[Xmca-l] Re: Trying to frame studies of the web through perezhivanie
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Wed Sep 26 18:28:52 PDT 2018
I found "Having an experience" the most useful.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 27/09/2018 10:52 AM, mike cole wrote:
> I would be helped in following this interesting discussion
> if people brought it back to /perezhivanie /. It is my
> reading of the recent special issue on perezhivanie that
> there is no firm agreement on its meaning. My unease was
> evoked when I read a note where the word perezhivanie had
> been replaced by the word experience. When I read the word
> experience I think Dewey, not Vygotsky, not Stanislavsky,
> not Vsiliuk.
>
> Mike
> PS
> What is the best discussion of experience and perezhivanie
> that covers a lot of Dewey, particularly “/Art and
> Experience” ? Deweyites out there, speak up!/
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:11 PM Edward Wall
> <ewall@umich.edu <mailto:ewall@umich.edu>> wrote:
>
> Henry
>
> Interesting subject. I have always thought
> Newton somewhat more ‘digital’ and Leibnitz somewhat
> more ‘analog’ (he used infinitesimals which Robinson
> much latter put on a firm mathematical basis) in how
> they, in essence, treat something like a point. I’ve
> seen a few calculus texts that do use Leibnitz’s
> method and there are some arguments that,
> mathematically speaking, extensions of his method
> (due, in part, to Robinson) bring some things into
> view that may be hard to see otherwise.
>
> Ed
>
>
>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 4:52 PM, HENRY SHONERD
>> <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> It took me a long time to understand the calculus,
>> because I couldn’t "get" the limit theorem, which
>> allows for a way to use digital means to arrive
>> quickly at as-precise-as-you-like approximations of
>> rates of change (in differential calculus) and sums
>> (in integral calculus) than would be possible and/or
>> practical with analog means of counting and
>> measuring. Without such quickly gotten precision,
>> modern engineering would be impossible. I thought
>> that Newton and Leibnitz discovered the calculs
>> independently and at the same time, but a quick look
>> at the wiki on the calculus is much more complex than
>> that. It’s a history, it seems, that adds to the
>> issue of concept and a word for the concept.
>> Henry
>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 7:53 AM, Glassman, Michael
>>> <glassman.13@osu.edu <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ed,
>>>
>>> This is a kind of interesting topic, including from
>>> a cultural perspective. My knowledge on this is
>>> relatively superficial. Bruce Robinson made a
>>> really good point to me – also in your message –
>>> that analog computers were better for things like
>>> differential equations and more pure mathematic
>>> stuff (I think). But that when it came to
>>> information processing digital was far superior. My
>>> thinking though from the cultural perspective is
>>> that analog thinking is more representative of the
>>> way humans actually think, at least the way I
>>> believe they think. The big argument I have with
>>> information processing is that the argument is that
>>> the way the computer works (mostly software) is
>>> isomorphic to the human mind. But I wonder how much
>>> of the direction our society has gone in the last
>>> thirty years, with the timed testing using multiple
>>> choice questions, if we are attempting to make the
>>> human mind isomorphic to the computer. As a friend
>>> who has worked at IBM for a lot of years told me
>>> recently, they are beginning to wonder if the
>>> computer is not training the human. I had wondered
>>> if we had gone the analog route (and right now I
>>> think I’m agreeing with Bruce, but I change quickly)
>>> if we might have gone in another direction, a more
>>> pure human-computer symbiosis. Just rambling on a
>>> Tuesday morning.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> *On Behalf
>>> Of *Edward Wall
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:11 PM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trying to frame studies of
>>> the web through perezhivanie
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> I don’t know if my comments are germane to your
>>> discussion of digital and analog, but I was involved
>>> in the 60s towards the tail end of the
>>> ‘competition'. Your reading makes sense to me;
>>> however from where I was sitting there were some
>>> nuances. In those years there were, in effect, two
>>> kinds of computing using ‘computers’: information
>>> processing and scientific computing. Both of these
>>> had an analog history stretching far back.
>>> Information processing was, in a sense, initially
>>> mechanical, a mechanical that became driven by
>>> electronics and eventually with the advent of
>>> various graphic devices (I include printers of
>>> various kinds) became what we see today. The
>>> situation with scientific computing was a little
>>> different as it has even a richer analog history.
>>> Initially, electronic analog devices had the upper
>>> hand because they could, in effect, operate in real
>>> time. However, as the digital devices became faster
>>> and faster, it became possible to, in effect,
>>> simulate an analog device on a digital machine and
>>> pragmatically the simulation was “good enough.” Thus
>>> for, in a sense, economic reasons digital
>>> ‘computers’ won the ‘battle.’ In a way the evolution
>>> is reminiscent of that of audio reproduction or
>>> using mathematics to model physical reality; it is
>>> amazingly effective. The battle, by the way, is
>>> still going on. If I tell the Amazon Alexa to play
>>> music a little louder, the increase is done in a
>>> digital fashion. If I turn the volume control on one
>>> of the original versionsit is done in an analog
>>> fashion. So I think you are right, the digital path
>>> doesn’t completely reproduce the analog path.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Glassman, Michael
>>> <glassman.13@osu.edu
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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/20180927/4ca68ea1/attachment-0001.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list