Part II
In order to find a "synthesis" that is not static, my view within
Vygotskian thought is to understand Marxian (and Chinese, Greek)
dialectics TOGETHER as being related to Spinozian monism. One does not
work without the other. The "whole" does not function without the
"part," nor the part without the whole. The difference in my
thinking/reading is that there is a dnager that we often don't think of:
I feel that dialectics (as an example) can go out of control
(metaphorically) when viewed alone, or on the opposite end it can even
become static. Viewing dialectics alone does not represent a holistic
view of life for me. And Spinozian monism is also interesting....it is
not a construct that is absolute and immutable. Like the continuum of
our planet, the earth would represent monism and individuals would
represent a dialectic (please understand, this is just an analogy used
as a metaphor). It is clear, though, that the earth affects individuals
and individuals also "touch" the earth, demonstrating that our old
understanding of the absolute is obsolete (for me, at least). The
absolute is something beyond human comprehension, nevertheless, it is
internal and dependent on narrower aspects of being and essence, hence
the relative.
Now, to internalization/appropriation and mastery (and perhaps you will
totally disagree): These aspects (and more) need to function together in
my understanding. It is clear that I am using terms in a different sense
than in sociocultural theory, to some degree, but they also similar.
Internalization should not be prioritized over externalization (or
better interiorization/exteriorization), nor the reverse. So, I will
take internalization as the starting point (remembering that it can only
function with other more conscious, social elements): Internalization
needs a very dynamic dialectic (and this is where I personally come
closer to Leontiev's understanding of activity within a tripartite
model), and I call it something very very strange and odd...."triadic
dialectic." Pehaps the term is wrong, but please bear with me, as it
deals with a new approach to synthesis. Imagine two lines running
parallel to one another, but in different directions, such as: ======
(the top line would have an arrow on the left hand side pointing left,
and the bottom line would have an arrow on the right hand side pointing
right). Normally we envision the dialectic as being one dimensional,
with A (thesis) representing a single line of thought, and the
contraction of A would then be illustrated as B (antihesis) representing
another single line of thought, with something new resulting in C. Now,
go back to the double lines ====== and think of the I-Ching, perhaps.
For me this two dimensional dialectic normally is like viewing
external/internal, such as "thinking" and "speech.", used only as an
example. The lines of development have different origins (prelinguistic
origins for thinking, and preintellectual origins for speech), and these
lines must be active with "engagements" and "separations" (in Vygotskian
terminology). Eventually, if the conditions are right they will function
together through "relationships" that allow us to develop, but they
never totally merge. Now, imagine three separate double lines (or
hundreds if you are into connectionsism, or Chaos/Complexity Theory, or
the new theories on "fluidity" and "flow.") It functions together like
this: The first set of the dialectic represnts something like "thesis"
(but for me it is different), that would parallel A (thesis). The second
set of the dialectic represents something like "antithesis" (again
different for me), that might parallel B (antithesis). However, up to
this point we are dealing with linear, symmetrical thinking. There is a
necessary third step before reaching "synthesis." It is Vygotsky's
understanding of "catharsis." So, A + B + Catharsis = possible,
transitory synthesis. Now, at this point the model is not longer linear,
nor symmetrical, and it can become "spiral" or take on many shapes.
Catharsis is the element necessary for the internal "magic moment" and
it fuses the conscious with the unconscious, and it is not linear,
certainly asymmetrical and it is also fused with the unknown element of
the "absolute." Catharsis is without a doubt the moment of
internalization (for me, and perhaps not always), where the "light goes
on" in a flash. Chomsky describes this moment, Einstein described it,
and everyone has experienced it. It is a moment of pure understanding,
usually without words or even images. The result is a new "synthesis"
but not a lasting synthesis. It is always recreated in relation to
monism or the absolute (Spinoza called it God or Nature, with the other
points representing "attributes" of that first quality). How do we know
when this happens?.......two words: "personal transformation" (which can
be both good or bad). For catharsis to be authentic (in my
understanding) there must be the freedom to express it in a community,
with the potential of a higher level of societal change possible, as
well as the potential of a deeper level of personal transformational
change. This type of process can include both rational, harmonious
elements ( e.g., music by Mozart), or irrational elements (e.g., the
short triumph of Nazism), or the combination of both (e.g., Nazi
soldiers playing Mozart while people were walking to their own
death(s)). I only use the negative example to demonstrate that it goes
both ways, but focus personally on the positive (at least try to).
So, in rereading Leontiev, I have tried to take his attempt of "walking
the fence" in understanding abstract/concrete "consciousness," and have
put my understanding of Vygotsky at the core of this idea. It is
meaningful to me, but perhaps to on one else. Related to Marxism, I am
hoping that we might do something similar......take traditional Marxism
(but that must include both philosophy, psychology, economics, as well
as the failure of its implementation in Russia, and its success in other
countries), and put that together with whatever meaningful
"contradiction" we have (for me it is not capitalism, but I fault Marx
for having left out theories of women, family, play, free time, human
free will, etc.). I truly believe that one reason Marxism as a
philosophy failed as a poltical system in Russia was the following: for
the majority (not for all!) of people it was only mastered and
appropriated. If it would have been truly internalized (and it was by
many we all know), then one condition was not present for its completion
(well, many, but here it is metaphorical)......catharsis.....with
catharsis, there is human free will at play, where the unconscious is
now viewed as "height" not "depth" psychology, and the personal
transformation must then be extended out to society, earth, absolute,
monis, God, nature, etc. Authentic catharsis cannot be self-contained (I
think).....how the tranformation reaches others and the absolute is one
of the great mysteries of life, and it will never be explained within
their dimensional reality. Within the Marxist State, the personal
transformation of reaching out to change society seemed to be totally
fossilized. There was fear of personal catharsis reaching the State.
This needs to be dealt with in discussions on Marxism.
Now,in a course I teach called "Semiotics of European Cinema" (based in
part on the semiotics of Sergei Eisenstein, a friend of Vygotsky),
students always ask me two questions (especially after seeing Holocaust
films): 1) do I not believe in debate with the best argument winning?
indeed I do, firmly. But, my personal feeling is that I would hope that
those thoughts would not become fossilized, but would be open to change
at a later date. 2) regarding the Holocaust: if we were faced with the
possible situation of a dictator trying to take over the world today,
what would I do? I would surely believe one side would be right, and
place myself on that side, with all of the consequences. My
understanding of "catharsis" within a "triadic dialectic" (that term is
surely wrong) has a different meaning for me. I use it with my students
in trying to encourage "internal free will" where they really start to
trust their own intuitions, talents, knowledge and their own beliefs,
and stop tyring to fit into a corporate, media driven consciousness.
This type of consciousness is one of personal alienation with students
normally not recognizing the contradictions within it. I use this
"strange" model to try and pry open an internal space of freedom for the
students and myself, and this applies to my students in North America,
and my student friends in Moscow, because just talking about Leontiev,
Marxism, Consciousness within a static, historical context will not do
it within postmodernity. This is why I love the feeling that history is
change (Vygotsky), and activity is change (Tobach). And firmly believe
that real change comes from personal transformation via internalization
(that first needs the social), which comes about via the dialectic +
catharsis (whatever it is called), and the results must be form a loop
back to society in order to change it.
You see, I totally and completely failed with my thinking and model last
year regarding a person all of you have heard of, a Russian. And even
though I can no longer go back and undo what happened, and do not want
to, the point is that I did not recognize that I was stuck in polar
thinking of right and wrong (oh, I realized it okay, but "I was right".
ha! ....the other person was also stuck the same mode of thinking. We no
longer work together, simply because of very rigid thinking on both
sides. As well, I used to feel that Russian cultural-historical theory
(now I don't even know what that really means) was right, of course,
based on my personal experiences of having lived in East/West Germany
for so long. Sociocultural theory for me was simply "wrong." This
thinking completely limited me in so many ways, and in some many
feelings about others. Now, I am only trying to figure out how the
strands fit together and where they don't. In fact, I've stopped that
and am now just flowing along with Mandelbrot's images that belong to
the model of fludity we call "chaos." No more trying to control it all.
And the greatest realization? just like in Chaos Theory, the underlying
truth is that there is total systematicity (I just can't see it), and
yet without all of the control mechanisms I was using, I can now "feel"
it.
THE END, I promise.
Dot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:03 PDT