Anna,
I think Eirik was talking specifically of an axiological binary, i.e. of
binary value judgments: good/bad; sacred/evil, and the like. I didn't hear
him applying a good/bad evaluation to his West/East binary distinction.
That's not to deny that in the West we've had more than our share in recent
years of simplistic, so-called Manichean (but cf
http://hnn.us/articles/7202.html) good/evil evaluations.
Martin
On 12/23/06 1:32 PM, "Stetsenko, Anna" <AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu> wrote:
> Eirik,
> there is a nice (black humor type) illustration for your account of binary
> versus tertiary modes of thought (btw, this itself appears to be a binary
> opossition, no?). In today's debates about the war in Iraq, the last
> authoritative position stated by high ranking official is that America is 'not
> winning the war. It is not loosing it either.' One commentator yesterday said:
> "if the country is neither winning nor loosing the war, what then IS it doing?
> Apparently, it is some third option, perhaps something like 'woosing'."
>
> Speaking about 'neutral intermeditiate evaluations,' they sometimes do look
> like 'woosing', don't they? :-)
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin Packer
> Sent: Sat 12/23/2006 12:24 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] question
>
>
>
> Eirik,
>
> This is certainly an interesting suggestion. I'll follow up your reading
> recommendations.
>
> It would explain why so many of my ideas seem to end up in axiological
> limbo! :)
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 12/22/06 8:00 PM, "Eirik Knutsson" <eirikeng@student.hf.uio.no> wrote:
>
>> Martin,
>>
>> It seems to me that the Russian historians Yuri Lotman's and B. A.
>> Uspenskii's model, according to which Russia represents a binary system of
>> thought throughout its history, i.e., a collective division of the world
>> into positive and negative axiological spaces, may be of some interest in
>> this respect.
>>
>> According to the Russian binary model or system of thought, acts are
>> considered either good or bad/evil, behaviour either sinful or
>> sacred/holy, no intermediate positions being permitted (as in the Western
>> tradition). In the (medieval) hereafter, there was either heaven or hell.
>> In the orthodox world, there was no concept of purgatory.
>>
>> Thus, the Western system of thought, according to Lotman & Uspenskii, is
>> tertiary (consisting of three key components), while Russia represents a
>> binary model. These differences are longue durée expressions of medieval
>> cosmologies and systems of thought. In medieval Western Europe, all
>> actions and ideas could be perceived as either bad/evil-good, sinful -
>> holy/sacred or somewhere in between, in a neutral intermediate axiological
>> space. In the hereafter, the tertiary system corresponds to heaven -
>> purgatory - hell. The Western neutral intermediate space (or position)
>> results in a dynamical system of thought. New ideas are allowed to be
>> introduced beyond the dichotomy of good and bad/evil.
>>
>> Within the Russian binary, static system of thought, new ideas were
>> considered according to absolute dichotomies (good-evil/bad,
>> sinful-holy/sacred etc). Hence, in the Russian binary system of thought,
>> new ideas, when on rare occasions embraced, were transformed into absolute
>> terms and dogmas. Real change in a binary system of thought like that, is
>> only possible through a revolutionary reconsideration of all values. Such
>> reassessments of all values are evident throughout Russian (intellectual)
>> history. According to Yuri Lotman, only one, dominant idea can exist at
>> one time in Russia, while the West represents a plurivocal, or polyphone,
>> continuum.
>>
>> BTW, the Swedish scholar Per Arne Bodin has done some useful research in
>> these matters (cf. his "Russia and Europe: A Cultural-Historical Study",
>> Stockholm 1994).
>>
>>
>> Eirik K.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>>> Sasha,
>>>
>>> I agree entirely that an interpretation of Marx will always be from one or
>>> another stance. It seems to me that there are large differences between
>>> Marx
>>> scholarship in the west and that in Russia. When you say, for example,
>>> that
>>> there is there is only one school of Marxist philosophy in Russia that
>>> strikes me as both a strength and a weakness. My knowledge of Marx is
>>> without a doubt far inferior to yours, but I hope that it has been
>>> richened
>>> by exploring a little how Marx was read by people like Lefebvre, Sartre,
>>> Merleau-Ponty, and read back into Hegel by Kojeve, Hyppolite, Lukacs, and
>>> others. I'm not trying to sound erudite; my point is that Marx's texts are
>>> ambiguous, plurivocal, and any attempt to determine the real Marx, or
>>> decide
>>> once and for all how Marx related to Hegel, for example, is an endless
>>> task.
>>> Marx's writings have been called "a breathtakingly luxuriant but tangled
>>> forest."
>>>
>>> For example, the interpretation that Marx had already 'inverted' Hegel has
>>> been much contested. To think that there is merely a rational kernel to
>>> Hegel is a matter of debate, to say the least. To call the 1844
>>> manuscripts
>>> preliminary in anything other than a literal sense is to repeat a claim
>>> that
>>> has been much challenged.
>>>
>>> But let me defend myself a little: Engels used the term "historical
>>> materialism," while Marx did not (though I think Kautsky coined it). Lenin
>>> wrote of "dialectical materialism" in Materialism and Empiricocriticism.
>>> Stalin is not worth defending, I agree. To paint HM as true and DM as
>>> false
>>> does not get me very far in trying to understand what Vygotsky was doing
>>> with these terms, with the texts they came from, and thus to see what can
>>> be
>>> teased out of the tangled forest of Vygotsky's own writings.
>>>
>>> For example, my question to Joao was based what seems to me evident
>>> (though
>>> I'm willing to be corrected): that Vygotsky himself drew a distinction
>>> between HM and DM, and on my reading he judges them both positively.
>>>
>>> Yes, Vygotsky considered himself to be a Marxist. But what that meant to
>>> him
>>> then, and what it means to us now, are not self-evident matters. Reading
>>> Vygotsky's texts here in the US in one way I am at a disadvantage because
>>> the culture and context are so different from his. But from another point
>>> of
>>> view this makes it possible to try to liberate a potential from his
>>> writing
>>> that might not otherwise be accessible. I am not a Marxist (in any direct
>>> sense) but I do want to develop his ideas. If you are correct that "if we
>>> want develop Vygotsky¹s ideas
>>>> and if we appreciate his conscious position we can do it only basing on
>>>> Marxist approach"
>>> then scholarship on Vygotsky in the west is in deep trouble!
>>>
>>> One last thing- you also suggest that:
>>> prevailing attitude towards LSV as to ideal example of Marxist
>>>> dialectical logic
>>>
>>> While I would say that this is actually a very rare attitude to Vygotsky
>>> in
>>> this country.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> p.s. can I add that I attended your presentation at ISCAR in Sevilla and
>>> was
>>> very impressed by your intellectual project. It is a pleasure to be
>>> discussing these matters with you!
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/20/06 9:47 PM, "Alexander Surmava" <monada@netvox.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that the interpretation of Marxist philosophy (dialectic) has to
>>>> be
>>>> based on some definite cultural = scientific = philosophical tradition
>>>> or
>>>> school of thought. Thus my approach is entirely based on Il¹enkov¹s
>>>> school
>>>> of dialectic. This approache I share with all of his disciples among
>>>> which I
>>>> have to mention Felix Mikhailov, Lev Naumenko, Vasiliy Davidov, Alexey
>>>> Novokhatko, Alexander Simakin, Sergey Mareev and some other philosophers
>>>> and
>>>> psychologists.
>>>>
>>>> According to this approach the basics of Marxist philosophy was
>>>> elaborated
>>>> by Karl Marx and Fred Engels in the course of investigation of political
>>>> economy of capitalist society in ³Das Kapital² and in a few preliminary
>>>> works like ³Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844², ³The German
>>>> Ideology² and ³Theses on Feuerbach². Engels only aired his and Marx¹
>>>> collective opinion in his latest works like ³Anti-Dühring². We (I mean
>>>> all
>>>> mentioned above alive or dead persons) have never heard that it was
>>>> Engels
>>>> who ³extracted the rational kernel' from Hegel to invent it and DM²
>>>> because
>>>> from one side the work of extraction of rational, materialist Kernel
>>>> from
>>>> Hegel was done by both founders of materialist dialectic in 1844 and
>>>> developed in ³Das Kapital² and from the other side because the separate
>>>> DM
>>>> is entirely false positivist misinterpretation of Marxist philosophy and
>>>> that Engels quite innocent in it.
>>>>
>>>> Even less we can accuse Lenin of inventing or elaborating of abstract DM
>>>> because it was Lenin who was the utmost enemy of all forms of
>>>> positivism.
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary the Stalinist ideology was in fact the queer mixture of
>>>> primitive positivist ³DM² and irrational ideological ³HM².
>>>>
>>>> I want to repeat that this point of view is not my own peculiarity but
>>>> something banal for all Russian Marxists. (There is only one Marxist
>>>> philosophical school in Russia founded by Il¹enkov, so when I mention
>>>> ³Russian Marxists² I mean Il¹enkov¹s disciples.)
>>>>
>>>> Surely all this can be argued in detail but first of all we have to fix
>>>> the
>>>> difference in our approaches, if such differences really exist.
>>>>
>>>> As for question of Joao about LSV¹s approach to this problem it is
>>>> difficult
>>>> (and frankly to say rather senseless) to try to give some definite
>>>> answer to
>>>> it because the ³problem² of establishing a ³difference between dialectic
>>>> materialism and historical materialism² is not a substantial theoretic
>>>> but
>>>> entirely ideological question (in old Marxist meaning of the term
>>>> ³ideology²
>>>> as a false form of consciousness). I can only repeat that basing on
>>>> developed Marxist dialectical approach so called DM and HM are one and
>>>> the
>>>> same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Surely Vygotsky consider himself as a Marxist, he wanted to be a Marxist
>>>> and
>>>> pretty much he was a Marxist. Moreover if we want develop Vygotsky¹s
>>>> ideas
>>>> and if we appreciate his conscious position we can do it only basing on
>>>> Marxist approach.
>>>>
>>>> But we have sober estimate that the real logic of his investigations not
>>>> always remain Marxist. Thus for example Vygotsky¹s understanding of
>>>> language
>>>> is considerably positivist. (This assertion can be easily demonstrated.)
>>>> So
>>>> the prevailing attitude towards LSV as to ideal example of Marxist
>>>> dialectical logic is to put it mildly inadequate. Vygotsky wanted to
>>>> build a
>>>> Marxist psychology and he did much more than anybody else to realize his
>>>> wish, but he had too little time to do it. Moreover he meets the other
>>>> big
>>>> obstacle not enunciating of Marxist dialectic. The dialectical method
>>>> of
>>>> Marx was realized by him in his main work ³Das Kapital², but neither
>>>> Marx,
>>>> nor Engels has left us ³Logic² from capital letter. So Vygotsky had in
>>>> the
>>>> same time investigate the nature of human consciousness and extract
>>>> dialectical methodology from ³Das Kapital². In fact the task was too
>>>> titanic
>>>> for one even genius man. In this situation it is little wonder that he
>>>> failed in realizing both tasks (elaborating dialectical methodology and
>>>> developing a dialectical psychology) but it deserves admiration that in
>>>> spite of all difficulties LSV left us a great number of brilliant
>>>> insights.
>>>>
>>>> The real perspective of developing of dialectical psychology was opened
>>>> only
>>>> in the middle of the last century by works of a group of researchers
>>>> like
>>>> Evald Il¹enkov, Alexander Mescheriakov, Alexey Leont¹ev and Nikolay
>>>> Bernstein.
>>>>
>>>> So the sooner we will left the uncritical apologetical attitude
>>>> regarding
>>>> Vygotsky, the better chance we acquire to continue his lifework.
>>>>
>>>> Sasha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Martin Packer
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:59 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joao,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your project sounds interesting. I think you're pointing to something of
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>> contradiction that I feel is in the Crisis, and perhaps elsewhere. On
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> one hand V does speak of the problem of using either historical
>>>> materialism
>>>>
>>>> or dialectical materialism for his "general psychology," a truly Marxist
>>>>
>>>> psychology. The former was appropriate for Marx's sociology, a study of
>>>>
>>>> society, but he's doing something different. The latter is too abstract.
>>>> On
>>>>
>>>> the other hand, the history that he tells of the discipline of
>>>> psychology is
>>>>
>>>> one in which there is an objective logic, operating behind the backs of
>>>>
>>>> individual psychologists ("like a coiled string"), the laws of this
>>>> logic
>>>>
>>>> can be grasped through "scientific analysis," there are underlying
>>>> inherent
>>>>
>>>> contradictions, a revolutionary moment (the "crisis") has arrived as a
>>>>
>>>> result of the pressure of practical concerns, and a future can be
>>>> envisioned
>>>>
>>>> where, in the form of the new general psychology, qualitatively
>>>> different
>>>>
>>>> from what has come before, time has ended. In short, this history has a
>>>> form
>>>>
>>>> that sounds (to the best of my limited knowledge) very much like that
>>>>
>>>> dialectical materialism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you think? (Sorry not to be able to write in Portugese)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/06 11:07 AM, "Joao Martins" <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Martins and others... the title of my project is " The psychology of
>>>>
>>>>> Vygotsky: mapping concepts, tracing courses ". He has as objective maps
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> concepts, the units of analysis used by Vygotsky to consolidate your
>>>>
>>>>> proposals for the psychology.
>>>>
>>>>> I will be analyzing your books: Psychology of the Art and Pedagogic
>>>>
>>>>> Psychology and the texts that appeared in your Chosen Works.
>>>>
>>>>> In a first moment we can notice that Vyg. uses of the dialetic
>>>>> materialism
>>>>
>>>>> to make the analyses about the superior psychological functions, or
>>>>> even
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> analyze the psychology of your time - in the text Crisis of the
>>>>> Psychology
>>>>
>>>>> that is clear.
>>>>
>>>>> But he speaks that the problem is to use the historical materialism to
>>>> make
>>>>
>>>>> such analyses. I think that he sees in the historical materialism a
>>>>> form
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> approaching the psychological phenomena, approaching of a certain
>>>> sociology
>>>>
>>>>> of the human relationships...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Joao Martins
>>>>
>>>>> ____________________
>>>>
>>>>> Joáo Batista Martins
>>>>
>>>>> R. Pref. Hugo Cabral, 1062 - apto. 142
>>>>
>>>>> Londrina - PR - CEP 86020-111
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Home page http//www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/5389
>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Martin Packer" <packer@duq.edu>
>>>>
>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:21 PM
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] question
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Joao,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Would you like to tell us more about your project?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/18/06 11:38 AM, "Joao Martins" <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Dear friends, I am making a project on vygotsky and I would like to
>>>>>> know
>>>>
>>>>> if
>>>>
>>>>>> Vygotsky establish a difference between dialetic materialism and
>>>>
>>>>> historical
>>>>
>>>>>> materialism?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Joao Martins
>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________
>>>>
>>>>>> Joáo Batista Martins
>>>>
>>>>>> R. Pref. Hugo Cabral, 1062 - apto. 142
>>>>
>>>>>> Londrina - PR - CEP 86020-111
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:19 PST