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

[Greg Mcverry]

Yes sorry my use of analog v digital sidetracked thread.

I spent some time considering how drastic a change to my methodology I
would have to make to for switch to Dewey and experiencing.

I really don't consider the web, for those who inhabit it, as an artifact.
it is both the act of identity creation and identity itself. A dance of the
selves in a networked world. A living part of who many people are.

A piece of my MEs that is shaped by me and outside interest.

I

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:30 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:

> 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 perezhivanie had been replaced by the word experience.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> 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> 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>
>> 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>xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>  < <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>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>
>> 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>
>> 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
>>  < <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>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>
>> 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>
>> 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/20180926/a2ebfb91/attachment.html