[Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

[David Kellogg]

Spinoza's Ethics, especially Chapter Two, Proposition 21:

"This idea of the mind is united to the mind in the same way as the mind is
united to the body."

But see also Props 20~29. And just about everything that Vermeer painted.
Or Rembrandt's dissection lessons.

That's the glass-cutting diamond, I think. That is, that's the bit of
Spinoza that Vygotsky thinks will "cut like a diamond through all kinds of
psychological problems" (LSV CW, Volume 6, p. 105).

David Kellogg
Sangmyung University

New article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
Realizations: non-causal but real relationships in and between Halliday,
Hasan, and Vygotsky

Some free e-prints today available at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDWHuCxggg$ 

New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works
Volume One: Foundations of Pedology"
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDXTTDBgAA$ 


On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:48 AM Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I can’t quite tell from your message whether "Mind is the Body's Idea of
> Itself” comes from Vygotsky or from 17th century Dutch painting, but I love
> it! I’ve been working unsuccessfully for years trying to convince
> psychologists that trying to study ‘mind’ is a fruitless endeavor.
>
> But the statement must be Vygotsky's because it is so consistent with his
> metaphor in Crisis: to believe that mind exists and can be studied is like
> thinking the reflection of a candle in a mirror is a second real candle,
> and trying to study it while paying no attention to either the mirror or
> the real candle.
>
> Sorry not to have been paying attention: which text is this from?
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2020, at 5:46 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Henry:
>
> As far as I know, there are many different schools of Kabuki, including a
> 'social realist' one and a much more stylized one. But like Stanislavsky's
> method, all of them are "depth" approaches which seek out inner truth by
> deep-diving into something called 'character'. For me, Noh is a much more
> "heights" approach, and like Brecht it involves holding character at a
> distance and trying to form overall judgements about it rather than getting
> lost in the details of a personality. There is a similar tension in Chinese
> opera, between Shanghai Opera (deep-diving) and Beijing (stylized). I'm not
> sure I could call that a grammar; it looks more like granularity on stage
> (consider, for example, the use of make-up, the importance of costume, and
> place of recitative).
>
> Michael probably knows more than I do about Stanislavsky. But when you are
> in a conversation and somebody says something like "You've completely lost
> me", there are three possibilities. One is just interpersonal--I'm not very
> interested in what you are saying and I've got other things to do. Another
> possibility is more ideational--I can't follow what you are saying--maybe
> because of the lexicogrammar you use or because of the unfamiliar ideas you
> have--and I need some other way of understanding it, like a familiar
> example or a story. A third is textual: I am interested in what you say and
> I recognize the setting and the characters you are referring to, but I
> can't really get my arms around the interpretative frame. Usually the
> problems I have communicating are of the textual type--not always, but more
> often than not.
>
> We're having a similar problem with our new book, which is about the
> emotions: Vygotsky has left us a fragment, and it's long, circuitous and
> assumes a very thorough knowledge of seventeenth century philosophy. So we
> want to turn it into a kind of comic book, using seventeenth century Dutch
> paintings, which include a lot of the ideas that I think are most
> troublesome (e.g. "Deus Sive Natura", "Mind is the Body's Idea of Itself",
> "Freedom is an illusion, but recognition of necessity is real"). That
> format in itself can create an interpretive frame that people have trouble
> with (can I take this seriously--it's a comic book!). I was looking forward
> to mansplaining in a face to face meeting with our readers this Saturday,
> but that's now been cancelled because of the spike we are having in Seoul
> (like our first one, incubated by a religious sect owing fealty to the
> remnants of the former military dictatorship and to Donald Trump).
>
> If you compare Cognitive Grammar to Systemic-Functional Grammar, you'll
> notice three differences right away.
>
> a) Cognitive Grammar assumes a COGNITIVE semantics. Systemic-Functional
> Grammar treats 'cognitive processes' as a black box and studies visible
> social-semiotic processes instead.
> b) Cognitive Grammar has, as you say, TWO strata--form and meaning.
> Systemic-Functional grammar has three, and allows for coupling all three in
> different ways, because a two stratal model, particularly one that
> emphasizes fixed units of redounding elements, is essentially replicative
> and cannot account for development.
> c) Cognitive Grammar is, as we have said before, speculative.
> Systemic-Functional Grammar depends on a dialectic of research into
> empirical facts in many languages and theoretical generalizations, all of
> which (to date, anyway) avoid universalization.
>
> I remember asking Ruqaiya Hasan about Langacker and cognitive grammar. She
> told me that when they were in Singapore together, Langacker complained
> that his cognitive grammar was being largely ignored. "And what about
> Halliday?" Ruqaiya asked. Fortunately, MCA is NOT ignoring Halliday! (See
> link below!)
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
> Realizations: non-causal but real relationships in and between Halliday,
> Hasan, and Vygotsky
>
> Some free e-prints today available at:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDWHuCxggg$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!WzhE4UmkZC17BnEoGQS1fRQ5ws_X1EarH5Yqn8YDscsZhL7pAkoHazqpRwBbKJIMxdHi6w$>
>
> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works
> Volume One: Foundations of Pedology"
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDXTTDBgAA$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!WzhE4UmkZC17BnEoGQS1fRQ5ws_X1EarH5Yqn8YDscsZhL7pAkoHazqpRwBbKJIh1AzN2g$>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:21 AM HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> David,
>> I am guessing that your apochyphal story and analysis has something to do
>> with how languaging works. Langacker--a proponent of what he calls
>> Cognitive Grammar,--asserts that a* grammar*, is a structured inventory
>> of conventional linguistic units, a linguistic unit being a symbolic
>> coupling of form and meaning for linguistic purposes. I find that
>> definition useful. How does that relate, if at all, to what you have been
>> trying to explain to Michael G?
>>
>> And yes, believe it or not,I was wondering about Noh theater. To be
>> honest, what I saw could have been Noh, but I am pretty sure my parents
>> told me it was Kabuki. I can’t ask them now, but I think they would have
>> remembered when they were living. So back to my question in the first
>> paragraph: Do Kabuki/Stanislavsky and/or Noh/Brecht draw on any theatrical
>> grammar? Keeping in mind that any grammar in theater would have to draw
>> massively on gesture, in ways that written language would not. And gesture
>> may have its own grammar.
>>
>> I should add that Langacker recognizes that grammars are built through
>> use and are as much in the context of language usage as in the head(s) of
>> the user(s). Though he also recognizes that Cognitive Grammar is short on
>> the analysis of real language in context. This is an old conversation I
>> have had with you, but it seems relevant here. I am thinking now about
>> improvisation, which we assume is mostly true of “natural” language use,
>> though Langacker argues that much language use is based on the use of
>> common phrases, rather than being very “creative", like my first phrase in
>> the first paragraph of this post: “I am guessing…” and “believe it or not”
>> that starts the second paragraph, and the “I should add” that starts this
>> paragraph. These are all over-learned linguistic units
>>
>> I think what I am getting to is the distinction between grammar and
>> discourse, how they bleed into one another and how every use of language is
>> in some sense staged.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2020, at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is a completely apocryphal story in China about Stanislavsky and
>> Brecht. They are both visiting a liberated area in my wife's home province
>> of Shaanxi. There is a village production of the White Haired Girl, in
>> which the heroine is raped by the landlord's son, Huang Shiren. To prevent
>> the rape, a peasant in the audience draws a pistol and shoots the actor
>> through the heart. Since the whole village has been reading Chairman's
>> Mao's essay on the necessity of holding funerals for martyrs, "In Memory of
>> Dr. Norman Bethune", there is a funeral the next day.
>> Stanislavskky presents a wreath of white carnations with the legend, "To
>> the greatest actor in China, a martyr to his art". Brecht's envoy reads "To
>> the worst actor in the world, on a particularly bad night."
>>
>> Isaiah Berlin argued that romanticism was a great shift from
>> enlightenment rationalism: for the romantic, it doesn't matter what you
>> believe so long as you sincerely believe it (this is why German romanticism
>> produced both communists and fascists). For the romantic actor, it doesn't
>> matter what you feel so long as the feeling is deeply felt. The
>> anti-romantic view--and Brecht was an anti-romantic--is that it doesn't
>> matter whether you deeply feel the feeling or not; the only thing that
>> matters is what people learn from it and whether it will help or harm them.
>>
>> Why do we despise or pity a teacher or a politican who is merely a
>> showman? Because a communication that fails to communicate an idea, or
>> which communicates only the pulchritude of the communcator, is simply off
>> topic. If Anthony takes away from my video "Spinoza, Chess, and Other Magic
>> Gateways" only the story about the Danish chess grandmaster in Beijing, I
>> have done nothing but entertain or enthrall him.So for example if you read
>> the little story about Brecht and Stanislavsky as a biographical account,
>> or a colorful anecdote that has nothing to do with my argument, I have
>> failed as a communicator (Alas, I often do!).
>>
>> A good friend of mine is a well-known novelist in the USA. She told me
>> once that she became a novelist because she learned that words can not only
>> report an experience but reproduce it. I must have wrinkled my nose at
>> that, because we got off into a discussion on whether inner speech can
>> actually be written down or not (which is essentially the point that
>> divides Woolf and Joyce). As a novelist, she said it could; as a linguist,
>> I said it couldn't.
>>
>> If we take Stanislavsky's annotated scripts literally, then the emotional
>> subtext attributed to Chatskii and Sophia are a kind of mentalese: their
>> external language is simply an editing or a translation of the inner
>> subtext. But that's not what verbal thinking is at all; it is entirely
>> predicative, and incomprehensible without its internal context.
>>
>> (Henry--compare Kabuki with Noh. Kabuki is Stanislavsky. Noh is Brecht.)
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Sangmyung University
>>
>> New article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
>> Realizations: non-causal but real relationships in and between Halliday,
>> Hasan, and Vygotsky
>>
>> Some free e-prints today available at:
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDWHuCxggg$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!XgGKXuGHbf-4OH_o5GvbFeTXs47ccHePHKYFG8MHBzAxxDUiIJk2_bjxgY7zjfrVE7ftQA$>
>>
>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works
>> Volume One: Foundations of Pedology"
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDXTTDBgAA$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XgGKXuGHbf-4OH_o5GvbFeTXs47ccHePHKYFG8MHBzAxxDUiIJk2_bjxgY7zjfo9s_ZqtA$>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:28 AM Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You completely lost me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *On Behalf Of *David Kellogg
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2020 6:44 PM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we all tend to read our current opinions into our Vygotsky,
>>> Michael. The only real advantage I claim for my own reading of "The
>>> Psychology of the Actor's Creative Work" is that it is unpopular,
>>> eccentric, counter-conventional, or at least stridently anti-romantic, and
>>> it will serve as a tonic or at least a foil for people on this list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So this is a late work, if we are to believe the textological note. It
>>> belongs to the period Vygotsky is writing "Teaching on the Emotions", where
>>> he uses the actor's paradox as evidence against Lange and James (1999: 117)
>>> and where he seems to be developing a theory of higher emotions consistent
>>> with Spinoza's distinction between emotions that are passions (caused by
>>> the environment) and those which are active (self-caused), by which he
>>> means caused by understanding and knowledge (and not by acts of recall and
>>> imitation).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vygotsky counterposes Stanislavsky's system to the system of
>>> psychotechnical selection ('talent-scouting, acting-aptitude tests, your
>>> comparison with Ribot is one that Vygotsky himself makes, and it is very a
>>> propos). He seems to wish a plague upon both, because both conflate the
>>> actor's own emotions with the shareable, social emotions that actors have
>>> to build on stage. You are of course right that this is what gives that
>>> emotion a conditional, historically specific, and even class specific
>>> character--and you are right that Stanislavsky, but not Craig, was
>>> convinced of this, even if Stanislavsky developed a technique that
>>> eventually ran directly counter to it (the excesses of "method" acting in
>>> Hollywood).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer to think of art as a special social technique of sharing
>>> ideas--similar to academic discourse--and not a form of self-deception. But
>>> I'll admit that this is the direct result of my own artistic training: we
>>> don't try to reproduce what we see when we paint: we try to communicate
>>> what we are thinking about it. I was an actor once too, and we were trained
>>> to be very careful not to do snuff porn on stage, not even in our heads. It
>>> is basically the same mistake that we all commit when we conflate our
>>> current opinions with Vygotsky's.
>>>
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>>
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> New article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
>>>
>>> Realizations: non-causal but real relationships in and between Halliday,
>>> Hasan, and Vygotsky
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some free e-prints today available at:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDWHuCxggg$ 
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!W8PZ43eu4LC1xSAffVdIDqmaRIq4PDLOb-P4KTvfV_DUJXqxOtYGf2tEuR4oh4ukrPPgQg$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works
>>> Volume One: Foundations of Pedology"
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDXTTDBgAA$ 
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!W8PZ43eu4LC1xSAffVdIDqmaRIq4PDLOb-P4KTvfV_DUJXqxOtYGf2tEuR4oh4ut7JrDdw$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:15 PM Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I honestly don’t know why Stanislavski’s nephew was sent to Siberia. It
>>> just seems to have spooked him. I never read Selenick’s book. Everything I
>>> have read about the 1912 production I have read has been from
>>> Stanislavski’s perspective, primarily Bennedetti so it would be an
>>> interesting read.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As for Diderot. Why would you say that Vygotsky sided with Diderot
>>> (actually sided with directors who followed Diderot and avoided lived
>>> experience). This seems almost the opposite of what Vygotsky was after in
>>> his later writings.  Diderot in an Actor’s Paradox claimed the actor had to
>>> make the choice to avoid emotion/affect. It was genuine but it was
>>> disorganized and performances became too volatile. I was recently watching
>>> a movie about actor auditions (Every Little Step She Takes). There was one
>>> episode that speaks directly to Diderot. An actress gives a great,
>>> emotional reading. She gets called back and reads again. The director asks
>>> he to do what she did the first time. She screams, I don’t know what I did
>>> the first time, I don’t know why it was good. That is the Actor’s Paradox
>>> in a nutshell. Stanislavski was I think the first to try and solve this
>>> paradox. The combine affective memory with text. I see Vygotsky trying to
>>> do much the same thing in development, and I think it gives us a window
>>> into the relationship between spontaneous concepts and scientific concepts
>>> (did you know Ribot called emotional memory spontaneous. I wonder if it was
>>> the same word).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also disagree with your interpretation of Stanislavski and inner
>>> speech. I would call him anything from mentalese. As a matter of fact I
>>> think you could make a really good argument that Vygotsky took his idea of
>>> inner speech directly from the first few chapters of An Actor’s Work. The
>>> similarities are uncanny. Now before you write back that An Actor’s work
>>> was not published until 1938, there were chapters in circulation as early
>>> as 1928. What I find important is that Gurevich, who was acting as his
>>> editor (I begin to wonder how much she actually wrote) was worried about
>>> Stanislavski’s use of psychological phrases. Even though Stanislavski
>>> seemed to be allergic to read anything but plays he thought of himself as a
>>> psychologist. According to Bennedetti, Gurevich gave the manuscript to
>>> three psychologists to look over. Is it logical to make the argument that
>>> Vygotsky might have been one of those psychologists? The reason for my
>>> original query.  But there are so many similarities between those early
>>> chapters of an Actor’s Work and especially chapters six and seven of
>>> Thinking and Speech.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t know if Vygotsky’s ideas on affect evolved. Again, I think he
>>> might have read Stanislavski and found a way in to discussing this. Perhaps
>>> the most influential thing (for me) I have read in this second reading of
>>> Vygotsky is Mike’s introduction to the special issue of MCA on Spinoza. I
>>> think it is right on point except I would replace the cryptic and opaque
>>> Spinoza with the over the top Stanislavski.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, enough for now. Got to get back to salt mines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *On Behalf Of *David Kellogg
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2020 4:45 AM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael--
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a good book on the 1912 production (you've probably read it).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Senelick, L (1982) Gordon Craig's Moscow Hamlet. Westport, CN and
>>> London: Greenwood.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a chapter on it in my own book, 'The Great Globe and All Who It
>>> Inherit" (Sense: 2014). My impression is that the stage version Vygotsky is
>>> hard on in Psychology of Art is actually the Second Moscow Art Theatre
>>> production of 1924, which is one of the revivals of Stanislavsky/Craig you
>>> are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stanislavsky was from a very wealthy family, and most wealthy families
>>> were active counter-revolutionaries during the Civil War. The Alekseivs
>>> were certainly what you could call conservative, and they were all quite
>>> displeased with Constantin's acting career. Are you sure that the nephew
>>> was sent to Siberia for artistic reasons?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (I have always felt that Vygotsky was more inclined to Diderot than
>>> Stanislavsky, and would have supported Brecht and Olivier against
>>> Stanislavsky and Mel Gibson. But maybe we need to ask WHICH Vygotsky,
>>> because his views on emotion certainly evolve a lot, and he is only
>>> inclined to view higher emotions as the product of reflection in the sense
>>> of ideation than as reflection in the sense of reproduction in the 1930s,
>>> when he writes the actor essay. I think the main problem with his use of
>>> Stanislavsky's method in Thinking and Speech is that it assumes a kind of
>>> 'mentalese' which is only a description of emotion. Vygotsky would really
>>> require at least three planes--volitional affective impulse, non-verbal
>>> thought, and verbal thinking. Only the last one could be put into words,
>>> and then the syntax would be very different from what Stanislavsky is using
>>> in his scripts. There is a similar problem in the different ways that
>>> Virginial Woolf and James Joyce treat inner speech--one of them tries to
>>> write about it and the other tries to write it.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>>
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> New Article in Mind, Culture, and Activity:
>>>
>>> Realizations: non-causal but real relationships in and between Halliday,
>>> Hasan, and Vygotsky
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/url310.tandfonline.com/ls/click?upn=odl8Fji2pFaByYDqV3bjGMQo8st9of2228V6AcSFNq3t86qU90pAx-2BEad4OTI0D6Bi1fwTdsuN-2BfXNLD3YVMjcLIX-2BmEuxF9NP5zGw-2BdLfY-3D7ljy_X7XaRk1WbLfx0WH87lwk8dq9sJwzGg6rYuMbUaEYJVSc-2Brn9o4kZxBH7VyDFXQG2cW-2FVpvW8kKmgCrEcZ9b01hknKR451ObdcFj2BjoQzt7GbzMiYiThGgitFYjHGo14NDXURJCBt80ZRKh9rhZiCz3ERpw5ZHeOlHPYX1rSnIqI9nfjq4FunlRWMWO46RMruhVV-2BsN-2BP3WHvbuOtvoLOg8W0MWktZcDt85Q8BK7UYuIOL31Osd02-2BMwIuIZ3U6ud9iCFOaXu9e0DjKARw9ftcuTIz2WiuLgDtTkR2I8YcY-3D__;!!Mih3wA!X-sPHj2yRj7CruRKtdoJzuSguNRxxRa07dqeIoZ9GHqxdbAkzGcN-Ue9sxFcWs26bXpP7Q$>
>>> Some free e-prints available.
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDWHuCxggg$ 
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Y8YHS3SRW42VXPTVY2Z6/full?target=10.1080*10749039.2020.1806329__;Lw!!Mih3wA!X-sPHj2yRj7CruRKtdoJzuSguNRxxRa07dqeIoZ9GHqxdbAkzGcN-Ue9sxFcWs3BnshQdA$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: *L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological
>>> Works* *Volume One: Foundations of Pedology*"
>>>
>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDXTTDBgAA$ 
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!X-sPHj2yRj7CruRKtdoJzuSguNRxxRa07dqeIoZ9GHqxdbAkzGcN-Ue9sxFcWs0U-run5w$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 9:11 PM Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually the Hamlet of 1912 was even more consequential than you might
>>> think. It seems Isadora Duncan got Stanislavski and Craig together. Craig
>>> came to Russia but there were problems from the start, and pretty soon they
>>> were actually directing separately.  Stanislavski saw this as his great
>>> opportunity to bring his ‘system’ (which I believe influenced Vygotsky a
>>> great deal) to an international production and a Shakespeare play. Up to
>>> that point he used his system mostly in workshop productions with Russian
>>> playwright working with the MAT. Stanislavsky was doing another small
>>> production simultaneously. Anyway, Craig, who was upset about the money he
>>> was receiving eventually took less of a hand in the production. He was a
>>> symbolist but I think not in the way Russians were symbolists, in other
>>> words he saw himself as the director creating the symbols rather than the
>>> actors exploring the sub-texts of the words. He also wanted Hamlet to be
>>> portrayed in the traditional bombastic, over the top Elizabethan fashion.
>>> Stanislavski wanted the actor playing Hamlet to really explore his emotions
>>> in the context of his system. The production only ran for a few weeks as
>>> most people do not like change (which makes me think Vygotsky at the young
>>> age did not see it) so it was a financial flop for the MAT but an
>>> international critical success and was in many ways a springboard for
>>> Stanislavski’s fame.  My reading on Vygotsky’s essay on Hamlet, and
>>> Psychology of Art in general, was that he read a great many of the writings
>>> on the production, which continued for years. I feel he came down
>>> distinctly on the side of Stanislavski in his essay. Of course there is no
>>> way to know this for sure, except he could have never written that essay if
>>> there had never been the 1912 production. It changed the way people look at
>>> theater.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As for socialist realism becoming state policy in 1932, that might be
>>> right. But Stanislavski was already retired from directing and he did a
>>> number of productions promoting socialist realism (he was not enamored with
>>> it, but it let the MAT keep working). Also his nephew had been exiled to
>>> Siberia. So it may have been an important component before it was state
>>> policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *On Behalf Of *David Kellogg
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 16, 2020 6:00 AM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael--
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, socialist realism was only declared official state policy in
>>> 1932--Lenin had been dead for eight years. During most of Vygotsky's career
>>> the arts scene in the USSR was probably the liveliest and freest in the
>>> world. But slightly crazy too--see the attached photograph “Every
>>> Komsomol (male Young Communist League member) can and must satisfy his
>>> sexual needs” and the woman has to hold a sign that says “Every Komsomolka
>>> (female Young Communist League member) should aid him in this, otherwise
>>> she’s a philistine”). This is the kind of thing Vygotsky was fighting
>>> AGAINST in his sex education work with Zalkind. My wife grew up during the
>>> Cultural Revolution, and I can tell you that it was not at all the same
>>> thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In 1912, when Vygotsky was sixteen and visiting Moscow for the first
>>> time, there was a famous production of Hamlet than in some ways still
>>> influences us today: it was a little bit as if you had the Olivier
>>> production on stage and Zeffirelli doing the lighting and props.
>>> Stanislavsky wanted to treat Hamlet as historical characters, but the stage
>>> director and producer was the English symbolist Gordon Craig, who actually
>>> wanted, at one point, to turn it into a one man show, wiith every character
>>> except Hamlet in a mask. He got his way with the props, which were highly
>>> abstract and geometrical, but Stanislavsky got his way with the actual
>>> production, which (I gather) was gritty and grimey.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would love to know if the Hamlet Vygotsky saw and wrote about was the
>>> original Stanislavsky-Craig emulsion or if it was some toned down restaging
>>> of the original 1912 production. Do you know?
>>>
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>>
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a manifesto.
>>>
>>> Outlines, Spring 2020
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDXjG7-jEw$ 
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!WC2B2d3sHzBVQzHe3_Gk-N5cH4sDTZXudPEFrikW3AbMDxvPNWZML6XSytkIU2nP5psr4Q$>
>>>
>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: *L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological
>>> Works* *Volume One: Foundations of Pedology*"
>>>
>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDXTTDBgAA$ 
>>>
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!WC2B2d3sHzBVQzHe3_Gk-N5cH4sDTZXudPEFrikW3AbMDxvPNWZML6XSytkIU2mAEEqXaA$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 6:12 PM Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> A couple of things, especially about the Uzbekistan experiments. As I
>>> have alluded to in some earlier posts I have been doing some reading on
>>> theater during the time Vygotsky was writing. One thing I have come across
>>> multiple times is the issue of socialist realism. The idea (and this is
>>> probably not a very good definition) is that we have to understand people
>>> as they really are and think, but we also have to accept that humans can
>>> become better actors (broadly defined) and thinkers under a socialist
>>> system. It seems the people pushing this was somewhat akin to cadres in the
>>> cultural revolution. In other words you better do it. Even Stanislavski,
>>> who both Lenin and Stalin loved, was forced to do a number of productions
>>> that promoted socialist realism. If you did not toe the line you were sent
>>> to Siberia (or worse). I am sure this is discussed somewhere in
>>> relationship to Vygotsky but I wonder if we she take that into account when
>>> thinking about things like the Uzbekistan experiment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A second thing. I wonder if sometimes we have a tendency to over think
>>> and over philosophize Vygotsky. In some ways he was just trying to get
>>> things done and a concept like conscious awareness in Thinking and Speech
>>> is mostly a means to solving a problem, not any philosophical statement.
>>> The problem it seems to me is that we do not have consistent conceptual
>>> systems based solely on our experience. A five year old can have five
>>> different best friends on five days on the playground depending on what
>>> people brought for lunch or who got to the swings first. Still, it is these
>>> affective based concepts that drive our activity. But we don’t offer use
>>> these concepts with any conscious use of attention or memory or any of our
>>> other intellectual functions. “Hmmm, Jerry brought salami today, maybe I
>>> should think about making him my best friend.” On the other hand social
>>> concepts are developed separately from our experiences and our emotions.
>>> They are developed specifically to organize and bring consistency to our
>>> feelings. But they are meaningless from an affective, everyday
>>>  perspective. Why would we even want to think about them. In order to bring
>>> them into our lives we have to consciously engage in volitional activities
>>> using them. So we have to have conscious awareness. How then do you bring
>>> the two together, for which he takes the remainder of chapter six.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dewey also was really, really inconsistent in the way he used words. I
>>> would argue he used words as tools not as philosophical statements. You
>>> have to read the texts and figure it out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *On Behalf Of *Martin Packer
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:15 PM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well you and I may differ on this. My interpretation is that in the
>>> passage that Anthony gave us, LSV is talking about the growing
>>> consciousness *of their own thinking* on the part of school-age children.
>>> (In Thought & Language he shifts a bit on whether this happens in middle
>>> childhood or adolescence, but that needn't concern us.) That is to say, he
>>> is writing about what he calls “introspection."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As evidence for this interpretation let me cite a couple of other
>>> passages (these are from the excellent Kellogg translation) where I think
>>> the point is made more clearly:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 100 "I make a knot. I do it consciously. I cannot, however, tell you
>>> exactly how I did it. My conscious act is unconscious, because my attention
>>> is focused on the act of the tying, but not on how I do it. Consciousness
>>> is always some piece of reality. The object of my consciousness is tying
>>> the knot, a knot, and what was happening to it but not those actions that
>>> I make when tying, not how I do it. But the object of consciousness can be
>>> just that - then it will be awareness. Awareness is an act
>>> of consciousness, the object of which is itself the very same activity of
>>> consciousness”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 102 "Even Piaget's research showed that introspection does not begin to
>>> develop in any significant degree until school age. Further investigations
>>> have shown that the development of introspection in the school age contains
>>> something similar to what occurs in the development of the external
>>> perception and observation in the transition from infancy to
>>> early childhood. As is well known, the most important change in external
>>> perception of this period [i.e. infancy to early childhood] is that a child
>>> from a wordless and, consequently, meaningless perception, to a semantic,
>>> verbal and objective perception. The same can be said of introspection on
>>> the threshold of school age. The child is moving from mute introspection to
>>> speech and words. He develops an internal semantic perception of his own
>>> mental processes…. I realize that I can recall, i.e. I do recall the
>>> subjectivity of my own consciousness."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 104 "By their very nature, spontaneous concepts include the fact that
>>> they are unconscious. Children know how they operate spontaneously but are
>>> not aware of them. This is what we saw in the children's concept of
>>> "because." Obviously, by themselves, spontaneous concepts need to be
>>> unconscious, because consideration is always directed to their
>>> objects, rather than to the act of thought which is grasping it.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 106  "only in a system [of concepts] can the concept become the object
>>> of awareness and only in a system can the child acquire volitional control
>>> [of concepts]."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In his Lectures on Child Psychology LSV is very clear, in my view, that
>>> at each stage the child has consciousness of different aspects of the world
>>> and of their own psychological processes. For example:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "In an infant, there is no intellectual perception: he perceives a room
>>> but does not separately perceive chairs, a table, etc.; he will perceive
>>> everything as an undivided whole in contrast to the adult, who sees figures
>>> against a background. How does a child perceive his own movements in
>>> early childhood? He is happy, unhappy, but does not know that he is happy,
>>> just as an infant when he is hungry does not know that he is hungry. There
>>> is a great difference between feeling hunger and knowing that I am hungry.
>>> In early childhood, the child does not know his own experiences….
>>> Precisely as a three-year-old child discovers his relation to other people,
>>> a seven-year-old discovers the fact of his own experiences.” (p. 291)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, one might find it objectionable that LSV might suggest that
>>> non-literate peoples might be unaware of their own thinking. But I agree
>>> with Andy, in such cultures there may well be systematic instruction in
>>> systems of concepts — legal, religious… — that would have the same effect
>>> as LSV says that school instruction does in the west.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stay safe,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 15, 2020, at 6:06 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was not being ironic, David
>>>
>>> If scientific concepts are required for conscious awareness (as
>>> specified in the quotation I was asked to respond to) and people who
>>>
>>> have not been to school do not acquire Piagetian concepts related to
>>> formal operations (for example) or other measure of "thinking in
>>>
>>> scientific concepts) if seems to follow that they have not achieved
>>> conscious awareness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LSV writes about non-literate, indigenous, peoples that they are capable
>>> of complexes, but not true concepts (I think the use of the term.
>>>
>>> "scientific" is not helpful here). Luria interprets his data on
>>> self-consciousness that are a part of the same monograph as his work on
>>> syllogisms,
>>>
>>> classification, etc among Uzbekis who had experienced various degrees of
>>> involvement in modern (e.g. Russian) forms of life as evidence for
>>>
>>> what might be termed "lack of conscious awareness I am not sure."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 3:31 PM David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe I missed an ironic intention, Michael, but on August 11 Anthony
>>> asked about the meaning of a couple of paragraphs from *Thinking and
>>> Speech*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Here is the passage in question*, from *Thinking and Speech*, Ch. 6,
>>> pp. 190-1:
>>>
>>> "To perceive something in a different way means to acquire new
>>> potentials for acting with respect to it. At the chess board, to see
>>> differently is to play differently. By generalizing the process of activity
>>> itself, I acquire the potential for new relationships with it. To speak
>>> crudely, it is as if this process has been isolated from the general
>>> activity of consciousness. I am conscious of the fact that I remember. I
>>> make my own remembering the object of consciousness. An isolation arises
>>> here. In a certain sense, any generalization or abstraction isolates its
>>> object. This is why conscious awareness – understood as generalization –
>>> leads directly to mastery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Thus, the foundation of conscious awareness is the generalization or
>>> abstraction of the mental processes, which leads to their mastery*.
>>> Instruction has a decisive role in this process. Scientific concepts have a
>>> unique relationship to the object. This relationship is mediated through
>>> other concepts that themselves have an internal hierarchical system of
>>> interrelationships. It is apparently in this domain of the scientific
>>> concept that conscious awareness of concepts or the generalization and
>>> mastery of concepts emerges for the first time. And once a new structure of
>>> generalization has arisen in one sphere of thought, it can – like any
>>> structure – be transferred without training to all remaining domains of
>>> concepts and thought. Thus, *conscious awareness enters through the
>>> gate opened up by the scientific concept*."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike’s reply, in total was:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand that to mean that humans who have not achieved
>>> scientific/real concepts do not have conscious awareness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *On Behalf Of *Martin Packer
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 4:36 PM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying that either Mike Cole or Lev Vygotsky, or both, are
>>> claiming that 5-year old children (for example) lack conscious awareness of
>>> the world they live in?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Puzzled...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2020, at 9:16 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That “any ‘actual’ concept is the intersection or merging of both the
>>> scientific and spontaneous path,” speaks to their complementarity,
>>> making them akin to Type 1 and Type 2 processing I referred to in my post.
>>>
>>> But they’re also hierarchically related, since according to Mike’s
>>> interpretation of a Vygotsky’s passage cited by Anthony a few days ago, “humans
>>> who have not achieved scientific/real concepts do not have conscious
>>> awareness.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not question Vygotsky’s genius. What I do question is the coherence
>>> of the interpretive frames that have evolved from his work. As Michael
>>> observed in a recent post, “like the writer he wanted to be he [Vygotsky]
>>> used phrases and ideas less as truths and more to move his narrative
>>> forward.” What I always wonder in eavesdropping on XMCA is whether the
>>> issues we discuss are resolvable, or is the theoretical backdrop to our
>>> conversation so heterogeneous as to make the possibility of resolution
>>> illusory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> > *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2020 10:32 AM
>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No David, as I said, the term "scientific concept" as it is understood
>>> nowadays, tends to mislead. The distinction for Vygotsky is entirely, as
>>> you say, *developmental*, and it is not a categorisation either (as in
>>> putting things into boxes), and nothing to do with "sophistication."
>>> "Scientific concept" refers to the path of development that begins with an
>>> abstract (decontextualised) concept acquired through instruction in some
>>> more or less formal institution. "Spontaneous concept" refers to the path
>>> of development which begins with everyday experience, closely connected
>>> with immediate sensori-motor interaction and perception, i.e., it begins
>>> from the concrete, whereas the "scientific" is beginning from the abstract.
>>>
>>> Any "actual" concept is the intersection or merging of both the
>>> scientific and spontaneous path. For example (1) everyday life is full of
>>> ideas which have their source in institutions, but have made their way out
>>> of the institutional context into everyday life. On the other hand, for
>>> example (2) any scientific concept worth its salt has made its way out of
>>> the classroom and become connected with practice, like the book-learning of
>>> the medical graduate who's spent 6 months in A&E.
>>>
>>> I admit, this is not clear from Vygotsky's prose. But here's the thing:
>>> when you're reading a great thinker and what they're saying seems silly,
>>> trying reading it more generously, because there's probably a reason this
>>> writer has gained the reputation of being a great thinker.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fbrill.com*2Fview*2Ftitle*2F54574__*3B!!Mih3wA!XxSEPVIR0yRJgFaNSBm_i4WM3CddjlgSG_ngNcugdSCaXGC-tM-WRY9GIob6WVqti5Nn5Q*24*26data*3D02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7Ca67ad4b8e1054ad0908108d840677d4e*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637330160531086326*26sdata*3DklbbGOD961jWAJJ2y9AC4ITYXCnaDGFBvC0IbUJKVVs*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Mih3wA!Xj5wWxgfwuTDZiCehf_tnNDlXD6gP8BpwnjrYGS24qDQcMEd3gC6xhsU3N_JiNLOorai4A*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C4c9f97baa48249eab87b08d841637595*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637331242718851133&sdata=W*2FK*2BTbTCBGe1eDIjlq4*2BhdhmoNfNxW11ayTlKsOia*2FA*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUqKioqKioqKiUlKiUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!WoFSvqRItZRFG-Wb6AmS0wx0inVUDXaV3gD2ZV6rpV81b-0KImklvCD1pGLY8v7_UV-zxA$>
>>> Home Page
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ethicalpolitics.org*2Fablunden*2Findex.htm__*3B!!Mih3wA!XxSEPVIR0yRJgFaNSBm_i4WM3CddjlgSG_ngNcugdSCaXGC-tM-WRY9GIob6WVoUDL1M-A*24*26data*3D02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7Ca67ad4b8e1054ad0908108d840677d4e*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637330160531096322*26sdata*3DUFQ8UqQhHon5sIjNEsW88BFc3G*2FEZq0s1nUehQfL3W4*3D*26reserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Mih3wA!Xj5wWxgfwuTDZiCehf_tnNDlXD6gP8BpwnjrYGS24qDQcMEd3gC6xhsU3N_JiNLEfO6ohg*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C4c9f97baa48249eab87b08d841637595*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637331242718861146&sdata=hQHaTHs78nCNPgn9gG2NkTNb*2BHrhTO8uhtoAzo5bpdE*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqKioqKiolJSoqKioqKioqJSUqKiUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!WoFSvqRItZRFG-Wb6AmS0wx0inVUDXaV3gD2ZV6rpV81b-0KImklvCD1pGLY8v77et7hHw$>
>>>
>>> On 15/08/2020 1:14 am, David H Kirshner wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for your accessible example, Michael.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vygotsky’s scientific / spontaneous distinction between types of
>>> concepts has always struck me as such an unfortunate solution to the
>>> problem of differential sophistication in modes of reasoning. I’m sure this
>>> problem must have deep roots in classical and contemporary philosophy, even
>>> as it is reflected in cognitive psychology’s Dual Process Theory that at
>>> its “theoretical core amounts to a dichotomous view of two types of
>>> processes…: type 1—intuitive, fast, automatic, nonconscious, effortless,
>>> contextualized, error-prone, and type 2—reflective, slow, deliberate,
>>> cogitative, effortful, decontextualized, normatively correct” (Varga &
>>> Hamburger, 2014). What externalizing this distinction as different kinds of
>>> cognitive products (this or that kind of concept) seems to do is
>>> distract/detract from the sociogenetic character of development. Surely, a
>>> sociogenetic approach seeks to interpret these different forms of reasoning
>>> as differential discursive practices, embedded in different cultural
>>> contexts (Scribner, Cole, etc.). But talking about different kinds of
>>> concepts seems like the wrong departure point for that journey.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
>>> Behalf Of *Glassman, Michael
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2020 7:03 AM
>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andy, Henry, Anna Lisa,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me start by saying that this is completely restricted to the way
>>> conscious awareness is used in Thinking and Speech. If it is use
>>> differently in other places this perspective may be wrong. To my mind (with
>>> the proviso that my mind if often wrong) Vygotsky is using the idea of
>>> conscious awareness for a specific purpose. To differentiate the role of
>>> spontaneous concepts with non-spontaneous concepts. Spontaneous concepts
>>> are based initially in affective memory and they give energy and motivation
>>> to many of our activities. However we are not consciously aware of them. To
>>> go back to chess, I am at the pool and my friend comes up to me and says
>>> “Chess?” I say yes. I have no conscious awareness of the concept of chess
>>> in my life, why I say yes so easily why it may be a way to make a social
>>> connection between me and my friend. It is residue of my affective memory
>>> (I don’t know how much Vygotsky was using Ribot when making this argument).
>>> We are playing chess and I remember that my brother showed me the
>>> non-spontaneous/scientific concept of the bishop’s gambit. As this point in
>>> my life I have to think about it and whether I want to use it. I must
>>> summon the intellectual functions of memory and attention as I think about
>>> the use of the bishop’s gambit. This then is conscious awareness of the
>>> scientific concept. I used the bishop’s gambit and win the game and I
>>> applaud myself. I got home and tell my brother, the bishop’s gambit was
>>> great, thanks. I am mediating the scientific concept of the bishop’s gambit
>>> with my everyday concept of playing chess. Voila, development!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t know if Vygotsky uses conscious awareness differently elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> > *On Behalf Of *Andy Blunden
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:51 PM
>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate"
>>> (a Participation Question)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Henry, my aim was just to introduce Annalisa and whoever to the
>>> scientific way that the terms "conscious awareness" and "consciousness" are
>>> used in CHAT. I say "scientific" in the sense that in CHAT we have a system
>>> of concepts and associated word meanings which have, if you like,
>>> conventional meanings. There is nothing wrong with "automatic and
>>> controlled processing" and "ballistic processing" but so far as I am aware
>>> these terms were not in Vygotsky's vocabulary. I could be wrong of course
>>> and I am sure I will be rapidly corrected if this is the case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> I<image001.jpg>
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus_Novus__;!!Mih3wA!XaZ0ldsk3LvHtURqQPa9pqhSzqJcTkfT9WpcH9iXCnnFdDWAkGk2rg5ikc9GFgnQRyK9kw$>The
>>> Angel's View of History
>>>
>>> It is only in a social context that subjectivism and objectivism,
>>> spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity cease to be
>>> antinomies, and thus cease to exist as such antinomies. The resolution of
>>> the *theoretical* contradictions is possible only through practical
>>> means, only through the practical energy of humans. (Marx, 1844).
>>>
>>> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!S3qkLziG32wN2w6gHQrIgzK9L7r0ZtHpGTXve3TxSECRvi_9sZ_bl5IbbD-6bDVIOJnMLw$ 
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!XaZ0ldsk3LvHtURqQPa9pqhSzqJcTkfT9WpcH9iXCnnFdDWAkGk2rg5ikc9GFglySosYvA$>
>>>
>>> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!XaZ0ldsk3LvHtURqQPa9pqhSzqJcTkfT9WpcH9iXCnnFdDWAkGk2rg5ikc9GFgkzDUEbGA$>
>>>
>>> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lchc.ucsd.edu/__;!!KGKeukY!ji0gqdjldexgATihzgPnPYay6rvvh9I-ydkDxJ6UtfV9X-x5XFtXmKGtowQioPBLBZI$>
>>> .
>>>
>>> Narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lchcautobio.ucsd.edu/__;!!KGKeukY!ji0gqdjldexgATihzgPnPYay6rvvh9I-ydkDxJ6UtfV9X-x5XFtXmKGtowQiQEfFUzs$>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200819/c7ced2d5/attachment.html