Eirik,
This is certainly an interesting suggestion. I'll follow up your reading
recommendations.
It would explain why so many of my ideas seem to end up in axiological
limbo! :)
Martin
On 12/22/06 8:00 PM, "Eirik Knutsson" <eirikeng@student.hf.uio.no> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> It seems to me that the Russian historians Yuri Lotman’s and B. A.
> Uspenskii’s model, according to which Russia represents a binary system of
> thought throughout its history, i.e., a collective division of the world
> into positive and negative axiological spaces, may be of some interest in
> this respect.
>
> According to the Russian binary model or system of thought, acts are
> considered either good or bad/evil, behaviour either sinful or
> sacred/holy, no intermediate positions being permitted (as in the Western
> tradition). In the (medieval) hereafter, there was either heaven or hell.
> In the orthodox world, there was no concept of purgatory.
>
> Thus, the Western system of thought, according to Lotman & Uspenskii, is
> tertiary (consisting of three key components), while Russia represents a
> binary model. These differences are longue durée expressions of medieval
> cosmologies and systems of thought. In medieval Western Europe, all
> actions and ideas could be perceived as either bad/evil-good, sinful –
> holy/sacred or somewhere in between, in a neutral intermediate axiological
> space. In the hereafter, the tertiary system corresponds to heaven –
> purgatory – hell. The Western neutral intermediate space (or position)
> results in a dynamical system of thought. New ideas are allowed to be
> introduced beyond the dichotomy of good and bad/evil.
>
> Within the Russian binary, static system of thought, new ideas were
> considered according to absolute dichotomies (good-evil/bad,
> sinful-holy/sacred etc). Hence, in the Russian binary system of thought,
> new ideas, when on rare occasions embraced, were transformed into absolute
> terms and dogmas. Real change in a binary system of thought like that, is
> only possible through a revolutionary reconsideration of all values. Such
> reassessments of all values are evident throughout Russian (intellectual)
> history. According to Yuri Lotman, only one, dominant idea can exist at
> one time in Russia, while the West represents a plurivocal, or polyphone,
> continuum.
>
> BTW, the Swedish scholar Per Arne Bodin has done some useful research in
> these matters (cf. his “Russia and Europe: A Cultural-Historical Study”,
> Stockholm 1994).
>
>
> Eirik K.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
>> Sasha,
>>
>> I agree entirely that an interpretation of Marx will always be from one or
>> another stance. It seems to me that there are large differences between
>> Marx
>> scholarship in the west and that in Russia. When you say, for example,
>> that
>> there is there is only one school of Marxist philosophy in Russia that
>> strikes me as both a strength and a weakness. My knowledge of Marx is
>> without a doubt far inferior to yours, but I hope that it has been
>> richened
>> by exploring a little how Marx was read by people like Lefebvre, Sartre,
>> Merleau-Ponty, and read back into Hegel by Kojeve, Hyppolite, Lukacs, and
>> others. I'm not trying to sound erudite; my point is that Marx's texts are
>> ambiguous, plurivocal, and any attempt to determine the real Marx, or
>> decide
>> once and for all how Marx related to Hegel, for example, is an endless
>> task.
>> Marx's writings have been called "a breathtakingly luxuriant but tangled
>> forest."
>>
>> For example, the interpretation that Marx had already 'inverted' Hegel has
>> been much contested. To think that there is merely a rational kernel to
>> Hegel is a matter of debate, to say the least. To call the 1844
>> manuscripts
>> preliminary in anything other than a literal sense is to repeat a claim
>> that
>> has been much challenged.
>>
>> But let me defend myself a little: Engels used the term "historical
>> materialism," while Marx did not (though I think Kautsky coined it). Lenin
>> wrote of "dialectical materialism" in Materialism and Empiricocriticism.
>> Stalin is not worth defending, I agree. To paint HM as true and DM as
>> false
>> does not get me very far in trying to understand what Vygotsky was doing
>> with these terms, with the texts they came from, and thus to see what can
>> be
>> teased out of the tangled forest of Vygotsky's own writings.
>>
>> For example, my question to Joao was based what seems to me evident
>> (though
>> I'm willing to be corrected): that Vygotsky himself drew a distinction
>> between HM and DM, and on my reading he judges them both positively.
>>
>> Yes, Vygotsky considered himself to be a Marxist. But what that meant to
>> him
>> then, and what it means to us now, are not self-evident matters. Reading
>> Vygotsky's texts here in the US in one way I am at a disadvantage because
>> the culture and context are so different from his. But from another point
>> of
>> view this makes it possible to try to liberate a potential from his
>> writing
>> that might not otherwise be accessible. I am not a Marxist (in any direct
>> sense) but I do want to develop his ideas. If you are correct that "if we
>> want develop Vygotsky¹s ideas
>>> and if we appreciate his conscious position we can do it only basing on
>>> Marxist approach"
>> then scholarship on Vygotsky in the west is in deep trouble!
>>
>> One last thing- you also suggest that:
>> prevailing attitude towards LSV as to ideal example of Marxist
>>> dialectical logic
>>
>> While I would say that this is actually a very rare attitude to Vygotsky
>> in
>> this country.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> p.s. can I add that I attended your presentation at ISCAR in Sevilla and
>> was
>> very impressed by your intellectual project. It is a pleasure to be
>> discussing these matters with you!
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/06 9:47 PM, "Alexander Surmava" <monada@netvox.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that the interpretation of Marxist philosophy (dialectic) has to
>>> be
>>> based on some definite cultural = scientific = philosophical tradition
>>> or
>>> school of thought. Thus my approach is entirely based on Il¹enkov¹s
>>> school
>>> of dialectic. This approache I share with all of his disciples among
>>> which I
>>> have to mention Felix Mikhailov, Lev Naumenko, Vasiliy Davidov, Alexey
>>> Novokhatko, Alexander Simakin, Sergey Mareev and some other philosophers
>>> and
>>> psychologists.
>>>
>>> According to this approach the basics of Marxist philosophy was
>>> elaborated
>>> by Karl Marx and Fred Engels in the course of investigation of political
>>> economy of capitalist society in ³Das Kapital² and in a few preliminary
>>> works like ³Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844², ³The German
>>> Ideology² and ³Theses on Feuerbach². Engels only aired his and Marx¹
>>> collective opinion in his latest works like ³Anti-Dühring². We (I mean
>>> all
>>> mentioned above alive or dead persons) have never heard that it was
>>> Engels
>>> who ³extracted the rational kernel' from Hegel to invent it and DM²
>>> because
>>> from one side the work of extraction of rational, materialist Kernel
>>> from
>>> Hegel was done by both founders of materialist dialectic in 1844 and
>>> developed in ³Das Kapital² and from the other side because the separate
>>> DM
>>> is entirely false positivist misinterpretation of Marxist philosophy and
>>> that Engels quite innocent in it.
>>>
>>> Even less we can accuse Lenin of inventing or elaborating of abstract DM
>>> because it was Lenin who was the utmost enemy of all forms of
>>> positivism.
>>>
>>> On the contrary the Stalinist ideology was in fact the queer mixture of
>>> primitive positivist ³DM² and irrational ideological ³HM².
>>>
>>> I want to repeat that this point of view is not my own peculiarity but
>>> something banal for all Russian Marxists. (There is only one Marxist
>>> philosophical school in Russia founded by Il¹enkov, so when I mention
>>> ³Russian Marxists² I mean Il¹enkov¹s disciples.)
>>>
>>> Surely all this can be argued in detail but first of all we have to fix
>>> the
>>> difference in our approaches, if such differences really exist.
>>>
>>> As for question of Joao about LSV¹s approach to this problem it is
>>> difficult
>>> (and frankly to say rather senseless) to try to give some definite
>>> answer to
>>> it because the ³problem² of establishing a ³difference between dialectic
>>> materialism and historical materialism² is not a substantial theoretic
>>> but
>>> entirely ideological question (in old Marxist meaning of the term
>>> ³ideology²
>>> as a false form of consciousness). I can only repeat that basing on
>>> developed Marxist dialectical approach so called DM and HM are one and
>>> the
>>> same thing.
>>>
>>> Surely Vygotsky consider himself as a Marxist, he wanted to be a Marxist
>>> and
>>> pretty much he was a Marxist. Moreover if we want develop Vygotsky¹s
>>> ideas
>>> and if we appreciate his conscious position we can do it only basing on
>>> Marxist approach.
>>>
>>> But we have sober estimate that the real logic of his investigations not
>>> always remain Marxist. Thus for example Vygotsky¹s understanding of
>>> language
>>> is considerably positivist. (This assertion can be easily demonstrated.)
>>> So
>>> the prevailing attitude towards LSV as to ideal example of Marxist
>>> dialectical logic is to put it mildly inadequate. Vygotsky wanted to
>>> build a
>>> Marxist psychology and he did much more than anybody else to realize his
>>> wish, but he had too little time to do it. Moreover he meets the other
>>> big
>>> obstacle not enunciating of Marxist dialectic. The dialectical method
>>> of
>>> Marx was realized by him in his main work ³Das Kapital², but neither
>>> Marx,
>>> nor Engels has left us ³Logic² from capital letter. So Vygotsky had in
>>> the
>>> same time investigate the nature of human consciousness and extract
>>> dialectical methodology from ³Das Kapital². In fact the task was too
>>> titanic
>>> for one even genius man. In this situation it is little wonder that he
>>> failed in realizing both tasks (elaborating dialectical methodology and
>>> developing a dialectical psychology) but it deserves admiration that in
>>> spite of all difficulties LSV left us a great number of brilliant
>>> insights.
>>>
>>> The real perspective of developing of dialectical psychology was opened
>>> only
>>> in the middle of the last century by works of a group of researchers
>>> like
>>> Evald Il¹enkov, Alexander Mescheriakov, Alexey Leont¹ev and Nikolay
>>> Bernstein.
>>>
>>> So the sooner we will left the uncritical apologetical attitude
>>> regarding
>>> Vygotsky, the better chance we acquire to continue his lifework.
>>>
>>> Sasha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of Martin Packer
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:59 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] question
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joao,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your project sounds interesting. I think you're pointing to something of
>>> a
>>>
>>> contradiction that I feel is in the Crisis, and perhaps elsewhere. On
>>> the
>>>
>>> one hand V does speak of the problem of using either historical
>>> materialism
>>>
>>> or dialectical materialism for his "general psychology," a truly Marxist
>>>
>>> psychology. The former was appropriate for Marx's sociology, a study of
>>>
>>> society, but he's doing something different. The latter is too abstract.
>>> On
>>>
>>> the other hand, the history that he tells of the discipline of
>>> psychology is
>>>
>>> one in which there is an objective logic, operating behind the backs of
>>>
>>> individual psychologists ("like a coiled string"), the laws of this
>>> logic
>>>
>>> can be grasped through "scientific analysis," there are underlying
>>> inherent
>>>
>>> contradictions, a revolutionary moment (the "crisis") has arrived as a
>>>
>>> result of the pressure of practical concerns, and a future can be
>>> envisioned
>>>
>>> where, in the form of the new general psychology, qualitatively
>>> different
>>>
>>> from what has come before, time has ended. In short, this history has a
>>> form
>>>
>>> that sounds (to the best of my limited knowledge) very much like that
>>>
>>> dialectical materialism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think? (Sorry not to be able to write in Portugese)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/19/06 11:07 AM, "Joao Martins" <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Martins and others... the title of my project is " The psychology of
>>>
>>>> Vygotsky: mapping concepts, tracing courses ". He has as objective maps
>>> the
>>>
>>>> concepts, the units of analysis used by Vygotsky to consolidate your
>>>
>>>> proposals for the psychology.
>>>
>>>> I will be analyzing your books: Psychology of the Art and Pedagogic
>>>
>>>> Psychology and the texts that appeared in your Chosen Works.
>>>
>>>> In a first moment we can notice that Vyg. uses of the dialetic
>>>> materialism
>>>
>>>> to make the analyses about the superior psychological functions, or
>>>> even
>>> to
>>>
>>>> analyze the psychology of your time - in the text Crisis of the
>>>> Psychology
>>>
>>>> that is clear.
>>>
>>>> But he speaks that the problem is to use the historical materialism to
>>> make
>>>
>>>> such analyses. I think that he sees in the historical materialism a
>>>> form
>>> of
>>>
>>>> approaching the psychological phenomena, approaching of a certain
>>> sociology
>>>
>>>> of the human relationships...
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you understand?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Joao Martins
>>>
>>>> ____________________
>>>
>>>> Joáo Batista Martins
>>>
>>>> R. Pref. Hugo Cabral, 1062 - apto. 142
>>>
>>>> Londrina - PR - CEP 86020-111
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Home page http//www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/5389
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>> From: "Martin Packer" <packer@duq.edu>
>>>
>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:21 PM
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] question
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Joao,
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Would you like to tell us more about your project?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12/18/06 11:38 AM, "Joao Martins" <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Dear friends, I am making a project on vygotsky and I would like to
>>>>> know
>>>
>>>> if
>>>
>>>>> Vygotsky establish a difference between dialetic materialism and
>>>
>>>> historical
>>>
>>>>> materialism?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Joao Martins
>>>
>>>>> ____________________
>>>
>>>>> Joáo Batista Martins
>>>
>>>>> R. Pref. Hugo Cabral, 1062 - apto. 142
>>>
>>>>> Londrina - PR - CEP 86020-111
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:19 PST