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

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

How interesting to learn that our article is available on that website,
Larry!
Betcha the nice people put a link to its presence on the lchc site. Right?
Nice to remember Karl.
:-)
mike

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca