Steve, I think psedo-concept having to do with level 4 might be tied to Valsiner's example of magic - black magic and the way that a belief in black magic can have enough power to actually lead someone to die (people have been known to die because they thought that spells were cast on them). Valsiner seems to equate the pseudoconcpet then with magical thinking - perhaps Levy-Bruhl's ideas on magical thinking. Although he doesn't seem to address the idea from a developmental standpoint the way that Piaget does (we escape magical thinking through a process of decentration). From what I've read Valsiner seems to be thinking that pseudoconcepts - and I am thinking he believes them to be part of a larger category will stay with us a whole lifetime and have greater power and sway in many concepts and scientific concepts. To make a modern point, the idea that because it snows during the winter must mean global warming is a hoax is I guess what Valsiner would consider a level 4 concept. But it has a strong enough hold on people that they are willing to put future generatoins in grave danger based on this, and they cannot be swayed by scientific concepts. I'm sure it's more complicated than that - if it's not it should be. But I am left with a question, who is Vygotsky closer to then, Piaget or Valsiner? Michael ________________________________ From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Steve Gabosch Sent: Fri 8/13/2010 2:38 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts Larry, I'm following these discussions, too, at least sketchily. I'm still hoping someone has pages 288-289 of that Valsiner chapter where he discusses abduction. As for his levels of emotional thinking, I find Valsiner's concept of "overgeneralizing feeling fields" thought- provoking. I don't always find Valsiner's **explanations** well- aligned, insofar as he tries to trace the sociocultural **causes** of things - my take on him is he bends the stick way over toward a very strong one-sided subjectivist perspective - but his descriptions are often very helpful, he raises a lot of interesting ideas and insights, and addresses a lot of very important questions (for CHAT) with very high scholarship. He is usually a clear and excellent writer, and he always has a bundle of provocative ideas to offer. I appreciate his work and learn from him. I notice he cites Anna Wierzbicka, who Mike pointed me to a few years back. Wierzbicka studied how emotions are described in many different languages and reports on some very interesting patterns. It is sort of like the study of human facial expressions - there is so much there for CHAT to work with - in both areas, there appear to be some universal human behavioral patterns which beg to be explained from a CHAT perspective as to why they are true - or why they are not as they appear. I would so appreciate some people in CHAT writing some books on those questions! So much to learn. However, on the question that got some of this discussion started - I am still not grasping why Valsiner puts pseudoconcepts in his level 4. Anyone figured that out? - Steve On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Larry Purss wrote: > Paula > Thank you for this article explaining Valsiner's 4 levels. I also > find it a > very interesting framework for trying to understand emotions. > I'm also aware of Andy's comments that Valsner is "merely" > articulating a > "cognitive perspective" of generalization/abstraction and am trying to > remain reflective. > What I particularly find interesting is the recognition that at the > "higher" > 4th level of generalization the process of differentiation and > reflection of > affect becomes DE-differentiated and abstracted [and implicit] > This "higher" level is the level of VALUES which have an IMPLICIT > constraining determination on the emergence and generation of affect > and > meaning. This model also offers an explanation of why it is so > difficult to > have a DIALOGUE about level 2 emotions and meanings. At the level 4 > de-differentiation of value constructions persons have a > generalized/abstracted orientation which is "just a feeling" which is > difficult to put into words and articulate. > > I'm reading the other articles within this thread, but I'm hoping > Andy and > others add their thoughts on Valsiner. His writings are helping me to > understand abduction, pseudoconcepts, and stage/layer accounts of > development. His perspective also has significant implications for > how we > "observe" or "recognize" our relations with others. > > Larry > > _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca