[Xmca-l] Re: Trying to frame studies of the web through perezhivanie

[Huw Lloyd]

Sounds like an impressive proposal, Greg. I suppose the antecedent for that
in media studies is the "belief in print" syndrome. I haven't seen any
studies of that, though. Presumably there are studies of it (in archives
probably). A useful activity-theoretic analog can be taken from studies in
the formation of listening skills for musical tones. I believe both Luria
and Leontyev reported quite simple studies on that.

Your issues with descriptives for different "worlds" seem to me to be a
function of your efforts to frame things in terms of "identity". I'm not
sure you'd have that problem if it was framed in terms of identification.
But that was my position on the "identity of funds" paper & discussion. I
don't buy the "strong version" of identity implicated. For me, it leans
more towards the verbal descriptives rather than the actual awareness of
personal agency.

Best,
Huw

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 12:03, Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw,
>
> I  submitted in a much larger 1.4 federal million dollar grant to look at
> the production of fake news as a way to combat fake news.:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OrwDAzNPIn1DbJyUxbvyqVciYZUAgjO7dstQ7FmiGQQ/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I won't hear about the denial for months but I agree it is an interesting
> approach.
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 6:59 AM Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you all,
>>
>> You are getting at the theoretical sturggle I am having with describing
>> the web. It is both artefact and experience. My website and feed are just
>> as much a part of my funds of identity and a shaping of who I am than any
>> other experiencing I may do,
>>
>> I will look at a Deweyian lens for the study. I don;'t think it would
>> shift my theoretical or operational approaches too much at all.
>>
>> This discussion between analog and digital is fascinating. I struggle to
>> point out how there is a false dichotomy between online and offline and the
>> analog and digital split is becoming defined in pop culture as offline or
>> online. I believe in terms of identity development the distinction doesn't
>> work. Plus I hate writing "meat space" or "irl" (in real life).
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 10:48 AM Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Greg and Andy,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if, based on what Andy has said, is might be more worthwhile to
>>> focus on the Web as (Dewey’s ideas on) experience rather than perezhivaniye.
>>> I don’t really have a good grasp on perezhivaniye, can’t even really spell
>>> it.  But if you used Dewey’s ideas on experience the Web  becomes both
>>> artefact and event in our actions.  Dewey makes the argument multiple times
>>> I think that we cannot really know our tools outside of our experience in
>>> using them, and that in attempting to separate them we are diminishing the
>>> meaning of both in our lives. So I think experience actually would be a
>>> good way to describe what you are trying to do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, also another take on analog and digital.  There was a battle between
>>> digital and analogous in computing but my own reading of the history is
>>> that had more to do with how we treated how computers processed information
>>> and solved problems.  I believe the crux of the battle was a bit earlier
>>> than the 1960s.  Actually Vannevar Bush who some (me included) consider the
>>> father of both the Internet and the Web (well maybe a more distant father
>>> but the actual name web is based on one of his ideas I think, web of
>>> trails) was working on the idea of an analogous computer in the late
>>> forties. I am sure others were as well.  The difference as I understand it
>>> is whether we wanted to treat the processing of information as analogous
>>> (sort of a linear logic) where one piece of information built off another
>>> piece working towards an answer or whether we wanted to treat information
>>> as a series of yes no questions leading to a solution (digital referring to
>>> the use of 0 and one as yes and no, although I always mix that up.  Digital
>>> became dominant for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is because it
>>> is more precise and efficient but it is also far more limited.  I often
>>> wonder what would have happened if we had followed Bush’s intuition). There
>>> are analog and digital circuits of course, but at least in the early
>>> history of the computer I don’t believe that was the primary discussion in
>>> the use of these terms. Of course that’s just my reading.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden
>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 21, 2018 9:46 PM
>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trying to frame studies of the web through
>>> perezhivanie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A few comments Greg.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the web (i.w., www, yes?) is an *artefact *not
>>> events; each unit is a trace of perezhivaniya not a perezhivaniye as such;
>>> it is important not to conflate events and artefacts; just as an historian
>>> has to know that what they see are traces of real events, not the events as
>>> such. What you do with that evidence is something again.
>>>
>>> Just by-the-by, "analog" does not mean "original" or "real"; it means
>>> the opposite of reality. The terms "digital" and "analog" originate from
>>> the 1960s when there were two types of computer. Analog computers emulate
>>> natural processes by representing natural processes in analogous electronic
>>> circuits based on the calculus. In the end digital computers won an almost
>>> complete victory, but for example, if I'm not mistaken, the bionic ear uses
>>> analog computing to achieve real-time coding of speech, or at least it did
>>> when I knew it in the 1980s.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Andy Blunden
>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>
>>> On 22/09/2018 12:57 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have been spending time this summer reading up on the concept of
>>> perezhivanie after our article discussion on identify of funds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wanted to share a draft of my theoretical perspectie for feedback.
>>> Granted due to word count it will probably be reduced to a paragraph or two
>>> with drive by citations but I am trying to think this through to inform my
>>> design.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://checkoutmydomain.glitch.me/theoretical.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -I got a little feedback but from Russian scholars in other fields
>>> (literature mainly)  that I missed the meaning by being too neutral and I
>>> needed to get at "growing from one's misery" or another person said
>>> "brooding over the bad stuff that happened that makes you who you are" So I
>>> want to make sure I capture the struggle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -I am not diving into this now but I am also considering the identify
>>> and culture of a local web and how that plays out into how we shapes funds
>>> of identity as we create online spaces.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Finally is applying this lens with adult learners not appropriate? What
>>> does it mean when you actively want to tweak the environment of learners to
>>> reduce experiencing as struggle and increase experience as contemplation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20180924/14c52c6b/attachment.html