The doctors of the church change from generation to generation, Achilles.
My own relationship to these discussions is strongly influenced by personal
experiences that occurred before the rising generation of doctors was born,
which, given the well know effects of age on memory, renders me
unreliable...
and if you do not believe me, ask my wife!
As Andy wrote, we have to figure things out ourselves for what they mean
for us, whoever us is, now.
Abracos Internationales
mike
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Achilles Delari Junior <
achilles_delari@hotmail.com> wrote:
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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca