Sasha,
Allow me to amplify Lotman's two models of evolution, i.e. his concept of
‘binary’ and ‘tertiary’ (or ‘ternary’) systems - largely following
Roumiana Deltcheva's & Eduard Vlasov's, “Lotman’s Culture and Explosion: a
Shift in the Paradigm of the Semiotics of Culture”, in The Slavic and East
European Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1 1996, pp. 148-152.
In both systems, explosions are an obligatory component of the dynamics.
In binary structures, explosion results in total annihilation, permeating
all spheres of human activity and eliminating all previously accumulated
informational content. In a binary system, explosion destroys continuity.
Thus, binary systems are inherently destructive in their nature: they are
oriented towards the complete elimination of the preceding stage in
evolution and the creation of a new state following the principle of the
tabula rasa.
The ‘ternary’ system simultaneously spatializes and stabilizes the model
of culture. In this configuration explosion can be viewed as a single
point of momentary eruption generating a powerful detonation. In a binary,
axis-oriented model, the released energy targets the single opposite point
and, hence, is of a primarily destructive nature. In a ternary system, the
basic model is not an axis but a three-dimensional space, in which
unidirectionality is substituted by alternativity. The energy released
during explosions does not focus itself on one target, but is diffused and
distributed along multiple axes. The notion of alternativity then
functions as a buffer which ultimately neutralizes the destructive aspects
of the explosion. The spatialization of the model of culture by the
substitution of ‘two’ by ‘three’ establishes a mechanism of amortization
and preservation of the system from total destruction.
The volumetric nature of ternary structures does not permit explosions to
encompass and destroy all layers of a given stage in human evolution. The
values of earlier stages are preserved. In this way the establishment and
accumulation of new values does not begin anew every time, but employs the
earlier efforts of human experience. While a binary system is aimed at
achieving in practice the unachievable ideal, a ternary system tries to
accommodate the ideal to reality. A ternary system provides a combination
of explosive and gradual processes, and hence ensures moderation and
survival of the system from any cataclysm. Due to its closed,
uninterrupted perimeter the structure of the ternary model guarantees the
infinity of the evolutionary process.
The Russian taste for absolute terms and dogmas resembles in some respects
what Holzman & Newman write in a comment on “againstism”: “The homely
image evoked for us … is that of the panicky working-class mother trying
to get the children to stop enjoying themselves at play because the
authoritarian Daddy is about to come home and he will be even more abusive
than usual if he sees them having fun” (“Against Againstism: Comment on
Parker”, in Theory & Psychology, 4 2000; vol. 10:265).
Your questions 1-3 seem irrelevant to Lotman’s arguments as presented
here. I did not detect any question under “question” no. 4. According to
the ‘ternary’ system, you are entitled to your opinion just as anybody
else. You seem to understand the world in binary terms, as you have
already “confessed”. If you can live with that, so can I.
To sum up, I fail to decode your message here. What are you trying to tell
us with fragmentary citations from Vygotsky’s works, some hitherto
unfounded assertions about and condemnations of eclecticism, etc., etc.
The fact that you are hinting between the lines that you are “joking”,
does not make things any easier, as far as I am concerned.
Eirik
--------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Eirik,
>
>
>
> I deeply appreciate you for your insightful interpenetration of my
> die-hard
> “Russian, static binary system of thought” which is evidently rooted in
> Russian orthodox tradition and devastatingly contrasts to “the Western,
> plurivocal/polyphonic approach”.
>
> I have to confess frankly: I suffer acutely from this “obsession”. My only
> hope (if I understand correctly) is in “a revolutionary reconsideration of
> all values”, which can take place with aid of more advanced Western
> colleagues.
>
> Just to help me to start the process of recovery can you answer a few
> questions?
>
> 1. Do the Scandinavians as Protestants share the Russian sin of binary
> thinking as I have heard that Protestants don’t believe in purgatory and
> share the Orthodox dichotomy of “heaven – hell”?
> 2. According to old style binary logic a woman can be pregnant or not.
> Explain me, please, what according to advanced Western style of thinking
> can
> be defined as a third (tertiary) state?
> 3. According to the same binary logic I used to think that a person can
> be honest or dishonest so that tertium non datur. (Not “sinful –
> holy/sacred”, as an atheist I don’t use those definitions). To be honest
> means to behave honestly, don’t betray, or do dirt. I do think that
> honesty
> is as indivisible quality as life or pregnancy, so that one can’t be
> estimated as at 99% honest person and in the same time at 1% rascal, at
> 99,9% vestal and at 0,1% street walker. . Probably I misunderstand
> something. Please, enlighten me…
> 4. IMHO the problem of “binary” - “tertiary” is nothing else than a
> funny formula of problem of truth. Indeed the Marxism (with most of
> ancient
> Greeks as well as most of philosophers rationalists from modernity
> including
> Descartes, Spinoza, Fichte, Hegel, Marx and Il’enkov) stands on the
> recognition of possibility to find a truth while most of modern
> nonclassical
> philosophers including positivists and postmodernists prefer relativist,
> agnostic position. Well, each of us makes his own choice.
>
> But how you can estimate (in scale of “binary” - “tertiary”) the theoretic
> position of an author of the following text?
>
> “Munsterberg's work is a striking example of the internal discord between
> a
> methodology determined by science and a philosophy determined by a world
> view, precisely because he is a methodologist who is consistent to the
> very
> end and a philosopher who is consistent to the very end, i.e., a
> contradictory thinker to the very end. He understands that in being a
> materialist in causal psychology and an idealist in teleological
> psychology
> he arrives at some sort of double-entry bookkeeping which inevitably must
> be
> unscrupulous, because the entries on the one side are different from those
> on the other side. For in the end only one truth is conceivable. But for
> him
> the truth is not life itself, but the logical elaboration of life, and the
> latter can vary, as it is determined by many viewpoints”.
>
> Evidently this man obvious experienced lack of “Western,
> plurivocal/polyphonic approach” moreover he regarded such type of approach
> as banal and fruitless eclecticism.
>
>
> “But already these examples show the limits of such a bilingualism. The
> limits themselves show again most clearly what our whole analysis of the
> eclectics showed: bilingualism is the external sign of dual thinking. You
> may speak in two languages as long as you convey dual things or things in
> a
> dual light. Then it really does not matter what you call them.
>
>
> So, let us summarize. For empiricists it is necessary to have a language
> that is colloquial, indeterminate, confused, ambiguous, vague, in order
> that
> what is said can be reconciled with whatever you like–today with the
> church
> fathers, tomorrow with Marx. They need a word that neither provides a
> clear
> philosophical qualification of the nature of the phenomenon, nor simply
> its
> clear description, because the empiricists have no clear understanding and
> conception of their subject.”
>
> Putting aside jokes I find this Vygotskian approach much more clear and
> creative than that you have describe as “dynamic Western”. Especially
> since
> two Soviet semiotics made an evident mistake arrogating the eclectic type
> of
> thinking exclusively to Western researchers. Firstly the most of listed
> above philosophers-classics were Westerners. And secondly - today in the
> field of eclecticism most of Russians can bear the palm.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Eirik Knutsson
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:01 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] question
>
>
>
> 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
>
>>>
>
_______________________________________________
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