Fw: [xmca] http://marxismocritico.com/category/psicologia-marxista/

[Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>]

Dialectics covers nature, thinking, history – it is the most general, maximally universal science. The theory of the psychological materialism or dialectics of psychology is what I call general psychology.


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
To: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>; Charles Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> 
Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
Sent: Monday, 17 December 2012, 15:10:55
Subject: Re: [xmca] http://marxismocritico.com/category/psicologia-marxista/
 

Dear all

Thanks for all talk . What I demanded is what Vygotsky did want to reach to . 

First , from our Lord :

D.C.PHILLIP :

In their call for going beyond

the individual-social antimony in discussions of Piaget and

Vygotsky, Cole and Wertsch (2004)

state that the standard vision of Vygotskyan theory as social

in nature is a simplified

stereotype of the man’s original works. Also, whether Vygotsky ever

considered himself as a social

constructivist is not clear to us. What Vygotsky was happy to call

himself was a Marxist, a historical materialist

(Davydov, 1995).

Then , I think one of the things which caused Louis Althusser to revolt against then current prevalent Marxism was that it dissociated philosophy from politics , the administration of people's lives . Do we read psychology for psychology in our classes ? On and In the Campus ?

Out of Capitalistic Administration and huge monstrous giant unthinkable arm storage of this social formation , comes out the 'idea' of 'globalization' : read : kill , destroy , destruct , ruin , maim , paralyze , put to ashes , go genocide , etc. etc. 

Yes , Mike went door to door , house to house , to talk to ; but the talk was not simultaneously an 'amalgam' of 'talking' , dialogue , and the crucial 'act' of 'voting' . Half Nation's 'action' was a response to a 'previous' 'corporate' action of preparing for dominance : more slaughter and destruction to the border of vanishing everything . My puzzle is 'talk as ACTION' which is so abundantly propagated these days . As for dear Mike , the administration does not wait for talking ; she step by step privatizes the workings of the faculty , etc. In talking 'ideas' are exchanged , mentalities transformed as Chuck asserts quite logically but what I don't understand is why we stop just at this crucial vital point , what next ? And is not this Dialectics ? ; in actions , one round of preparations based on 'ideals' is reified and reached to its end , conclusion . At the heart of the talk necessarily is no 'action' . Behind the talk there should be a need , a

drive , an incentive . And this drive should occupy the 'seat' of an 'object' of a 'practical activity' . There are people in front of the White House , they might have their 'everyday concepts' and we here have to think of promoting these likely daily concepts up to the level of 'scientific' ones' and then go down to the mob (my apology) for a compromise (sublation) between the two types . The 'idea' of carrying a 'gun' comes out of a jurisdiction (idea) but leads to repeated 'actions' of fratricide . Yet corporate surplus values (%1) (huge materialities) produce the 'idea' of not cancelling (action) the written legalized code . Since the collapse of the Soviet Union , there's been all sorts of negociations , peace ways and maps , compromise , etc.etc. but the 'artillary' and 'ammuition' arsenal incessantly produces means of slaughter . Victimization has reached the non-fuzzy boundaries of America whether events occur inside or outside of it . Yet ,

plus other evil actions , she momentarily pushes the 'ideas' of the Ekhwan forward (Colonels behind) so that the 'act' of a transformation of a spoilt government is prohibited . Academia should deal with the bazaar as we say (just middle easterner I am be kind to call me that way or by name) , the marketplace . Chuck ! The oppressed do not have but their 'chains' to lose . To have a reform within Capitalistic America or the West in general is a 'Phantom' as Vygotsky declares . And Vygotsky was an outcome of the October Revolution ; Let's try revolutions , if any , won't swallow their beloved ones . I won't flee debates . And as I am so faulty with the good Names , salute the great Lady who first called such kind of debates MACROSOCIAL .


This time just this one :


It is incorrect historically, i.e., it does not correspond

with the actual state of affairs in any science. There does not exist a single

general science in the form described by Binswanger. Not even general biology

in the form in which it actually exists, the biology whose foundations were

laid by the works of Lamarck and Darwin, the biology which is until now the

canon of genuine knowledge of living matter, is, of course, part of logic, but

a natural science, albeit of the highest level. Of course, it does not deal with

living, concrete objects such as plants and animals, but with abstractions such

as organism, evolution of species, natural selection and life, but in the final

analysis it nevertheless studies by means of these abstractions the same reality as zoology and

botany. It would be as

much a mistake to say that it studies concepts and not the reality reflected in

these concepts, as it would to say of an engineer who is studying a

blueprint of a machine that he is studying a blueprint and not a machine, or of

an anatomist studying an atlas that he studies a drawing and not the human

skeleton. For concepts as well are no more than blueprints, snapshots; schemas

of reality and in studying them we study models of reality, just as we study a

foreign country or city on the plan or geographical map.


Best

Haydi 



________________________________

From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>

To: Charles Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> 

Cc: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 

Sent: Monday, 17 December 2012, 9:14:51

Subject: Re: [xmca] http://marxismocritico.com/category/psicologia-marxista/



Charles, Haydi, Martin

 

In our reflections on boundaries I would like to add a fragment from page 66 of Mike Cole and Karl Levitin's article "A Cultural Historical View of Human Nature. I accessed this article on the website that is the heading of this thread:

 

http://marxismocritico.com/category/psicologia-marxista/ 

 

The fragment on page 66 is:

"in place of a static triangle, he [Mike Cole] he suggests that one think of a triangle [subject-cultural medium-object] with a GAP where the "natural and "cultural" lines intersect; according to this view, precise coincidence of the two sources of information about the object is rare and fleeting, so that the subject must actively engage in a process of CONSTANT RECONCILIATION of discordant information.  CONSCIOUSNESS, in this view is THAT process of reconciliation, occurring over time in the course of human action"

 

The question of where to draw the distinctions or boundary markers between ideal and material , interior and exterior, etc must be considered  within this continually active reconciliation of immediate and mediated consciousness.  John Shotter's understanding of "spontaneous responsiveness" as presentational is an "aspect" of this reconciliation of the "gap".

 

Larry

 



 

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Charles Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:


I want to comment in accord, I think, with the spirit of Larry's last comment by noting one limitation I have found to some of Vygotsky's formulation.  As a psychologist interested in internal regulation he often seems to forget (at least in the translations I have read) of the communicative, social assertive aspect of language.  Language both internalizes and externalizes to present ourselves in the social world. Since my field is the teaching of writing--effective writing to influence others--this in fact is my starting point, and I only back into psychology because people do use their minds in the processes of reading and writing.

>

>However, Martin in citing Shotter was just dealing with the question of internalization, which following Vygotsky's lead has been much more fully elaborated than externalization.  For some of my discussion on externalization see the latter parts of my recent essay in MCA.

>Chuck

>------------------------

__________________________________________

_____

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