygotsky was pursuing a Spinozist, dialectical materialist approach to the question of affect, and so I don't think your statement "has to do with emotion and affect, and not cognition" would have made any sense to him. What is the relation of affect to thinking and this relation changes would have been closer to the kind of question I would have attributed to Vygotky's line of thinking.

Best wishes, and hoping for your continued and positive regard participation,
Alfredo
________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
Sent: 12 August 2018 22:27
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Rogers day

Peter and venerable others,

I'm presuming you are directing your post to me.

First, I did not ask you to volunteer your private information. Nor am I the author of your responses. I had no intention to post about anxiety, that was a topic inserted from Charle's post on Sullivan. I was comparing and contrasting to integrate what Charles had to say, which is often the way conversations go.

Let me be clear: I will not be able to follow your recommendation, Peter, particularly because I feel your true motivation is to shut me down, which is commonly done to women on this list and in society in general.

"Nevertheless she persisted!" How dare I do that? 😊

Please take responsibility for yourself, your actions, and your pain.

I find it terribly ironic that I was posting about Fred Rogers and Carl Rogers and...

...POSITIVE REGARD (aka love or care)...

...and the VALUE of that discussion, the discussion that I would very much like to have, passes right by and descends into the topic of anxiety and the commencement of a flamewar.

I find it startling that people do not have the COURAGE, nor even the CURIOSITY, to discuss the value of positive regard. Where are you, kind and happy people?

Perhaps our own self talk tells us we do not deserve it. So much so we have to censor others who bring it up.

What is the apparent crime in discussing positive regard? What is the fear that is stirred up?

If anyone wishes to continue discussing models of anxiety, I invite folks to start a different thread about it.

Oh, look! I see Peter Jones has done just that. Thanks Peter J. There you go Peter S, now you can discuss anxiety all you like! And any way you like. Have a go.

In dicussing Fred Rogers and Carl Rogers, I was interested in something very very different, something that is actually not pathological, but affirming.

Kind regards,

Annalisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180813/a4a5ca4f/attachment.html 