Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of functions, Vygotsky & Kurt Lewin's Uebergang)

[Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>]

Thanks Anton!!!
-greg

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Voila, enjoy:
>
>
> the paper/chapter in question, online:
>
> http://archive.org/stream/dynamictheoryofp032261mbp#page/n13/mode/2up
>
>
> the whole book in various formats, downloadable, if needed:
>
> http://archive.org/details/dynamictheoryofp032261mbp
>
>
> AY
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:34:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of
> functions,  Vygotsky & Kurt Lewin's Uebergang)
>
> Andy and Michael,
> First off, I didn't see where the Lewin article was. Can you direct me to
> it or send it my way perhaps?
>
> As for the beef with Aristotle, non-Aristotelianism often refers to a
> rejection of system that was developed from Aristotle's work and is often
> more of a critique of common sense thinking than it is a critique of
> Aristotle himself. Lewin was also hanging out with Count Korzybski who was
> developing a non-Aristotelian system circa 1930's called General Semantics.
> It is very clear that this was not a critique of Aristotle but instead a
> critique of common sense thinking that begins with Aristotelian laws of
> logic - something that Korzybski argued was a result of the
> subject-predicate nature of language.
>
> Similar to Lewin, Korzybski was developing an approach that was processual
> and relational, and which didn't make the Aristotelian (i.e. common sense)
> mistake of emphasizing things as essences.
>
> -greg
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > I think the reason Lewin gave short shrift to Aristotle is that he was
> > less interested in getting Aritstotle right and more interested in
> > attempting to foster change in the way psychologists and others think by
> > pushing the Gallilean model.  It's funny, but it seems Lewin was always
> > throwing things out or picking them up based on the needs of the moments.
> >  Before 1946 Lewin was committed to social research as a documentable
> > science.  But after 1946 and his work in Action Research and his starting
> > of the National Testing Laboratory he said that maybe we shouldn't be
> > worrying so much about science for the foreseeable future and concentrate
> > on the processes of change - which had half of his team at MIT doing
> > backflips, and the other half (led by Festinger) pulling their hair out.
> >
> > The more I read about him the more I think this guy must have been a hoot
> > to be around - not your normal academic.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden
> > Sent: Fri 6/22/2012 11:53 AM
> > To: Anton Yasnitsky; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of
> > functions, Vygotsky & Kurt Lewin's Uebergang)
> >
> >
> >
> > Well Anton, thanks to Martin, I have now read the Lewin paper. If Lewin
> > had sent this paper to Vygotsky c. 1926, I could believe that it caused
> > some reconsideration in his approach. But you say this happened c. 1930.
> > I find this odd. The "Aristotlean" features of science which Lewin
> > critiques I find Vygotsky well on top of at least from 1928. I don't
> > tend to put a lot of weight on his pre-1928 works and rely mostly on T&S
> > and the manuscripts of the last period, so maybe I'm missing something.
> > The critique of "neo-Aristotleanism" applies to mainstream trends of
> > psychology to this day but I don't see them as relevant to criticism of
> > Vygotsky. And also, I am surprised that Lewin treats Aristotle in such a
> > one-sided way. There is much in the very things for which he condemns
> > Aristotle which were given a rational form in Hegel's critique of
> > positivist science, but Lewin makes no mention of this. But I had always
> > assumed that Lewin was a significant source of LSV's knowledge of Hegel.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, there is such evidence. In his letters (published by now) there
> are
> > several references to the fact that he had just received
> > > the book from Lewin (i.e. directly from him). Also, here and there in
> > his writings one can come across references to Lewin's methodological
> ideas
> > >
> > > before the Uebergang paper, i.e. to the methodological works of
> > mid-1920s that he apparently started reading and--even more importantly--
> > > understanding by the end of the decade. I tend to interpret this
> process
> > as truly groundbreaking experience for Vygotsky that started gradual
> change
> > in
> > >
> > > his mindset from the mechanicism of his instrumental period of 1920s to
> > really holisitc psychology of the last couple years of his life. Indeed,
> > everything was changing
> > >
> > > very fast, but that's the way it was for late Vygotsky, i.e. for
> > Vygotsky from the end of 1930 until the summer of 1934. In terms of
> > languages, I believe our character
> > >
> > > was way more comfortable with German, but I still would assume that he
> > could read English with relative fluency, too. On the other hand, judging
> > by the
> > >
> > > quotes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, one of the most essential fiction
> > oeuvre for him, he read it in Russian translation. So, in other words, I
> am
> > not quite sure
> > > about English, but given that he directly corresponded with Lewin, the
> > author could have easily sent him the work in the original, i.e. in
> German.
> > >
> > > In addition, there were a bunch of guys there with first-hand knowledge
> > of Lewin and his work(s), with whom he could converse in their native
> > Russian:
> > >
> > > the fact is that three former Lewin's students eventually landed in
> > Moscow and, from 1930 were working/collaborating with Vygotsky and Luria
> > too, I guess.
> > >
> > >
> > > As to Lewin's field theory and its impact on Vygotsky I should say that
> > as far as I can see it NOW, Lewin's impact, whatever profound it must
> have
> > been,
> > >
> > > was not too much reflected in Vygotsky's finished work of 1930s. But,
> in
> > any case, the fact is that in some writings of 1930s the high frequency
> of
> > the use of "field"
> > >
> > > in various combinations and diverse phrasal expressions is really
> > telling. Not to mention the famous/notorious "zone of possible [proximal,
> > nearest] development" and the
> > >
> > > not so famous "social situation of development", the phrases that, to
> > me, are very much resemblant of Lewin's topological framework.
> > >
> > >
> > > Final note: the interrelations between Vygotsky-Luria and Lewin-Koffka
> > are a topic of a research in progress. Something has already been
> published,
> > >
> > > in Russian only, I am afraid, something will be published shortly.
> > >
> > >
> > > AY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >  From: Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>
> > > To: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> >  Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:33:00 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of
> > functions)
> > >
> > > Anton,
> > >
> > > This is interesting.   Is there any evidence that Vygotsky read Lewin's
> > work on the move from an Aristotelian to Galiliean perspective of
> > relationships.  It would have been a short window I think, and Vygotsky
> > probably would have had to read the original articles in German - or
> > perhaps he just discussed them with people.
> > >
> > > Do you think this would have also had an impact on how he viewed social
> > relationships.  The teaching/learning aspects of Vygotsky are often
> > presented as being hierarchical in nature, but I'm thinking the Galilean
> > perspective was Lewin's entry point into Field theory.  Did Vygotsky see
> > information relationship as more dynamic in his later writings?
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Anton Yasnitsky
> > > Sent: Thu 6/21/2012 7:19 PM
> > > To: Martin Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of
> > functions)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Martin,
> > >
> > >
> > > Right, this is exactly my point: much criticized for fairly mechanistic
> > distinction between the lower and the higher in his earlier work of
> 1920s,
> > > Vygotsky rejected this binary opposition in his later writings of the
> > 1930, although he kept using  phrases "higher functions" or, rather,
> > > "higher processes" and the like. The idea of "higher" perfectly fit his
> > notion of "peak psychology" of 1932-1934, but the distinction
> higher-lower
> > was gone.
> > > Indeed, the introduction of the idea of systems of functions and
> > inter-functional connections/relations rather than isolated functions was
> > instrumental in
> > >
> > > this theoretical shift. In a couple of places he clearly states that
> > psychological processes are not built "in two storeys", but are rather
> > recombinations
> > >
> > > of more or less the same set of components, well, let's call them
> > functions.
> > >
> > > Following Kurt Lewin's methodological works (such as the one on the
> > transition from Aristotelian to Galileian thinking),
> > > in 1930s Vygotsky gradually revised his earlier naive binary
> oppositions
> > and his later concepts, I believe, are better thought of as gradients
> than
> > valuative and rigid oppositions.
> > >
> > > That's how I understand the evolution of Vygotsky's thought and
> > conceptual system, at least.
> > >
> > > As to imagination, I am not quite sure that in his late texts he refers
> > to it as a function, although he might well have done so here and there,
> > given his
> > >
> > > fairly inconsistent and imprecise use of psychological terminology. As
> > to leading, I do not quite recall him referring to any function as
> leading,
> > but, more precisely,
> > > I believe he discusses "leading activity", which makes some difference.
> > In any case, indeed, it is really hard to say if imagination is really a
> > "higher" hmmmm....
> > > psychological phenomenon, especially so, given its transitory character
> > in children's development from total boundedness with "visual field"
> towards
> > >
> > > abstract thinking and volitional behaviour. So, it is "higher" than
> > purely motor-perceptual system of an infant, a prerequisite for
> > preschoolers play, and,
> > >
> > > I guess, from Vygotsky's perspective, might be regarded as not so high
> > in relation to the "higher" abstract thinking of adolescents and,
> > obviously, adults.
> > >
> > >
> > > AY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> > > To: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> >  Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:38:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
> > >
> > > Anton,
> > >
> > > Is your point that LSV moved away from the notions of lower and higher
> > psychological functions, towards that of systems of functions? I've been
> > mulling over the fact that in his late texts on child development
> > imagination is a leading function in early childhood, and it seems odd to
> > call that either lower or higher. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your
> posts.
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Like I said, I am under the impression that Vygotsky's expression
> > "higher psychological [mental] functions" for Vygotsky means so many
> things
> > >> (although in different texts authored in different periods of his
> life)
> > that it is bordering on total meaninglessness. Therefore, rephrasing our
> > character,
> > >> "everything can be ... higher mental function", no problem with that
> :)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thus, if I may reformulate the question, we are looking for the
> textual
> > proof that Vygotsky did refer to creativity as higher
> mental/psychological
> > function, right, Peter?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> AY
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> P.S.
> > >>
> > >> By the way, speaking of mental/psychological, here is a funny thing:
> > despite his virtually boundless flexibility in many respects, Vygotsky
> NEVER
> > >> used the word "mental" (literally: psychic, psychical --
> psikhicheskie)
> > when he referred to functions, but only "psychological". Later on, this
> > phrase
> > >> was pretty consistently "corrected" by his devoted best students in
> > many --but not all--of his posthumous publications of  Soviet period.
> > Curious detail,
> > >> isn't it? A recent study that has been done back in Germany
> > demonstrates this mysterious peculiarity of Vygotsky's discourse of his
> > lifetime period
> > >> as opposed to his posthumous publications, and will be published
> > shortly in several international languages in PsyAnima, Dubna
> Psychological
> > Journal
> > >> ( http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php ).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> > >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:23:57 AM
> > >> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
> > >>
> > >> In any case, in service of the scholarly discussion, I'm genuinely
> > puzzled by the idea that creativity is a higher mental function, and
> would
> > appreciate further clarity to that provided by Anton. Thx,p
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> ]
> > On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky
> > >> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:20 AM
> > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > >> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
> > >>
> > >> My apologies to Francine if my mnemonic sounded snide--I was going
> from
> > the pronunciation guide on the article that I had scanned, and I have no
> > idea of who put it there. With a name like Smagorinsky (which also might
> be
> > an Ellis Island adjustment), making fun of people's names is not usually
> > part of my approach. I'm glad to have the correction. Peter
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> ]
> > On Behalf Of larry smolucha
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:22 PM
> > >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> Subject: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Message from Francine Smolucha:
> > >> I have been a member of XMCA for several years - anyone could
> haveasked
> > me how to pronounce my last name.
> > >> I not surprised that the discussion of the work my husband and I have
> > donebegins with a snide comment about our last name.Growing up in Chicago
> > as a Polish-American, other ethnic groupswould often make fun of your
> last
> > name, and tell insulting Polish jokes abouthow stupid Poles are. Polish
> > immigrants often had their last names Americanizedby immigration
> officials
> > at Ellis Island. In order for other ethnic groups to be able topronounce,
> > and spell a Polish last name, Poles would typically use an easy English
> > pronunciation.
> > >> My husband's family would usually say Smo-lou-ka.Some family members
> > would say Smo-lou-cha.The proper Polish pronunciation is Smo-whoo-ha
> > (Smolucha has an umlaut over the u).The Smolucha family 'Y' chromosome is
> > Scandinavian (Vikings who settled Eastern Europecirca 800 A.D.) - we had
> > the National Geographic Society's Genoanthropology project do aDNA
> analysis.
> > >> When I married into the Smolucha family, I chose to use my married
> name
> > out of respect formy husband's family. By the way, my maiden name is
> Polish
> > too.
> > >> As I have been working on my new paper titled "A Vygotskian Theory of
> > Cultural Synergy andCultural Creativity", my conversation with a
> > Latin-American colleague required that I debunksome popular
> misconceptions
> > about 'white ethnics.' So I retell the story here:
> > >> My own family is 'Celtic' Polish in origin (the Krakov area was
> settled
> > by Celts, Vienna was originally a Celtic village). The European Celts
> > disappeared from history. Poland itself did not existfor over 150 years
> > (from approximately 1760 until 1918) - while it was divided among
> > Prussia(then Germany), Austria, and Russia. [The Palestinian loss of
> > statehood is not unique in history.]One of my great grandmothers ran an
> > illegal underground school in her farmhouse near Vilna where she taught
> > children how to read and write the Polish language. The Czar had
> > orderedanyone doing so to be shot. Her son (my grandfather) had to be
> > smuggled out of St. Petersburgon a cattle ship bound for Canada after the
> > aborted 1905 Russia revolution - he was a memberof a student group being
> > hunted down by the Czar's orders. Back in Krakov, my other grandfatherwas
> > serving in Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph's 'Polish' cavalry (Austrian
> > occupied Poland beingrenamed Galactia) -
> > >> grandpa's wife was Spanish Hapsburg.
> > >> My parents, both first generation Americans, did not attend high
> > school, instead my Dad worked in the Chicago Stock Yards as a teenager
> (you
> > might recall Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle.)My mom was a factory girl.
> > They grew up in that famous Chicago ghetto known as
> Back-of-the-Yards.Five
> > months after they were married, Pearl Harbor was attacked -  my Dad
> served
> > in the Army fieldartlllery, doing four beachheads in the South Pacific
> > (Aleutians, Kwajelian, Philippines, & Okinawa).His unit would have landed
> > in the first wave in the Invasion of Japan - which was cancelled
> whenJapan
> > surrendered after the atomic bombs were dropped. Mom spent the war years
> > building fighterplanes in a defense plant - yes, Rosie the Riveter.
> > >> We come from a family heritage of people who think for themselves and
> > are honor bound to do theright thing.
> > >> If anyone is interested in discussing the Vygotsky Theory of
> Creativity
> > that we have been publishing in thelast 27 years, I welcome the scholarly
> > discourse. In addition to my 1992 Reconstruction of Vygotsky'sTheory of
> > Creativity, you might read our 2012 publication Vygotsky's Theory of
> > Creativity: Figurative thinking Allied withLiteral Thinking [in
> > Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Creativity in Early Childhood
> > Education}.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>                            __________________________________________
> > >> _____
> > >> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
> Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition
> Department of Communication
> University of California, San Diego
> http://ucsd.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
http://ucsd.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca