Mike, and XMCA.
This remember the problems with Bible interpretation and the enormous effort of the "Doctors of Church" to indicate the "correct way" for read the Holy Scriptures... Unfortunately, we have only the apocrypha versions in our hand and then we must few shamed in read it. We must wait the "Doctors of Church", with some kind of "method of analysis of meaning" that following the same Doctors "does nos exist" (this is noteworthy), make a Council, Illuminate by the Holy Ghost (there is no scientific method to understand meaning), in order to establish the "True version" and/or the only "correct meaning"!!! In time: On the own footnotes of the edition of "The problems of consciousness" it was explicit the *codification* about were and when there was literal words from Vigotski and the notes by his colleagues who *listened* to him, that was direct auricular witness. Remembering that several other texts was not wrote directly by Vygotsky, but transcribed from stenographic notes of his oral presentations ("The problem of environment", "Paedology conferences", etc. etc.)... Then, perhaps Vygotsky's works was only a KGB invention to confusing westerns capitalist researchers. In contrary this clerical exegetical trend and the "conspiratorial hypothesis" improbable trend, I understand that we must to recognize that understand Vygotsky, through the fragments he leaves to us, is a kind of "archaeological" work... If you have only some clues you must think through *abduction* -- in Peirce's terms, and pay the price of this: don't make so categorical and/or dogmatic claims about. Even more, I can make one more blasphemy and ask: how can somebody exclude abduction from any psychological and historical research?
Achilles.
> From: lchcmike@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:11:49 -0700
> Subject: Re: RES: [xmca] Vygotskii-Lewin as gestaltists and the critics of gestaltism in '30s
> To: the_yasya@yahoo.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> CC:
>
> notorious and shameful!! Wow.
> mike
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > "The text" -- which one?
> >
> >
> > If this is "The problem of consciousness", then its first appearance is in
> > a volume "Psikhologiia grammatiki"
> > (The psychology of grammar). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo MGU, 1968 (edited by
> > A.A. Leontiev and T.V. Riabova).
> >
> > The second edition in the notiorous and shameful Collected Works of
> > Vygotskii in 6 volumes,
> > the one later translated into English (6 vols.) and Spanish (5 vols.).
> >
> > If you are asking about some other text, Joao, please, clarify which one
> > of those mentioned along the thread.
> >
> >
> > AY
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Joao Martins <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br>
> > To: 'Anton Yasnitsky' <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "'eXtended Mind, Culture,
> > Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:14:20 PM
> > Subject: RES: [xmca] Vygotskii-Lewin as gestaltists and the critics of
> > gestaltism in '30s
> >
> >
> > Where the text was published?
> >
> > Joao
> >
> > -----Mensagem original-----
> > De: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] Em
> > nome
> > de Anton Yasnitsky
> > Enviada em: quarta-feira, 24 de abril de 2013 21:23
> > Para: Martin Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Assunto: [xmca] Vygotskii-Lewin as gestaltists and the critics of
> > gestaltism
> > in '30s
> >
> > Oh, this one is pretty easy. Two points:
> >
> >
> > Point 1. The source is fairly idiosyncratic and should be almost totally
> > distrusted. Firstly, Vygotsky never wrote this text:
> >
> > Leontiev (A.N.) and Zaporozhets did. This text was generated on the basis
> > of
> > the notes the two guys were taking
> >
> > during Vygotskii's several hours long presentation, and only God knows what
> > exactly the whole talk was about.
> >
> > Naturally, the title was invented by the publishers of these notes
> > --Leontiev A.A. and Ryabova (Akhutina)--who
> >
> > released it for the first time in 1968. Then, the textological hybrid was
> > republished in the Collected Works, with grave mistakes in chronology, but,
> > quite possibly, there are also other involuntary mistakes and deliberate
> > censorship in the style of Yaroshevskii's usual brutal editing of
> > Vygotskii's texts.
> >
> >
> > Luckily, some notes that Vygotskii prepared BEFORE the talk have preserved
> > and--
> >
> > hurray, hurray!--were published fairly recently by Zavershneva.
> > I guess, furthermore, we also published the stuff in English some time ago.
> > Quite a bonus, I would say.
> > So, it might be pretty interesting to compare the two sources, whatever
> > brief and fragmentary both are.
> >
> > Anyway, all this needs to be kept in mind as long as this publication is
> > concerned.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Point 2. To the matter: "cultural-historical gestalt psychology" as a
> > synthesis of Soviet Luria-Vygotskian and, on the other hand,
> > German-American
> > gestalt psychology. Regardless of what Vygotskii--or, rather Leontiev,
> > Zaporozhets and Yaroshevskii--say in this paper "The problem of
> > consciousness", there is overwhelming evidence of most intensive
> >
> > and productive contacts between the two groups of scholars and, if not
> > mutual convergence, then most enthusiastic attempts to integrate
> > German-American gestaltist scholarship in the Soviet Union. I could
> > probably
> > try to relate this story here, but for the time being would refer to the
> > work that has already been done.
> >
> > It took me several [already published] papers to provide arguments in
> > support of this claim.
> > Some of these are in Russian, but the just of one of these is available in
> > English (and some other languages), too.
> > All these are available here, right after Keiler's seminal work that shows
> > that Vygotsky never spoke of "cultural-historical psychology" or, for that
> > matter, "higher psychic functions" (vysshie psikhicheskie funktsii):
> >
> >
> > http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php
> >
> >
> > FYI, Russian paper provides numerous footnotes not in Russian that might
> > give some idea of the contents of the paper.
> >
> > Also, there are a couple of nice original documents published as
> > Illustrations within this Russian paper.
> >
> >
> > Still, the paper does not deal directly with the issue of theoretical
> > synthesis. Well, in fact, such paper is not written yet.
> >
> > In a couple of words, though, the idea is as follows, I guess: profoundly
> > influenced by gestaltist holism from late 1929
> >
> > onwards, Vygotskii, however, moves closer to Kurt Lewin, who, in turn,
> > started expressing his criticism of gestaltist
> >
> > preoccupation with holism in favour of more balanced view that would take
> > into consideration the wholeness and,
> >
> > on the other hand, the life of organs and the processes in the sub-parts of
> > the whole, including the processes of
> >
> > separation and fragmentation. This development looked too revisionist for
> > the hardcore gestaltist, and fairly renegade.
> > It is pretty much in this sense Vygotskii was--along with Lewin--a most
> > devoted gestaltist and, at the same time,
> > its staunch critic. This is how I would interpret Lewin's and Vygotskii's
> > both holism-gestaltism and its critic to the extent
> >
> > of the danger of excommunication from the ranks of faithful gestaltists.
> > This is true of the decade of 1930s, but not earlier.
> >
> >
> > AY
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> > To: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> > Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:20:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis" (timeo
> > Vygotskii et dona ferentem)
> >
> >
> > Hi Anton,
> >
> > In "The problem of consciousness" (Collected Works, vol. 3), LSV writes
> > that
> > gestalt psychology makes the mistake of assuming that the psychological
> > functions form a specific kind of unified structure. He says that he wants
> > to treat this assumption as the problem: to explore the connections among
> > the psychological functions, and how these connections change dynamically.
> >
> > Certainly one can read this as an influence of gestalt psychology on his
> > work. But it doesn't seem much of a movement towards a synthesis, or to
> > encourage such a synthesis. What's your take on this?
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As I mentioned this on several occasions, a synthesis of Vygotskian ideas
> > with the solid system of gestaltist thought--
> > >
> > > the "cultural-historical gestalt psychology", if I may--looks like a very
> > interesting and most promising option
> > >
> > > for the development of Vygotskiana in psychology today.
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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
Attachment:
pdfkcCj0GEsll.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca