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

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Haydi, your questions are welcome and received with gratitude.
I acknowledge I am calling attention to "dialogue" and
"intersubjectivity".  I also acknowledge that I'm misunderstanding a
central core "essence" of cultural historical theory.
However, in the spirit of "questioning" I want to bring the conversation
around to Mike and Karl's exploration of the "gap" and a key concept
within cultural historical theory. This key concept is "voobrazhenie" [on
page 68 of the article written with Karl]
 The Russion word is made up of 3 parts:
 vo [into]
obraze [image]
(z)henzie [a gerund indicating process]

Therefore vo-obraz-(z)henzie means "into image making" or "the process of
making an image"
Voobrazhenie is a process of "rising up from the earth and returning
again", looking away and then recentering on the object.

Every act of "seeing" the world is a process which requires a "synthesis"
of information at TIME T and at time T+1.  These TWO sources of input NEVER
completely coincide and CONSEQUENTLY

the "continuity" of daily conscious "experience" IS IMAGINED.  The LITERAL
physical interactions [materiality] involve of necessity "discontinuity".
In other words, we can say DISCOORDINATING with that world is CONSTITUTIVE
of the ILLUSION of continuity in consciousness.
The FEELING that we are coordinating with the world.

Mike and Karl then conclude with the following:
"consciousness, our "image of the world", is a dynamic process EMERGING
from 3 sets of constraints:
phylogenetic constraints, cultural constraints, AND a process of
"voobrazhenzie" [evaluation]

The term "voobrazhenzie indexes the "creative", "productive" nature of the
imaginal arising because of the GAP caused by the differences betweem time
T and time T+1.

Each time we refocus we are refocussing on a different RELATIONSHIP [not a
different essence] owing to the MOVEMENTS of the person, the object [or
other person] and the fixating the object "in the blink of an eye".

HAYDI, in the article face recognition is considered phylogenetic.  Now I
question if "dialogicality" is also phylogenetic in its "primitive" source.
To me face recognition and intersubjectivity are closely intertwined.
Voobrazhenzie is foundational to intersubjectivity.

Now I'm willing to admit I may be misunderstanding the relationships and
the gaps in the relational ways of "going on together" and de-emphasizing
[moving to the background] the phylogenetic and the cultural historical
when I'm illuminating the "joint action" of Shotter. However, at the level
of voobrazhenzie dialogicality may be a central process of our human ways
of communicating. Yes structurally transformed within cultural historical
settings but always the illusion of trying to bridge the "gap".

Moving to the "macrolevel" where rage and resistance is contemplated has
its parallel at the microlevel where we are "permeated" through
continually "othering the other" and needing to retain the illusion of
continuity in our "going on together."

In other words, as Mike points out, we need to create bridges between the
levels, but the centrality of "dialogicality" may be as phylogenetic as
face recognition. At least its an interesting question.

Larry

Larry





On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> *To:* Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> *Cc:* Charles Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, 17 December 2012, 2:09:48
>
> *Subject:* Re: [xmca]
> http://marxismocritico.com/category/psicologia-marxista/
>
> Haydi
>
> Thanks for bringing these questions out into the open and to ask if THIS
> forum "should" make a clear "distinction" between idealism and materialism.
> Your last summary comment was:
>
> Now we see that it is only the surgeon’s knife which can save the
> situation. A bloody operation is immanent. Many textbooks we will have
> to rend in twain, like the veil in the temple [58], many phrases will lose
> their head or legs, other theories will be slit in the belly. We are only
> interested in the border, the line of the rupture, the line which will be
> described by the future knife.
>
> This metaphor expresses the powerful assertion that we are "only"
> interested in the "border" regions the "line" which will be "described" by
> the future knife.
>
> [[Dearest Larry
> I said and I say you strongly believe that 'intersubjectivity , dialogue ,
> etc. ' is the way out . I say , according to Vygotsky whom we consider a
> genius , as well as a materialist/marxist , gives due weight to the Human
> Beings and the Relations between them but prior to this he is interested in
> knowing the world , the material world , transformation of it to the
> benefit of man , in the epistemology/methodology which takes and leads him
> to his destination . he , on many many occasions , attacks 'idealism' . Now
> would you accept dealing with world phylogenetically as well as
> ontogenetically (developmentally) ' of itself ' necessitates ,
> communication , whether in the forms of gestures , bodily movements ,
> expressions , yellings , pointings etc. up to the level of articulate
> language which contains 'collectivity) , that is , regarding the point that
> it is something redundant ? All you talk about is 'dialogue' as if it , of
> itself , leads to the betterment of the horrendous status of man in this
> cash present world of 'capitalism' . I believe in this you are distancing
> yourself from what Vygotsky really intended . The knife has been produced
> and has got very sharpened . It's enough for you and everybody else to see
> what 'capitalism' performs in every corner of the world including within
> her herself . Now there are people here in this forum who have taken actual
> steps to enter the arena . To fight for social justice and better education
> for all . Good for you to join such gathering so that you can put into
> 'action' whatever take from the discussions as a 'result' .]]
>
> THIS impulse as a hermeneutical "question" brings us to THIS line of
> demarcation.  As I understand your question you are asking "us" on this
> forum to please take a "position" on one side of the line or on the other
> or at least be clear on the existence of the line and on which side we are
> "on"?
>
> [[ Very fair declaration really . I doubt if it was Dewey or James who
> declared : 'Consciousness does not exist' . Is it bad to be so definite on
> belief ? Phenomenology is the science ? of appearances . This Vygotsky
> declared with the clearest tone and word . Is it bad ? But here so much
> effort is expended to prove that 'phenomenology' is something which CHAT
> truthfully welcomes . Vygotsky , his disciples et all , are for 'essences'
> in their researches ; and the essences (scientific concepts) are those
> things which go further than the words themselves . A word even if it
> indicates a 'thing' , a referent proper , could be just something
> fragmentary , abstract , partial (vs.universal) with no clear relationships
> to others of the same 'whole' and Vygotsky , in that era of chaos and
> disorder , does not stop at that ; he demands that 'psychology' determine
> its true relationship with other scientific disciplines , too , what today
> is dubbed as 'interdisciplinary' . Here all Names I see are 'Vygotskians' ;
> how could it be ? Everything is overlapping with one another . And this
> creates 'confusion' .]]
>
> THIS question is an appeal for clarity.  However, my understanding of the
> tradition of hermeneutical phenomenology is that philosophy is precisely
> the posing of THIS question of distinctions and boundaries and taking
> sides.  From the perspective of hermeneutical phenomenology THIS question
> IS the realm of philosophy.  The answers to these questions are philosophy
> 'as such".  I also want to emphasize what Martin remind us of.
> Phenomenology as represented by Husserl [which is the phenomenology which
> Vygotsky critiqued] has been "deepened" by the reflections of Heidegger,
> Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Iser working within the tradition of hermeneutical
> phenomenology.  I understand this tradition as being engaged with "fuzzy"
> boundaries around the questions you are posing.
>
> [[Vygotsky et all repeatedly mention that even today's sciences with all
> their progresses and advancements have not reached the point that they need
> not 'philosophy' . Philosophy lights the path which is to be traversed .
> Philosophy is more than the sum total or the denominator of the sciences .
> Philosophy is still a great independent discipline . All quarrels are upon
> philosophy's NEED . I think 'reactology' is the last thing Vyg. tried to
> dispose of . He , I suppose , talks very sarcastically of those scholar in
> his time who fancied/phantomized they had worked out everything with
> 'consciousness' as such , as you're saying now , and found their time to go
> for the investigation of the 'consciousness' of 'consciousness' or the
> 'thinking of thinking' ; Now of late it's dubbed as 'awareness' . However
> psychology even now presupposes a knowledge of the philosophy of psychology
> .]]
>
> I know my last response will not offer clarity. I hope we return to
> Martin's effort to offer the clarity asked for in Haydi's question.
>
> [[I'm used to reading any message including your own and I do know I know
> little but this does not prevent me from talking .]]
>
> I want to pause with a fragment from Charles which he just posted.:
>
> On your [Haydi]  last query, Martin has given a good explanation about the
> practical reasoning that PRECEDES the self-regulation that comes through
> symbols applied to the experience of the self.
>
> [[Yes , chimpanzees made a double stick to reach the fruit . Mice are
> trained to find the lever to open for the food . These days we hear many
> such things . Gorillas learn up until a limit . A leopard plays with the
> little deer , she does not let it flee . She stares and lures for the
> deer's mother but finally lets the kid join her mother , quits . Our
> problem is philosophy and science . Deep to reach essences which are void
> of non-essentials and non-universals . For a child a word is a complex ;
> for the adult the same word is a true concept , etc. etc. Many have
> accepted , accept the notion of 'continuity' ; the idea of the remnants .
> No problem . Hope Chuck and you are not saying 'reason' or even 'intellect'
> is innate , hereditary . This is the dilemma which CHAT have to renounce if
> it is CHAT.]]
>
> I question if Shotter's understanding that "practical reasoning" within
> "spontaneous responsiveness" continues to be central to our gestural use of
> presentational  ongoing "joint action".  As we develop more internalized
> ways of "managing" our conduct do we need to also keep in the foreground
> our "joint needs" as spontaneous tacit prereflective presentational
> actions.  THIS understanding emphasizes presentational ways of knowing, not
> idealized representational pictures IN our minds.
>
> [[Long ago , you remember , we discussed 'perizhivanie' and Jack
> Whiteheads's writings and ideas . I read a very long piece of him . Andy in
> a , response to my query , evaluated it as non-relevant to the original
> 'perizhivanie' , energy and so on and so forth . ? Shotter is a very old
> name for me but momentarily I'm excused to give any valid evaluation . May
> you send the article again ? Say at least which one of the list . Thanks .]]
>
> You know what my problem with the books and materials is . Mostly I read
> on the monitor . Taking notes impossible . However I cannot choose from
> what I've saved .
> they're all relevant if patience allows . Apology for the defective
> attachment .
> Best
> Haydi
> Larry
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>wrote:
>
> Now we see that it is only the surgeon’s knife which can
> save the situation. A bloody operation is immanent. Many textbooks we will
> have
> to rend in twain, like the veil in the temple [58], many phrases will lose
> their head or legs, other theories will be slit in the belly. We are only
> interested in the border, the line of the rupture, the line which will be
> described
> by the future knife.
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca