[Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man

[Beth Ferholt]

Right, that is a good point.  I use the Virginia Woolf version.  But I do
still have a sense that the meta quality of that standing still is worth
elaborating upon in some way -- even though standing still when we are by
virtue of being alive developing/moving through time means all that I was
describing.  I think this will help us to see something about
perezhivanie.  We'll see. Beth

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Beautiful, suggestive images!!
>
> Thanks -- H
>
> Helena Worthen
> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Beth Ferholt wrote:
>
> > I am not well enough read to respond to these recent posts but was very
> > interested to talk more about  "meta".  I have, since I began teaching
> > preschool, thought that the feeling of a "spiral of consciousness" -- is
> > that my own term or from someone else? -- what I mean is when you are
> > stopped in your tracks by a sensation that you are walking above layers
> of
> > time in one place, or even that you are floating above your self as your
> > mind races in every widening spirals ... that this sensation was familiar
> > because I had felt it often in childhood.  I connected it to young
> > children's love of repetition and ritual.
> >
> > I often felt, as a teacher, that the children in my class were walking a
> > bit above the ground most of the time.  They appeared to be touching the
> > floor or the asphalt but they were not, usually.  This became clear in
> the
> > misunderstandings between adults and children that make up the life of
> the
> > preschool (sort of like the one I mentioned above, between me and Mike,
> but
> > so much larger) -- but I also have some earliest memories of seeing
> things
> > repeatedly growing and shrinking in a spiral rhythm as I would try to
> sleep.
> >
> > That is my two cents of response : ) : That something of the nested
> dolls,
> > or the liar paradox (Hofstadter, 1979 is where I heard that --
> > Epidemenides/liar paradox), is essential to perezhivaie ... not just a
> > repetition.
> >
> > Beth
> >
> >
> >
> > Beth
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Responding to Robert's invitation,
> >>
> >> My book title is not going meta. Instead, it goes to the very hard of
> >> mathematical praxis. What is it that allows a mathematician to see in
> the
> >> moves of another a typical mathematical move rather than the move of
> >> another. What is it in the doing that makes it mathematical rather
> >> scientific, commonsense, chemical... And the book is concerned with
> showing
> >> the sociogenesis of the mathematics of mathematics, the origin of
> >> mathematical reasoning AS social relation (more accurately, because of
> the
> >> ideality of mathematics, a societal relation---see Il'enkov, the ideal,
> the
> >> general [obshee]).
> >>
> >> For the remainder of the paragraphs of the unsigned message, I do not
> >> understand a thing. I thought I understood Heidegger a bit, have read
> many
> >> of his works many times. But I do not see how anything in these
> paragraphs
> >> arises out of the thinking of Heidegger, or anyone else who took up and
> >> developed the philosopher's thinking, like Derrida or Nancy . . .
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --------------------
> >> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> >> Applied Cognitive Science
> >> MacLaurin Building A567
> >> University of Victoria
> >> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> >> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> >>
> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Robert Lake <
> boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> For meta question I defer to Professor Roth himself.
> >>> (Included in this email).
> >>> Robert
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:40 PM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Beth, Robert, and the others forming a “(we)”.
> >>>>
> >>>> Beth said it is the “()” within the “()” that interests her [as
> being].
> >>>> Maybe Framing is ALL communication, ALL thought, ALL consciousness
> ....
> >>>> Bateson?.... but Beth thinks we need to tackle framing head on [face
> >>> into]
> >>>> when discussing perezhivanie.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now I noticed that Wolff-Michael Roth included in the title of his
> book
> >>>> the phrase – mathematics of mathematics -  and my mind wondered to
> >>>> conjecture if this is going “meta” and if “()” is also going “meta”.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could Beth’s “()” as symbolic also have another aspect [or side] that
> >> is
> >>>> () = bracket and the doubling  “()” = bracketing the bracket.  These
> >>> moves
> >>>> as examples of going “meta” which also plays with saying/not saying or
> >>>> revealing/concealing that Ed Wall recently posted when he said:
> >>>> The truth of the proposition, in effect, resides in the possibility of
> >>>> bringing its referents into the light (here is where aletheia takes a
> >>>> part); I.e. uncovering. That is, on the LEVEL of ‘apophantic as’
> things
> >>> are
> >>>> propositionally either true or false, but on the LEVEL of the
> >>> ‘hermeneutic
> >>>> as’ they are neither.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, the ‘apophantic as’ IS (its being) grounded in
> interpretation,
> >>>> I.e. the ‘hermeneutic as’ (its being). For Heidegger (and this is an
> >>>> oversimplification) ‘hermeneutic truth’ IS in effect (in use)
> >> DISclosure.
> >>>> ..... complicated because if one surfaces [metaphor of LEVELS] to the
> >>>> apophantic then, in effect (in use) there is a covering back up
> >>>> (closure).... Also, and this is most important, the consequent would
> >> not
> >>> be
> >>>> an understanding of Trump’s speech, but an understanding
> (interpreting)
> >>> of
> >>>> how  “(I)” understand (interpret) Trump’s speech.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am travelling back and forth exploring saying as () generating
> >> effects
> >>>> IN USE, and then doubling back and exploring the () generating effects
> >> IN
> >>>> USE through “()” interpretation of the uses.  To go hear would have to
> >>>> bring in Umberto Eco who pleads for us to make a distinction between
> >>> ‘use’
> >>>> and ‘interpretation’ AS aspects of semiosis and semiotic but this is
> >> for
> >>>> another turn.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Beth Ferholt
> >>>> Sent: February 5, 2017 6:38 PM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the calling out to Monica and me, Mike and Andy -- I had to
> >>> stop
> >>>> checking XMCA for a couple of weeks so I did not see the discussion or
> >>> your
> >>>> notes to me in the chain, until today.  One of the the strengths of
> >> XMCA
> >>> is
> >>>> that it creates a conversation that can include people who can not
> >>> always”
> >>>> respond that very day, or even week, due to various forms of
> >>> interruption!
> >>>> Often these "interruptions" are children or political events, which
> >> canY
> >>>> help us to understand perezhivanie.
> >>>>
> >>>> As well as spending time at JFK, recently, many of us here in New York
> >>> have
> >>>> been attending local protests to keep our neighborhoods feeling safe
> >> for
> >>>> everyone.  I live in a neighborhood in Brooklyn that includes several
> >>>> Muslim communities and several Jewish communities (as well as a few
> >>> Russian
> >>>> and Polish communities), and at the local protests these past few
> weeks
> >>>> some people have had photographs of their family members who were
> >> killed
> >>> by
> >>>> the Nazis attached to the back of their "never again" signs. Also we
> >> all,
> >>>> Muslim, Jewish, etc. families, have been often bringing  our children
> >> to
> >>>> the protests.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I have been thinking a lot about children and hope, during the past
> >>> few
> >>>> weeks.  It is within this frame that I saw this film.  I think the
> film
> >>> was
> >>>> expecting us to see the child as only benefitting from the main
> >>> character's
> >>>> lying, saying that he was the child's father, and of course the child
> >> did
> >>>> benefit, but I think that perezhivanie is about truth, somehow,
> >> although
> >>> I
> >>>> am not sure how.
> >>>>
> >>>> My second thought is that Manchester by the Sea must have been
> >>> referencing
> >>>> this film, with its return-to-the-space-where-the-house-was scene,
> and
> >>>> also
> >>>> with the choice to replace the lost self (as father) / family or no.
> I
> >>>> think it might help this conversation if we all saw both films,
> >> actually.
> >>>> Two thoughts on this methods suggestion for our conversation, before I
> >>>> return to the topic itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) It is odd how closely the two films are related, as I did not know
> >>> that
> >>>> the two films were related when I told Chris to see Manchester by the
> >> Sea
> >>>> in relation to thinking about perezhivanie.  I told Chris when I saw
> >> him
> >>> in
> >>>> person, and I think that discussions about perezhivanie are often
> >>> different
> >>>> in person.  We learned at LCHC in the 2004/5 playworld projects that
> >>> these
> >>>> in person discussions about perezhivanie have a pronounced proleptic
> >>>> structure, mirroring the topic of study, such that the conclusion of
> >> the
> >>>> discussion appears at the start: It feels like magic is happening.  (I
> >>>> think this has something to do with how good teachers see the things
> in
> >>>> their classroom that are useful or no before they happen or "behind
> >> their
> >>>> heads" ... when you are very present you have this "sixth sense,"
> which
> >>> is
> >>>> really an experience of time moving in two directions at once ...
> being
> >>>> very present can often require a lot of in person time and being with
> >>>> children speeds up the process.)
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) It is a strength that the XMCA conversations can continue through
> >> all
> >>> of
> >>>> our different schedules.  It is a negative that they are not in
> person,
> >>> and
> >>>> seeing films together can really help.  This is where we went on the
> >>>> perezhivanie facebook page when it was briefly in English and in
> >> Russian
> >>> --
> >>>> with a film, and it was very helpful.  (Of course I am thinking of
> this
> >>>> while considering the changing role and form of LCHC and Mike's
> >>>> participation in LCHC and XMCA.  I am thinking of the mistakes that
> are
> >>>> communication.  A story about this that I thought of recently, which
> >>> shows
> >>>> this point well, and seems worth retelling BECAUSE when studying
> >>>> perezhivanie the form is often (always??) the study of the content: As
> >> a
> >>>> newish graduate student Mike once said "thank you" to me when I made a
> >>>> comment in the afternoon about an AM conversation that day.  Mike's
> >>> "thank
> >>>> you" encouraged me to pay extra attention to this comment/thought of
> >>> mine,
> >>>> which later became important in our analysis of a
> difficult-to-decipher
> >>>> playworld event.  I was thinking of this event as I walked and talked
> >>> with
> >>>> a doctoral student of my own -- I seem to have a heavily spacial
> memory
> >>>> process and my student and I were walking through a doorway -- and I
> >>>> suddenly realized that Mike could have been thanking me for holding
> the
> >>>> door for him at this time in the past when his feedback was so
> >> important
> >>> to
> >>>> me ... maybe he did not hear my comment, but just thanked me for
> >> holding
> >>>> the door ... in fact it now appears to me that this was probably the
> >>> case!)
> >>>>
> >>>> The interesting thing to me about the above 2 points is the framing.
> >> It
> >>> IS
> >>>> the "()" within the "()" that interests me. Maybe Framing is all
> >>>> communication or all thought or consciousness ... Bateson? ... but I
> >>> think
> >>>> we need to tackle framing head on when discussing perezhivanie.  The
> >> two
> >>>> films are very different in regards to framing, I think this is why
> >> they
> >>>> are most interesting to think about together, but first I have two
> >>>> citations for thinking about time that I use frequently in my writing
> >> on
> >>>> perezhivanie.
> >>>>
> >>>> These seem worth repeating here, as this thinking about time in
> >>> space/time
> >>>> seems to me to be thinking about framing ... the "()" makes us double
> >>> back
> >>>> in time as we read -- :
> >>>>
> >>>> (As to Performance, Alfredo copied the Schechner quote above.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Dewey's relation of the notion of object to prolepsis (on XMCA):
> >>>> Mike (2007) used the term “temporally double sided” to describe this
> >>>> phenomenon of growing back and towards the future and the past
> >>>> simultaneously.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I am (still) thinking about, now, most often:
> >>>> It is the juxtaposition of temporal double sidedness with stages that
> >>>> creates perezhivanie. What Schechner argues is that this juxtaposition
> >>>> provides the rhythm that allows us to raise ourselves up and hover,
> >>>> suspended momentarily in a state of being simultaneously ourselves and
> >>> not
> >>>> ourselves: our past and future selves (someone else).
> >>>>
> >>>> So my first point is about framing and my second is about children.
> >> The
> >>>> Fate Of Man is all about the frames / "()". The stories are nested
> >> within
> >>>> eachother, repeating themselves, maybe even sort of like a fractal, or
> >>>> anyhow a spiral?  I have some congenital prosopagnosia, getting worse
> >> as
> >>> I
> >>>> age and definitely bad with a film like this.  I kept thinking we were
> >>> back
> >>>> at the ferry as the form of the conversation and context images
> >> repeated
> >>>> themselves, as I could not recognize the face of the character who was
> >>> the
> >>>> audience for our hero's story!  Manchester by the Sea, on the other
> >> hand,
> >>>> had no frames.  We just jumped right in and rode it through. I only
> saw
> >>>> Manchester once but do others think this is true? relevant?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that the question of children's position in relation to adult
> >>>> perezhivanie is central in both of these films. The children in both
> of
> >>>> these films appear to want the main characters to try again at being
> >>>> fathers.  This is a critique of films about children -- I can not
> think
> >>> of
> >>>> the name of the person who made this critique, but I can find it for
> >>> anyone
> >>>> if needed -- : We adults often make films not about children but about
> >>> our
> >>>> own childhoods.  We make films about children who are no longer with
> >> us.
> >>>> But is this really best for the films, as films are usually best when
> >>> they
> >>>> are somehow in dialogue with their topic, this is a characteristic of
> >> the
> >>>> medium, no?
> >>>>
> >>>> If you do not have some pretense, some playing again, you can not have
> >>>> perezhivanie.  But I think that Fate of Man is not about perezhivanie,
> >>>> although in a different way than Manchester by the Sea is not about
> >>>> perezhivanie.  In Manchester by the Sea there is no other with whom to
> >>>> perezhivanie because the main character and his former wife still love
> >>> each
> >>>> other, or at lease he still loves her and she returns enough of the
> >> love
> >>> to
> >>>> keep him loving her, and neither of them can pull the other up because
> >>> they
> >>>> both hit bottom together and in the same story.  In Fate of Man there
> >> is
> >>> is
> >>>> no chance for perezhivanie because the other needs to be involved in
> >> some
> >>>> honest way, or there is no dialogue.
> >>>>
> >>>> In Fate of Man the hero seems to me to be playing out his memory in
> the
> >>>> real world.  A child is not an other with whom one can ever
> >> perezhivanie.
> >>>> This is not perezhivanie as there is no real world as a player, and
> >> this
> >>> is
> >>>> why our hero's heart will fail him.  He did not reach bottom and then
> >>> start
> >>>> to pull himself up by connecting with another with great bravery.
> >>> Instead,
> >>>> as he says himself, he just snapped -- he is now living in a dream.
> >>>>
> >>>> As Larry put it, above in this chain: "In other words, navigating
> >> through
> >>>> the suffering and existential emptiness is not a hero’s journey." And
> >>> this
> >>>> point is relevant, again, to our method for studying perezhivanie.  I
> >>> don't
> >>>> think we can manage this one on our own (XMCA), even as a group that
> >>> allows
> >>>> for conversations over extended time periods.
> >>>>
> >>>> If form and content are related in this process, I'd say that we won't
> >>>> understand this process until we see children as full people.  And
> >>>> simultaneously as children.  Children have something to tell us about
> >>> this
> >>>> process that no one else can tell us, and they are not going to tell
> us
> >>>> this in a way that those of us who are researchers/scholars can
> listen,
> >>>> without the bridge of the teacher voices.  How to include these voices
> >> in
> >>>> our research is key.  And the answer has something to do with art, as
> >>> well
> >>>> as with time and space.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am going to send this as it is long enough already, and then catch
> up
> >>>> with the related chains after I do ... And I won't say more now, but I
> >>>> agree with all the people who thought this was a great pick to start
> >> the
> >>>> discussion.  Many levels to discuss and I also found many aspects of
> >> the
> >>>> film related to perezhivanie in many ways! Beth
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> How about a documentary movie about the first Trump voter who dies
> >> as a
> >>>>> result of repeal of Obama Care? That would be a perezhivanie within a
> >>>>> perezhivanie!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> >>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> >> decision-making
> >>>>> On 21/01/2017 12:03 PM, Helena Worthen wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am late to this discussion, but I have been paying attention. I
> >> was
> >>>>>> reluctant to expose myself to the emotional challenges of the film.
> >> I
> >>>> knew
> >>>>>> that between the majestic music, the stunning black and white
> >> images,
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> beautiful human faces and bodies (and some very ugly ones), and the
> >>>> twists
> >>>>>> of the story, I was going to be deeply moved. However, I have been
> >>>> reading
> >>>>>> two books by Svetlana Alexievich -- Voices from Chernobyl and
> >>> Secondhand
> >>>>>> Time - which tell equally heartbreaking, horrifying stories of
> >>>> suffering.
> >>>>>> Reading her work inclines me to place the film in the context of the
> >>>> period
> >>>>>> of deStalinization after Kruschev's 1956 speech to the 20th Congress
> >>> of
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> CPSU, which gave the signal that it was permissible to begin to talk
> >>>> freely
> >>>>>> about Soviet history. It was a period of trying to build a story
> >> that
> >>>> could
> >>>>>> explain and honor, if not justify, the extreme suffering of the
> >> Soviet
> >>>>>> people. This film seems to me to set out to accomplish that. So does
> >>>>>> Alexievich's book, which is a compilation of interviews done between
> >>>> 1991
> >>>>>> and 2012, with people who had something to say (good and bad) about
> >>> the
> >>>>>> Soviet regime and the experience of its dissolution. She got the
> >> 2015
> >>>> Nobel
> >>>>>> Prize for this book.  And I sense that Andy, or someone, is
> >>> anticipating
> >>>>>> that the US is going to have to produce some works of scholarship or
> >>>> art,
> >>>>>> or both, that attempt to explain what is happening now here in the
> >> US
> >>> --
> >>>>>> for example, this afternoon, under President Trump.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Helena Worthen
> >>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>>>>> Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For some reason I couldn't see the subtitles showing up in Fate of a
> >>> Man
> >>>>>>> the first time, so I started to watch it dubbed in English instead.
> >>> But
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> mannered Hollywood accents definitely were not exactly helping to
> >>>> convey
> >>>>>>> the "real Russian soul" Robbins talks about! It felt like I was
> >> being
> >>>>>>> asked
> >>>>>>> to imagine Cary Grant inhabiting Andrei's perezhivanie-ing body.
> >> So,
> >>> I
> >>>>>>> started over with the subtitled version.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here are some quick initial reflections: wonderful movie, and in
> >>> Andrei
> >>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>> of the more memorable characters I have seen. But I also found
> >> myself
> >>>>>>> thinking how big a difference there is between watching a film on
> >> my
> >>>>>>> 12-inch laptop with headphones (my only option at the moment), and
> >>>>>>> sitting
> >>>>>>> back and immersing yourself in a darkened theater or at least on a
> >>>>>>> widescreen TV without any other distractions, allowing ourselves to
> >>>> "fall
> >>>>>>> into this space" by virtue of our very awareness of the illusion
> >>>>>>> generated
> >>>>>>> by the frame, as Beth and Monica put it. This difference becomes
> >> even
> >>>>>>> bigger if the screen you're viewing it on also enables you to
> >> quickly
> >>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>> email from time to time during the movie, as many people do these
> >>> days.
> >>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>> we are to consider the film experience as a model (analogy?) for
> >>>>>>> perezhivanie or even a certain kind of simulation of it, this
> >> effect
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>> occurs when we lose ourselves in a film would be undermined by an
> >>>>>>> especially small frame or poor viewing conditions. At what point
> >> does
> >>>>>>> "the
> >>>>>>> knowledge that the movement we experience is just an illusion" (p.
> >> 2
> >>> in
> >>>>>>> their article) undermine the perezhivanie-like quality of film as
> >>>> opposed
> >>>>>>> to forming an integral part of it? And, might the way distraction
> >>>>>>> functions
> >>>>>>> to undermine perezhivanie in the context of film in any way mirror
> >>> how
> >>>> we
> >>>>>>> "distract" ourselves in the course of living lives from conscious
> >>>>>>> engagement with the perezhivanie we are otherwise undergoing? Is
> >>>> viewing
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> film on a 12-inch screen while checking email and calling it an
> >>>>>>> "experience" in any way analogous to the self-deceptions and
> >> escapes
> >>> we
> >>>>>>> engage in during the course of either experience-as-struggle or
> >>>>>>> experience-as-contemplation? I did not check email while watching
> >>> Fate
> >>>>>>> of a
> >>>>>>> Man, by the way. Just in case you're wondering.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for the film itself: I was struck by the incidental way in which
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> earlier loss of his childhood family is introduced and acknowledged
> >>> at
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> very outset, and how this contrasts with the dramatic ongoing
> >>>>>>> perezhivanie
> >>>>>>> that ensues going forward: it is as if this early loss is "taken
> >> for
> >>>>>>> granted" as also part of the Russian experience.  We are not privy
> >> to
> >>>> any
> >>>>>>> perezhivanie he might have presumably undergone before that point;
> >> it
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>> simply not "within the frame." At several points, I was reminded of
> >>>>>>> Satyajit's World of Apu (last movie in his trilogy), where there
> >> was
> >>>>>>> also a
> >>>>>>> set of early losses and a relationship formed with a "son." Have
> >> any
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>> seen it? I think it would also be a good example of perezhivanie.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would not want to overemphasize the use of literary motifs, since
> >>>>>>> Bondarchuk was presumably not making any references to the concept
> >> of
> >>>>>>> perezhivanie as such. But there were several devices that evoked
> >> Beth
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> Monica's passage from To The Lighthouse ("Time stand still here"),
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> their metaphor of a life (or more specifically, a perezhivanie
> >>> within a
> >>>>>>> life) spiraling back over itself to bring two disparate moments
> >> into
> >>>>>>> juxtaposition in a way such that "your life becomes
> >> three-dimensional
> >>>>>>> again" (p. 2). One occurs in the various scenes when Andrei gazes
> >> up
> >>> at
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> sky in reverie and all we see are clouds, or the scene where he
> >> lies
> >>> in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> grass after his first escape and the camera pans back as it becomes
> >>>> very
> >>>>>>> quiet, leaving nothing but him swallowed up in the vastness of
> >>> nature.
> >>>>>>> There is a certain timeless quality to these scenes, a sense that
> >> he
> >>> is
> >>>>>>> momentarily transcending the linear temporal flow of his life as he
> >>>>>>> either
> >>>>>>> stands outside it and "stands still" in it. It could be a thousand
> >>>> years
> >>>>>>> passing by in those clouds, or just the 17 years of his second
> >> phase;
> >>>> it
> >>>>>>> suddenly doesn't matter. Another thing I noticed was the use of the
> >>> two
> >>>>>>> musical themes: the love song the accordionist plays for him and
> >>> Irina,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> the festive music incongruously piped in at the concentration camp
> >>>> during
> >>>>>>> that amazing scene around Part 1, minute 45 where the prisoners are
> >>>> being
> >>>>>>> marched in and the crematorium is going full blast down the road.
> >> At
> >>>> some
> >>>>>>> point (I couldn't relocate it) Andrei has a flashback where he
> >>> revisits
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> love song and his memories of Irina; then at minute 20 in Part 2,
> >>> while
> >>>>>>> processing his family's death after coming home from the war, he
> >>> finds
> >>>>>>> himself hearing the concentration camp song on the record player
> >> and
> >>> is
> >>>>>>> suddenly transported back to that traumatic experience. Yet he does
> >>> not
> >>>>>>> smash the record right away; he stares at it for a minute, almost
> >> as
> >>> if
> >>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>> is resituating these two moments in relation to each other.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps I am overanalyzing, but I found both these motifs to speak
> >> to
> >>>>>>> Beth
> >>>>>>> and Monica's examples in the way they bring two moments back into
> >>>> contact
> >>>>>>> with each other.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Finally, Mike and Andy's discussion in the Misha thread about the
> >>>>>>> watching
> >>>>>>> of a film functioning as perezhivanie for those viewers for whom it
> >>>>>>> reflects and repeats their own experience, raises a question about
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> difference between extended perezhivanie and the personal
> >>> re-enactment
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>> one's perezhivanie within a much smaller time scale (the two or
> >> three
> >>>>>>> hours
> >>>>>>> spent watching the movie). I hope at some point we could delve more
> >>>> into
> >>>>>>> this issue of time frame and time scale in various forms of
> >>>> perezhivanie.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you Marc! It was the third "plane" which was my intention in
> >>>>>>>> providing "Fate of a Man" for discussion. You picked out what were
> >>> for
> >>>>>>>> me
> >>>>>>>> also the main (but by no means the only) instances of
> >> perezhivanija
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> movie.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It seems to me that Sokolov (the author) offers one perezhivanie
> >> in
> >>>>>>>> particular as the main theme of the movie. At the beginning of the
> >>>>>>>> movie,
> >>>>>>>> the man and boy walk up the path to the camera and at the end of
> >> the
> >>>>>>>> movie
> >>>>>>>> they walk off together again. So this is the central theme. As you
> >>>> say,
> >>>>>>>> when Sokolov's family has all been killed, even his talented
> >>> war-hero
> >>>>>>>> son
> >>>>>>>> who was going to be a famous mathematician, his life has become
> >>>>>>>> meaningless. I really liked your reflections of Sokolov's
> >>> reflections
> >>>>>>>> too.
> >>>>>>>> He sees the young orphan boy who, he discovers, has no family and
> >>>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>> even know what town he comes from, but is aimlessly living on
> >> pieces
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>> rubbish. He sees that the two of them are in the same situation.
> >> So
> >>>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>>> some time mulling this over a they sit together in the truck, he
> >>> lies
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>> the boy and tells him that he is the boy's father, and they
> >> embrace.
> >>>> But
> >>>>>>>> the boy questions this and he reasserts his claim and the boy
> >>> accepts
> >>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>> The man is able to define a new meaning for his life; he has done
> >>> this
> >>>>>>>> autonomously without the help of a therapist, but he still needs
> >>>>>>>> another,
> >>>>>>>> the boy, to embody that meaning. But he knows it is his own
> >>> invention.
> >>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>> boy on the other hand has to be made to believe it is true; he is
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>> sufficiently mature to manufacture this meaning himself, but as a
> >>>> child
> >>>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>>> can be guided by an adult. As you say, Marc, it is very
> >> significant
> >>>> when
> >>>>>>>> Sokolov tells us how he is now, again, worried about his own
> >> death.
> >>>>>>>> What if
> >>>>>>>> I died in my sleep? that would be a shock for my son!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For me, this reflection causes me to look back on the man's whole
> >>>>>>>> struggle
> >>>>>>>> during the war: in the first phase he does not differentiate
> >> between
> >>>> his
> >>>>>>>> life as a father and husband and his life as a Soviet citizen -
> >> war
> >>> is
> >>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>> duty and he is confident, as is everyone else, of victory. His
> >>> bravery
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> driving his truck to the front line under fire reflects the fact
> >>> that
> >>>> he
> >>>>>>>> has never imagined his own death. Then he finds himself prostrate
> >>>>>>>> before 2
> >>>>>>>> Nazi soldiers who we assume are going among the wounded shooting
> >>>> anyone
> >>>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>> has survived. But surprisingly, he is allowed to live, but is to
> >> be
> >>>>>>>> used as
> >>>>>>>> a slave. Sokolov has been confronted by his own mortality for the
> >>>> first
> >>>>>>>> time and he chooses life, but accepts slavery (Sartre and Hegel
> >> both
> >>>>>>>> thematize this moment in their philosophy). In this second phase
> >> of
> >>>>>>>> Sokolov's life he is a survivor. Everything hinges on surviving
> >> and
> >>>>>>>> returning to his wife and family. As you point out, Marc, his
> >> later
> >>>>>>>> reflections on this are particularly poignant, when he discovers
> >> the
> >>>>>>>> futility of this hope. Eventually, the life of forced labour
> >> becomes
> >>>>>>>> unbearable. He cries out: "Why are we forced to dig 3 cubic metres
> >>>> when
> >>>>>>>> 1
> >>>>>>>> cubic meter is enough for a grave!" Sokolov has accepted and
> >>> embraced
> >>>>>>>> death
> >>>>>>>> after all. (Transition to the third phase.) To his German masters
> >>> this
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> an unendurable act of defiance. As David points out, there are
> >> flaws
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> scene which follows, but ... he confronts his own death defiantly,
> >>>>>>>> stares
> >>>>>>>> it in the eye, spits on it, and his life again gains meaning as a
> >>>> "brave
> >>>>>>>> Soviet soldier" unafraid of death even in such an impossible
> >> moment.
> >>>> Not
> >>>>>>>> only does he survive, but takes the Nazi Colonel prisoner and
> >> hands
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> war
> >>>>>>>> plans over to the Red Army. Now, when he is offered the chance to
> >>>>>>>> return to
> >>>>>>>> his wife as a war hero he declines and asks to be sent back to the
> >>>>>>>> front.
> >>>>>>>> His life has adopted this new meaning which casts his life as a
> >>> father
> >>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>> the shade. He no longer fears death. But he is persuaded to take
> >>> time
> >>>>>>>> off
> >>>>>>>> and learns of the death of his family. As Marc relates, the
> >>> continued
> >>>>>>>> survival of his son, who is now also a war hero, provides
> >> continued
> >>>>>>>> meaning
> >>>>>>>> and integrates the two themes in his life. This takes work, as
> >> Marc
> >>>>>>>> points
> >>>>>>>> out, and he has the assistance of an older man, in achieving this
> >>>>>>>> redefinition of his life. But tragically, with the death of his
> >> son
> >>>>>>>> (and NB
> >>>>>>>> the end of the war, albeit in victory) his life is again without
> >>>>>>>> meaning.
> >>>>>>>> Fourth phase. He has survived, but has no purpose. By becoming a
> >>>> father
> >>>>>>>> again (Fifth phase), he regains the fear of death and meaning in
> >> his
> >>>>>>>> life.
> >>>>>>>> It is real work, and we witness this psychological turmoil as he
> >>> copes
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> the idea that this scruffy orphan boy could be a son to him, and
> >>>>>>>> eventually
> >>>>>>>> he manages it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The transition between each phase is a critical period during
> >> which
> >>>>>>>> Sokolov's personality is transformed. Note also, that there is a
> >>>>>>>> premonition of this perezhivanie in Sokolov's earlier life: his
> >>> family
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> wiped out in the Civil War and the famine of 1922, then he meets
> >> his
> >>>>>>>> wife-to-be, also raised in an orphanage, and they together create
> >> a
> >>>> life
> >>>>>>>> and have 17 happy years before the Nazi invasion intrudes. So from
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>> beginning of the movie we are introduced to the main theme.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> These are the main moments in the movie, which caused me to select
> >>> it
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> discussion rather than any other movie. Also, there is no doubt
> >> that
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>>> producing this movie in 1958 the Soviet government was engaged
> >> with
> >>>> its
> >>>>>>>> people, in a process of collective perezhivanie and by reflecting
> >> on
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> collective perezhivanie during the period of the war, before and
> >>>> after,
> >>>>>>>> they aim to assist the people in collectively assigning meaning to
> >>>> this
> >>>>>>>> terrible suffering and like the man and his "son" walking again
> >> into
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> future. As a propaganda movie, of course, it is open to much
> >>>> criticism,
> >>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>> that is hardly the point. I appreciate Marc's analysis in terms of
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>> other concepts he has introduced. I wouldn't mind a recap on
> >> these.
> >>> In
> >>>>>>>> terms of Vasilyuk's concepts, Sokolov's life-world is *simple and
> >>>>>>>> difficult*. The boy's life world is *simple and easy*.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Can we continue to discuss "Fate of a Man", while I open another
> >>> movie
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> analysis? I think there are at least 10 subscribers to this list
> >> who
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> published in learned journals on the topic of perezhivanie in
> >>>> childhood.
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps one of you would like to reflect on the boy's
> >> perezhivanija?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> >>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> >>> decision-making
> >>>>>>>> On 18/01/2017 5:14 AM, Marc Clarà wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi, all,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and thank you, Andy, for sharing this amazing film, which I
> >> didn't
> >>>>>>>>> know. I
> >>>>>>>>> think it will be very useful to share and discuss our respective
> >>>> views
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>> perezhivanie.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In my view, the film could be analyzed in terms of perezhivanie
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>> three
> >>>>>>>>> different planes. First, we could consider the person who watches
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>> film,
> >>>>>>>>> and we could study how the meaning she forms for the film
> >>>> restructures
> >>>>>>>>> her
> >>>>>>>>> relationship with aspects of her real life -such as, for example,
> >>> her
> >>>>>>>>> own
> >>>>>>>>> death or the death of a beloved one, etc. (perhaps this is a
> >> little
> >>>> bit
> >>>>>>>>> like what Beth and Monica, or Veresov and Fleer, do with their
> >>> study
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> playworlds?). In this plane, which would be perhaps the most
> >>>>>>>>> naturalistic
> >>>>>>>>> one, the film could be studied as an human-made cultural artifact
> >>>> which
> >>>>>>>>> restuctures psychological functions; here, the meaning formed for
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>> film
> >>>>>>>>> by who watches it and uses it as mediator in her relation to her
> >>> real
> >>>>>>>>> life
> >>>>>>>>> would be an m-perezhivanie.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In a second plane, we could proceed as if the film was real life,
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>> could consider Sokolov telling his story to the man he meets by
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>> river
> >>>>>>>>> (a little bit like Carla telling her story to me). In this plane,
> >>>>>>>>> Sokolov's
> >>>>>>>>> narrative (i.e., what is showed to us as narrated flashback)
> >> could
> >>> be
> >>>>>>>>> considered as a cultural artifact that Sokolov uses to relate to
> >>> all
> >>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>> happened to him. At this plane, the meaning of this narrative
> >> would
> >>>> be
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie that, in that moment, mediates the relationship
> >>>> between
> >>>>>>>>> Sokolov and the war events he experienced years ago (but these
> >>> events
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>> still very present to him, so although relating to past events,
> >>> there
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> here a Sokolov's activity [towards the past war events] which is
> >> in
> >>>>>>>>> present
> >>>>>>>>> -this echoes Christopher when, within our conversations, said:
> >>> “Part
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> this might also be a question of what it means to describe and
> >>>>>>>>> represent
> >>>>>>>>> one's own perezhivanie figuratively/narratively (whether to
> >> others,
> >>>> or
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> oneself), as opposed to living that perezhivanie. Especially if
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>> attempt
> >>>>>>>>> to capture/represent one's own perezhivanie is, perhaps, also
> >>> central
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> the living of it?”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In a third plane, we could proceed as if Sokolov's narration was
> >>> not
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> retrospective narration, but the on-time sequence of events with
> >>>>>>>>> on-time
> >>>>>>>>> Sokolov's explanation of these events (in the moments in which
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>> narrator
> >>>>>>>>> voice is assumed within the flashback). In this plane, there are
> >>>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>> interesting perezhivanie phenomena. Clearly, there is a Sokolov's
> >>>>>>>>> activity
> >>>>>>>>> of experiencing-as-struggle, which initiates when he realizes
> >> that
> >>>> all
> >>>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>>> family, except one son, had been killed 2 years ago. At this
> >>> moment,
> >>>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>>> life becomes meaningless; the meaning (m-perezhivanie) he uses to
> >>>>>>>>> relate
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> all his life (including the past) at this moment is expressed in
> >>> his
> >>>>>>>>> conversation with his oncle: “it's got to be that this life of
> >> mine
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> nothing but a nightmare!”. In this moment, Sokolov's past in the
> >>>>>>>>> prision
> >>>>>>>>> camp becomes also meaningless: then, his link to life (the
> >>>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie
> >>>>>>>>> that made being alive meaningful to him) was meeting his family;
> >>> but
> >>>> at
> >>>>>>>>> that time his family was already dead, so when he discovers it,
> >> he
> >>>>>>>>> realizes
> >>>>>>>>> that this m-perezhivanie (the idea of meeting his family) was
> >>> linking
> >>>>>>>>> him
> >>>>>>>>> to death, not to life, so all his efforts to surviving become
> >>>>>>>>> meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>> “Every night, when I was a prisioner, I talked with them. Now it
> >>>> turns
> >>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>> that for two years I was talking with the dead?”. In this
> >>>> conversation,
> >>>>>>>>> however, his oncle offers him an alternative m-perezhivanie to
> >>> relate
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> his life: he still has a son, so the m-perehivanie of meeting his
> >>>>>>>>> family
> >>>>>>>>> can still turns Sokolov's life meaningful: “you've got to go on
> >>>> living.
> >>>>>>>>> You
> >>>>>>>>> have to find Anatoly. When the war is over, your son will get
> >>>> married,
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> will live with them. You will take up your carpentry again, play
> >>> with
> >>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>> grandkids”. It takes some time to Sokolov to enter into this
> >>>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie, but he does it and his life becomes meaningful
> >>> again:
> >>>>>>>>> “and
> >>>>>>>>> then, unexpectedly, I've got a gleam of sunlight”. But, then,
> >>> Anatoly
> >>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>> dies. How to keep living? Here, Sokolov holds the m-perezhivanie
> >>> that
> >>>>>>>>> linked him to life until that moment, and therefore, he needs a
> >>> son;
> >>>>>>>>> pretending being the father of Vanya turns his life meaningful
> >>> again.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Another interesting thing, still at that level, is how Sokolov's
> >>>>>>>>> relation
> >>>>>>>>> with his own immediate death changes along the different
> >> occasions
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>> he faces it. I thing here there are examples of
> >>>>>>>>> experiencing-as-contemplation -in my view, this is not
> >>>>>>>>> experiencing-as-struggle because the situation of impossibility
> >>> (the
> >>>>>>>>> immediate death) is removed existentially (Sokolov's life is
> >> given
> >>>>>>>>> back to
> >>>>>>>>> him), so that there is not a permanent situation of impossibility
> >>>>>>>>> which is
> >>>>>>>>> initially meaningless and is turned into meaningful. In each
> >>> occasion
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> which Sokolov is faced with his immediate death, the
> >> m-perezhivanie
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> mediates this relationship is different. When he is captured, his
> >>>>>>>>> m-perezhivanie is expressed as: “here's my death coming after
> >> me”.
> >>>>>>>>> When he
> >>>>>>>>> is conducted to meet the nazi official, the m-perezhivanie is
> >>>> expressed
> >>>>>>>>> as:
> >>>>>>>>> “the end of your misery”, “to my death and my release of this
> >>>> torment,
> >>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> will drink”. In the first, the death is running after Sokolov; in
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>> second, it is Sokolov happily going to meet death. Later, at the
> >>> end
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> film, he faces his immediate death again, and the m-perezhivanie
> >> is
> >>>>>>>>> expressed as: “I'm really worried that I might die in my sleep,
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> would frighten my little son”.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, just some thoughts after watching this wonderful film.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Marc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2017-01-15 0:06 GMT+01:00 Christopher Schuck <
> >>>> schuckcschuck@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, definitely that article! And specifically, when I used
> >>>> "pivoting"
> >>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> couldn't help but think of Beth's earlier example about how a
> >>> child
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>> use a stick as a pivot for a horse. Perhaps a somewhat different
> >>>>>>>>>> application but related, no?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> >>>>>>>>>> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Chris, all,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> your post is totally relevant to Beth's and Monica's article in
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> special issue. They write about film and perezhivanie (quoting
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sobchack)
> >>>>>>>>>>> the following:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The reason that film allows us to glimpse the future is that
> >>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> connection between filmic time and ‘real’ time: “The images of
> >> a
> >>>> film
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> exist
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> in the world as a temporal flow, within finitude and situation.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> fascination of the film is that it does not transcend our
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> lived-experience
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> of temporality, but rather that it seems to partake of it, to
> >>> share
> >>>>>>>>>>> it”
> >>>>>>>>>>> (1992, p. 60).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> And later
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Specifically, the way that the flow of time becomes
> >>>>>>>>>>> multidirectional is
> >>>>>>>>>>> that “rehearsals make it necessary to think of the future in
> >>> such a
> >>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> to create a past” (1985, p. 39). As Schechner ex-plains: “In a
> >>> very
> >>>>>>>>>>> real
> >>>>>>>>>>> way the future – the project coming into existence through the
> >>>>>>>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> rehearsal – determines the past: what will be kept from earlier
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> rehearsals
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> or from the “source ma-terials” (1985, p. 39)."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alfredo
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >>>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.e
> >>>>>>>>>>> du>
> >>>>>>>>>>> on behalf of Christopher Schuck <schuckcschuck@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 14 January 2017 21:43
> >>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But that's both the limitation and strength of art or fictional
> >>>>>>>>>>> narrative
> >>>>>>>>>>> as opposed to real life, isn't it? That art focuses our
> >> attention
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> highlights certain features in a way that is idealized and
> >>>>>>>>>>> artificially
> >>>>>>>>>>> "designed" to convey something more clearly and purely (but
> >> less
> >>>>>>>>>>> organically and authentically) than it would be conveyed in the
> >>>>>>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> living it, or observing someone else living it? One way to get
> >>>> around
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> would be, as David says, to analyze the film in terms of clues
> >> as
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> stages of emergence. But maybe another way to use the film
> >> would
> >>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> view
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it not so much as a complete, self-sufficient "example" of
> >>>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> a *tool *for pivoting back and forth between the concept of
> >>>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> imaginatively constructed (through fiction), and the concept of
> >>>>>>>>>>> perezhivanie as imaginatively constructed (through our real
> >>> living
> >>>>>>>>>>> experience and observation of it). So, it would be the
> >> *pivoting*
> >>>>>>>>>>> between
> >>>>>>>>>>> these two manifestations of the concept (designed vs. evolved,
> >> as
> >>>>>>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it) that reveals new insights about perezhivanie, rather than
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the concept from the film per se.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <
> >>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think there's a good reason why Andy started a new thread on
> >>>> this:
> >>>>>>>>>>> he's a
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> very tidy thinker (quite unlike yours truly) and he knows that
> >>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reason
> >>>>>>>>>>> why xmca threads are seldom cumulative is that they digress to
> >>>>>>>>>>> related
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> problems without solving the immmediate ones.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, of course, a film allows us to consider an example of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "perezhivanie",
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> but it is a designed perezhivanie rather than an evolved one;
> >> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly display the various stages of emergence required
> >> for a
> >>>>>>>>>>> genetic
> >>>>>>>>>>> analysis, unless we analyze it not as a complete and finished
> >>> work
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> art
> >>>>>>>>>>> but instead for clues as to the stages of its creation (the way
> >>>> that,
> >>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> example, "Quietly Flows the Don" was analyzed to determine its
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> authenticity).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I remember that In the original short story, the schnapps
> >>> drinking
> >>>>>>>>>>>> scene seemed like pure sleight of hand: an artistically
> >>> gratuitous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> of what eventually gave Soviet social realism such a bad name.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Macquarie University
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Carol Macdonald <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fellow XMCa-ers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have watched it through now, thank you Andy, but right now
> >>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> psychological categories come to mind.  I will watch it again
> >>> and
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> meanwhile let my fellows with more recent experience of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> /perezhivanie/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion further.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a kind of timeless story, and modern film techniques
> >>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> more explicit. At the least I would say it has for me a
> >> Russian
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of suffering, perhaps because of their unique
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> it. But having said that, WWII must have generated other
> >> similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences, apart from the first part about Andrei's family
> >>>> dying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> famine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 January 2017 at 02:15, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I watched it in two parts with subtitles:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16w7fg_destiny-of-a-man-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1959-pt-1_creation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16wat4_destiny-of-a-man-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1959-pt-2_creation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
> >> ------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision-making
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/01/2017 2:35 AM, Beth Ferholt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for taking us to a shared example.  I think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cultural Historical Activity Theory
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Beth Ferholt
> >>>> Assistant Professor
> >>>> Department of Early Childhood and Art Education
> >>>> Brooklyn College, City University of New York
> >>>> 2900 Bedford Avenue
> >>>> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
> >>>>
> >>>> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
> >>>> Phone: (718) 951-5205
> >>>> Fax: (718) 951-4816
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Robert Lake  Ed.D.
> >>> Associate Professor
> >>> Social Foundations of Education
> >>> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> >>> Georgia Southern University
> >>> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA  30460
> >>> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
> >>> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Those who
> have
> >>> never despaired have neither lived nor loved. Hope is inseparable from
> >>> despair. Those of us who truly hope make despair a constant companion
> >> whom
> >>> we outwrestle every day owing to our commitment to justice, love, and
> >>> hope* (
> >>> Cornel West, 2008, p. 185).
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Beth Ferholt
> > Assistant Professor
> > Department of Early Childhood and Art Education
> > Brooklyn College, City University of New York
> > 2900 Bedford Avenue
> > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
> >
> > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
> > Phone: (718) 951-5205
> > Fax: (718) 951-4816
>
>
>


-- 
Beth Ferholt
Assistant Professor
Department of Early Childhood and Art Education
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
2900 Bedford Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889

Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
Phone: (718) 951-5205
Fax: (718) 951-4816