Re: FW: [xmca] Adult before their time?

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

sorry, google, not "good" Brazilian street children. My usual slippage.
mike

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:33 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy --
>
> Two quick points:
>
> 1. The consequences are for development of the whole child in society so
> focusing on the cognitive seems especially counterproductive in the cases of
> interest to you and xmca. And may, indeed, provide a privileged site for
> inquiry. But its very dangerous. A colleague of a friend of mine doing such
> research was shot and killed in Rio a few days ago.
>
> 2. Good Brazilian street children or child soldiers or several cognate
> categories and you should be inundated. I was.
>
> mike
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>> Mmm that looks interesting in itself, about the modern fad among middle
>> class parents for pushing their children to overperform academically. But I
>> suspect I am not going to get an answer to what's intriguing me that way.
>>
>> When a child is suddenly deprived of their support systems - becoming a
>> street urchin or a child soldier for example or having to look after their
>> siblings if the parents become dysfunctional - then they are thrown into a
>> social situation which we talked of before, in which it is possible to learn
>> concepts, the very opposite of course of the "scientific concepts"
>> inculcated at school. I was wondering if the result is a very stunted kind
>> of thinking (like the policeman who knows how to spot a criminal by age,
>> race, and so on) or precocious wisdom which understands that words express
>> social meanings, not just what they appear to mean on the surface, and
>> watches the lay of the land.
>>
>> But what is that precocious worldliness in cognitive terms?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mike cole wrote:
>>
>>> Early claims:
>>> David Elkind, The hurried child. Cambridge. DeCapo Press. 1981
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Not quite the same sort of trauma, but there's plenty of pop analysis on
>>>> the life of Michael Jackson these days. p
>>>>
>>>> Peter Smagorinsky
>>>> Professor of English Education
>>>> Department of Language and Literacy Education
>>>> The University of Georgia
>>>> 125 Aderhold Hall
>>>> Athens, GA 30602
>>>> smago@uga.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:19 AM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [xmca] Adult before their time?
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone tell me of any research done on the idea of
>>>> children who have "grown up before their time," as a result
>>>> of war, family disaster or otherwise having been projected
>>>> into the adult world on their own? And how is such a
>>>> characterization "adult before their time" made? On the
>>>> basis of the use of concepts?? Lack of interest in play??
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> Tony Whitson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would add Nietzsche, along with Heidegger and Derrida, to what
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> says.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heidegger is sometimes dismissed as incomprehensible, but Nietzsche and
>>>>> Derrida are more often treated as wild and reckless writers who can be
>>>>> fun to read, but without looking for any careful argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't expect either of them to be writing seriously, you won't
>>>>> read them seriously and you won't see what they're writing. N said as
>>>>> much, but then if you're not taking him seriously, you won't take him
>>>>> seriously when he says that, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw an interview with D once where the interviewer, in the interview,
>>>>> in D's presence, ventured that deconstruction was basically the same as
>>>>> the US sitcom "Seinfeld"--It's just a matter of taking everything
>>>>> ironically. D replied that if you want to know anything about
>>>>> deconstruction, you need to do some reading. The interview was pretty
>>>>> much over at that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  I don't know what people read that Heidegger has written. I personally
>>>>>> have not met a person who has read Sein und Zeit to the end, people
>>>>>> appear to read secondary literature rather than the primary. Moreover,
>>>>>> nobody appears to be talking/writing about Unterwegs zur Sprache
>>>>>> (David K., this should be of interest to you), or about Holzwege and
>>>>>> other works. First, I can't see anything that would fit the political
>>>>>> ideas of Nazism, for one, and I can't see anything that would be
>>>>>> understandable in terms of the quote that Steve contributes below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do understand that Heidegger is difficult to read---I had to take
>>>>>> repeated stabs since I first purchased Sein und Zeit in 1977.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heidegger, by the way, does very close readings of some ancient Greek
>>>>>> philosophers. And when you pay attention to his writing, and do the
>>>>>> same with Derrida, for example, then you begin to realize that the
>>>>>> latter has learned a lot from the former.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that my English is better than my German ever has been (although
>>>>>> it was my main language for 25 years) I personally know about the
>>>>>> problems of translations. Above all, any of the mechanical
>>>>>> translations that have been proposed on this list won't do even the
>>>>>> simplest of texts. And it is about more than literal content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can learn from both of them, Heidegger and Derrida, that things are
>>>>>> more difficult than they look, and even more difficult than reading
>>>>>> their texts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21-Oct-09, at 7:37 PM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I appreciate Martin's insights on Heidegger, as I do those of others.
>>>>>> I for one don't really know that much about Heidegger's ideas.  I am
>>>>>> glad to learn from those that have studied him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is an interesting glossary entry on Heidegger in a book of
>>>>>> Marxist essays by George Novack (1905-1992), Polemics in Marxist
>>>>>> Philosophy: Essays on Sartre, Plekhanov, Lukacs, Engels, Kolalkowski,
>>>>>> Trotsky, Timpanaro, Colletti (1978).  The glossary to the book was
>>>>>> written by Leslie Evans and edited by Novack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Heidegger, Martin (1889-1976) - German existentialist philosopher.
>>>>>> His ideas were best expounded in Sein un Zeit (Being and Time, 1927).
>>>>>> A philosopher of irrationalism.  Heidegger maintained that the chief
>>>>>> impediment to human self-development was reason and science, which led
>>>>>> to a view of the world based on subject-object relations.  Humans were
>>>>>> reduced to the status of entities in the thing-world which they were
>>>>>> thrown (the condition of "thrownness").  This state of inauthentic
>>>>>> being could be overcome neither through theory (science) nor social
>>>>>> practice, but only by an inward-turning orientation toward one's self,
>>>>>> particularly in the contemplation of death. Heidegger was influenced
>>>>>> by Kierkegaard and Husserl (see entries), and in turn deeply affected
>>>>>> the thought of Sartre, Camus, and Marcuse.  He was himself a chair of
>>>>>> philosophy at the University of Freiburg in 1928 after his mentor,
>>>>>> Edmund Husserl, had been forced to relinquish it by the Nazis.
>>>>>> Heidegger supported Hitler, which led to his disgrace at the end of
>>>>>> World War II and his retirement in 1951 to a life of rural
>>>>>> seclusion."  (pg 307-308)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I think Martin is completely right in the proposition that (taking
>>>>>>> account of the continuing fascination the academy has with Heidegger)
>>>>>>> his works should be read to understand why and how Fascism and
>>>>>>> Heidegger's philosophy supported each other and what should be done
>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Goethe said "The greatest discoveries are made not by individuals
>>>>>>> but by their age," or more particularly every age is bequeated a
>>>>>>> certain problematic by their predecessors, but the different
>>>>>>> philosophers confront that problematic in different ways. To say that
>>>>>>> those on either side of the battle lines in the struggle of a
>>>>>>> particular times have something in common, seems to be in danger of
>>>>>>> missing the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, in my opinion, Husserl and Heidegger may have been responding
>>>>>>> to Hegel, but between them they erected the gretest barrier to
>>>>>>> understanding Hegel until Kojeve arrived on the scene. But that's
>>>>>>> just me. A grumpy old hegelian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A few days ago Steve made passing reference to an article that
>>>>>>>> apparently Tony had drawn his attention to, titled "Heil Heidegger."
>>>>>>>> I Googled and found that it is a recent article in the Chronicle of
>>>>>>>> Higher Education.
>>>>>>>> <http://www.chroniclecareers.com/article/Heil-Heidegger-/48806/>
>>>>>>>> The focus of the article is Heidegger's links with and support of
>>>>>>>> the Nazis, and its principal recommendations are that we should stop
>>>>>>>> paying attention to Heidegger, stop translating and publishing his
>>>>>>>> writing, and "mock him to the hilt."
>>>>>>>> I feel I should comment on this, since I have occasionally drawn on
>>>>>>>> Heidegger's work in these discussions. I certainly have no intention
>>>>>>>> of apologizing for Heidegger, who seems to have been a very nasty
>>>>>>>> person, who was responsible for some deplorable actions. I do want
>>>>>>>> to question, however, the proposal that because of these facts we
>>>>>>>> all would be better off ignoring his writing.
>>>>>>>> I was introduced to Heidegger by a Jewish professor of philosophy
>>>>>>>> who shared his last name (coincidentally as far as I know) with one
>>>>>>>> of the best-known victims of antisemitism. At that time less was
>>>>>>>> known about Heidegger's Narzism, but by no means nothing, and I
>>>>>>>> recall discussion in the classroom of the issue. I came to feel that
>>>>>>>> the last thing one should try to do is separate the man's work from
>>>>>>>> his life. Perhaps if he had been working on some obscure area of
>>>>>>>> symbolic logic, say, that would have been possible, but Heidegger
>>>>>>>> had written a philosophy of human existence, and this would seem to
>>>>>>>> *demand* that there be consistency between what he wrote and how he
>>>>>>>> lived. Indeed, perhaps it would be important to study the man's
>>>>>>>> writings to try to understand where he went wrong; at what point in
>>>>>>>> his analysis of human being did Heidegger open the door to the
>>>>>>>> possibility of fascism? I think in fact that it is in Division II of
>>>>>>>> Being and Time, where Heidegger is describing what he called
>>>>>>>> 'authentic Dasein,' which amounts to a way that a person relates to
>>>>>>>> time, specifically to the certainty of their own death, that the
>>>>>>>> mistake is made and the door is opened to evil.
>>>>>>>> Carlin Romano, the author of the article, doesn't seem to know
>>>>>>>> Heidegger's work very well. Dasein ("being there," i.e. being-in-
>>>>>>>> the-world) is not a "cultural world," nor do "Daseins intersect," as
>>>>>>>> he puts it. (But I suppose that he is mocking Heidegger.) And that
>>>>>>>> brings me to my other reason for recommending that we continue to
>>>>>>>> read Heidegger, his politics and (lack of) ethics notwithstanding.
>>>>>>>> It is that his analysis throws light on issues that have been raised
>>>>>>>> in this group, and were important  to LSV and others. I am sure it
>>>>>>>> seems odd to link a Nazi philosopher to a socialist psychologist,
>>>>>>>> but I am hardly the first to see connections. Lucien Goldmann wrote
>>>>>>>> "Lukacs and Heidegger," a book in which he acknowledged the
>>>>>>>> incongruity but argued that there are "fundamental bonds" between
>>>>>>>> the two men's work, that at the beginning of the 20th century "on
>>>>>>>> the basis of a new problematic first represented by Lukacs, and then
>>>>>>>> later on by Heidegger, the contemporary situation was slowly
>>>>>>>> created. I would add that this perspective will also enable us to
>>>>>>>> display a whole range of elements common to both philosophers, which
>>>>>>>> are not very visible at first sight, but which nevertheless
>>>>>>>> constitute the common basis on which undeniable antagonisms are
>>>>>>>> elaborated" (p. 1).
>>>>>>>> What is this common basis? It is that of overcoming the separation
>>>>>>>> between subject and object in traditional thought, overcoming
>>>>>>>> subject/object dualism, by recognizing the role of history in
>>>>>>>> individual and collective human life, and rethinking the relation
>>>>>>>> between theory and practice. As Michael wrote, Heidegger reexamined
>>>>>>>> the traditional philosophical distinction between an object (a
>>>>>>>> being) and what it *is* (its Being), and rejected both idealism and
>>>>>>>> essentialism to argue that what an object is (and not just what it
>>>>>>>> 'means') is defined by the human social practices in which it is
>>>>>>>> involved, and in which people encounter it. These practices, of
>>>>>>>> course, change over historical time, so the conditions for an object
>>>>>>>> to 'be' are practical, social, and historical. And since people
>>>>>>>> define themselves in terms of the objects they work with, the basis
>>>>>>>> of human being is practical, social, and historical too.
>>>>>>>> I continue to believe that this new kind of ontological analysis,
>>>>>>>> visible according to Goldmann in the work of both Lukacs and
>>>>>>>> Heidegger, influenced in both cases by Hegel, is centrally
>>>>>>>> important. If we can learn from studying Heidegger how to
>>>>>>>> acknowledge these cultural conditions without falling into a
>>>>>>>> valorization of the folk, without dissolving individuals in the
>>>>>>>> collective (a failing of the Left just as much as the Right), then
>>>>>>>> we will have gained, not lost, by reading his texts.
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20
>> ea
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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