Hi Andy, excuse me, I make a mistake,
sometimes the e-mails from Mike at XMCA, for instance,
arrives with his adress in my reply... then I automatically
chances to the address of the forum, and now I did this
with you message too. Excuse me.
Achilles.
> From: achilles_delari@hotmail.com
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:39:49 +0000
> Subject: [xmca] RE: A Vygotskian view of emotions
>
>
> Andy, thank you very much - this is a great reference.
>
> Thanks for the link to Sheff's site too. I was looking today.
> Excellent page, contemporary and polemic subjects,
> many full-version papers, and so on.
> Best wishes.
> Achilles.
>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:21:00 +1100
> > From: ablunden@mira.net
> > To: achilles_delari@hotmail.com
> > Subject: A Vygotskian view of emotions
> >
> > Achilles, I noticed this:
> >
> > John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (in Press 2002). The gift of
> > confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions. Learning for life
> > in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the
> > future of education.
> >
> > Maybe Vera could let you see a copy?
> > mailto:vygotsky@unm.edu
> >
> >
> > Andy
> > Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> > > Jay, thank you, once more.
> > > Best wishes.
> > >
> > >> From: jaylemke@umich.edu
> > >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> > >> Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:41:42 -0800
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Achilles and all,
> > >>
> > >> You emphasize some important points in this last message (below).
> > >> Especially useful to know about a history of fear, and of course we
> > >> have many histories of love.
> > >>
> > >> And what gets called a "basic" emotion is rarely all that basic
in the
> > >> sense of being uniform and universal. Yes, these feelings, and
perhaps
> > >> most feelings have physiological aspects and evolutionary
antecedents,
> > >> even survival-adaptive functions. But that does not mean that
they do
> > >> not undergo differentiation in many different kinds of love, and
many
> > >> different kinds of fear, in their integration with what we tend to
> > >> call more "cognitive" processes, and so in the development of
"higher"
> > >> mental-emotional functions.
> > >>
> > >> Cultural difference therefore are to be expected, as in your
example
> > >> of cultures where we might feel guilty about feeling guilt vs.
those
> > >> where we feel noble or honorable because we feel guilt.
> > >>
> > >> I have not yet reached the point of publishing my work in this
area,
> > >> though I have given some talks at conferences and universities
about it.
> > >>
> > >> JAY.
> > >>
> > >> Jay Lemke
> > >> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> > >> Educational Studies
> > >> University of Michigan
> > >> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> > >> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> > >>
> > >> Visiting Scholar
> > >> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> > >> University of California -- San Diego
> > >> La Jolla, CA
> > >> USA 92093
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Nov 28, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> You help me a lot, Jay. Thank you very much.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that I understand your explanation, based
> > >>> in heuristics needs - and I agree. I think a vision
> > >>> that don't differentiate qualitative distinctions between
> > >>> a number of process don't help us very much... My
> > >>> guess is that Vygotsky's Chabrier-based hypothesis
> > >>> can have a methodological contribution perhaps in
> > >>> the sense of think relations between emotions, feelings
> > >>> and affects in genetic and dynamic terms... But in
> > >>> typological terms they are not very helpful. I understand
> > >>> Vygotsky didn't conclude this project in that 1931-33
> > >>> manuscripts, maybe because his focus justly was much
> > >>> methodological one than strictly psychological. Maybe...
> > >>> I don't know about the best interpretation too... but
> > >>> seems to be interesting to think that cellos, for instance,
> > >>> is not the same in different cultures... as LVS says in
> > >>> the text about Psychological Systems... And the sample
> > >>> of the Dante's love for Beatrice, is very interesting too,
> > >>> the impossibility to reduce all to the perception of
> > >>> a silhouette - the role of philosophy, theology, and other
> > >>> cultural conditions in that love... Even the concerns to
> > >>> the different king of love in different historical period
> > >>> seems to be reasonable, if we search about "History
> > >>> of emotions" for instance, including there is "History
> > >>> of Fear" (Jean Delumeau, and others). Perhaps, ever perhaps,
> > >>> a problem in Vygotsky text is that non-differentiation in
> > >>> the use of the terms "affect", "emotion", "feeling". I
> > >>> could not check word by word in Russian... but even so,
> > >>> I didn't find any very explicit definitions for each term
> > >>> yet. This is a problem. But I understand to be interesting,
> > >>> for instance, to think that even something like "fear" have not
> > >>> so definite boundaries in my consciousness, because in my personal
> > >>> experience I had many kinds of fears, since the more
> > >>> basic, in process of military repression to me and my
> > >>> comrades from marxist social movement, until the more
> > >>> subtle: fear to lost my father because his cancer... Then
> > >>> we can search different definitions to this two kinds of
> > >>> fear... we can give different names for the "basic fear"
> > >>> (a emotion) and the "subtle fear" (a feeling), but... I don´t
> > >>> know... If we try grasp the concrete historical cultural situation,
> > >>> both in Class Struggle and in family affective relations, the
> > >>> systemic and inter-functional relations are very singular,
really...
> > >>> And have any kind of cognition involved, as well as any kind
> > >>> of peripheric (vasomotor, visceral) process involved too.
> > >>> Can I say that the own very polissemic nature of the words
> > >>> that we use to define emotions, feelings and affects, can turns
> > >>> a little problem in this area too? And can exist some kinds of
> > >>> ideological problems in this too? Sometimes guilt like a higher
> > >>> process, sometimes like a lower process, and so on? Well, I
> > >>> must to ask if a man/woman in a culture in what guilt is sawed
> > >>> as lower process (guilt to be guilt?) have the same guilt
> > >>> that in a culture in which the guilt is a higher process
> > >>> (honor to be guilt?)?
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you already publish something about this heuristic distinction,
> > >>> that you exposes to us? Can you indicate something to me?
> > >>> I appreciate your contributions.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you very much.
> > >>> Achilles.
> > >>>
> > >>>> From: jaylemke@umich.edu
> > >>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> > >>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:28:06 -0800
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Achilles, and friends --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am not sure of the best interpretation of LSV's position on
these
> > >>>> matters, but it seems to me to be in the spirit of his work
and the
> > >>>> later CHAT tradition that we imagine a culturally informed
> > >>>> "development" (probably with phylogenetic antecedents) in
which the
> > >>>> "higher" functions develop out of the earlier ones by a progessive
> > >>>> layering or refinement, specialization, and differentiation --
both
> > >>>> for higher feelings as well as higher cognitions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Indeed I don't think we want to separate affect and cognition, or
> > >>>> feeling and meaning, emotion and reason, too much. A little
> > >>>> distinction is useful to give us purchase on understanding their
> > >>>> integration. I would assume that in the developmental and
> > >>>> evolutionary
> > >>>> sequence, these two aspects of our adaptive
operating-with-the-world,
> > >>>> are initially less separable and less distinguishable, aspects
of a
> > >>>> single functional process. And that later in the sequence we
LEARN to
> > >>>> MAKE a distinction, and perhaps even to FEEL a difference between
> > >>>> them.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But it is their functional integration which is of the greatest
> > >>>> importance, not their difference (in my opinion). So to the higher
> > >>>> mental functions viewed cognitively (and it is not at all
clear that
> > >>>> LSV did view them ONLY cognitively in our modern sense) there must
> > >>>> correspond also "higher feelings", what we might call culturally
> > >>>> refined or culturally differentiated and functionally specialized
> > >>>> feelings, which function as part of the whole engagement in
activity
> > >>>> that enables us to sometimes get a bit ahead of our
semi-predictable
> > >>>> environments. Insight. Intuition. A feeling for the organism. Good
> > >>>> hunches. Good judgment. A nose for useful lines of research.
And so
> > >>>> on.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Of course once we are immersed in a complex world of highly
> > >>>> culturally
> > >>>> differentiated feelings, we realize that their functions are not
> > >>>> simply practical, not simply dictated by evolutionary fitness.
Or at
> > >>>> least not in very obvious ways. And so I have taken to making a
> > >>>> heuristic distinction of my own in terminology among emotions (the
> > >>>> more classical ones, triggered by environmental events, with
obvious
> > >>>> adaptive significance, like those listed by Darwin and borrowed by
> > >>>> James, such as fear, anger, disgust, desire, etc.), affects
(which I
> > >>>> use to mean the "higher" feelings, the more culturally
specific and
> > >>>> "refined" ones, like feeling noble or feeling guilty), and
feelings
> > >>>> as
> > >>>> such (the general category, of which emotions and affects are
> > >>>> subclasses, and which also includes the more auto-perceptual
feelings
> > >>>> like feeling tired or feeling dizzy).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Again it is not so much the distinctions here that I value
> > >>>> theoretically, but getting a sense of the scope of the whole
domain
> > >>>> of
> > >>>> feelings, and how to make sense of any particular feeling-type
within
> > >>>> it. (Distinguishing again between the uniqueness of a particular
> > >>>> feeling on a particular occasion and the more generic
feeling-types
> > >>>> recognized or recognizable culturally across instances.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Whew! A lot to chew on ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> JAY.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jay Lemke
> > >>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> > >>>> Educational Studies
> > >>>> University of Michigan
> > >>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> > >>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Visiting Scholar
> > >>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> > >>>> University of California -- San Diego
> > >>>> La Jolla, CA
> > >>>> USA 92093
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:45 PM, Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Jay,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thank you very much.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Something near to this distinction between feelings and emotions
> > >>>>> was posed by William James too, according Vygotsky, but James
> > >>>>> saw this distinction in terms that these social dimension of
> > >>>>> affective
> > >>>>> world, the higher feelings, have almost nothing related to
> > >>>>> biological,
> > >>>>> physiological, material, body, conditions. And Vygotsky
criticizes
> > >>>>> this like a way of dualistic thinking - this dualism can be
> > >>>>> understood
> > >>>>> as based in ideological motivations too: "the human is not an
> > >>>>> animal,
> > >>>>> nor a material been, but a divine been, in his higher, superior
> > >>>>> feelings..."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A distinction between feelings and emotions is present in
Damasio
> > >>>>> too
> > >>>>> in neurofunctional terms... But Vygotsky proposed the question of
> > >>>>> a systemic inter-relationship in that the lower can turns
higher,
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>> vice versa... I don't know what we can thing about this... In
this
> > >>>>> case, distinction between feelings and emotions are useful,
but if
> > >>>>> we want to understand the entire human been, his/her whole
> > >>>>> personality,
> > >>>>> the integration and inter-functional relations between
feelings and
> > >>>>> emotions turns relevant too, In my point of view.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best wishes.
> > >>>>> Achilles.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> From: jaylemke@umich.edu
> > >>>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> > >>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:28:26 -0800
> > >>>>>> CC:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am certainly one of those people interested in emotion, or
> > >>>>>> feeling,
> > >>>>>> or affect, or whatever we choose to make of the phenomenon.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The topic seems to have historically accumulated a lot of
> > >>>>>> ideological
> > >>>>>> baggage. And while its expression may be more sophisticated
today
> > >>>>>> than
> > >>>>>> in times past, there doesn't seem to be that much less of it
(as
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>> example in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy review
noted by
> > >>>>>> someone earlier).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Emotion tends to be seen as bad in our philosophical
tradition. As
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> enemy of reason, the motor of self-deception, etc. It links
us to
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> animals, to our "baser" nature, etc. A bit of this in the pagan
> > >>>>>> tradition, a lot of it in christian asceticism, and tons of
it in
> > >>>>>> Enlightenment rationalism and its successors.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Emotions are also associated with the unreliable feminine
vs. the
> > >>>>>> cool
> > >>>>>> and collected masculine, with the passions of the mob vs. the
> > >>>>>> thoughtful elite, with peasants, workers, and children, and
pretty
> > >>>>>> much every social category whose oppression needs some
> > >>>>>> legitimation.
> > >>>>>> Indeed one of the near universal legitimations of elite
power is
> > >>>>>> "we
> > >>>>>> know what's good for you", not just because of what we know, but
> > >>>>>> because you can't be trusted to see your own best interests
through
> > >>>>>> the haze of your emotions.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Useful as this is to elite interests, it combines further
with the
> > >>>>>> cult of individualism to make emotions a purely individual,
mental,
> > >>>>>> subjective matter. Non-material, non-social, non-cultural, and
> > >>>>>> universal (the easier to apply the stigma of emotionality to
non-
> > >>>>>> European cultures). It is rather hard to crawl out of this
pit of
> > >>>>>> mud.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As I've been trying to do for the last year or two. There
would be
> > >>>>>> too
> > >>>>>> much to say for a short post on this list, but here are a
few basic
> > >>>>>> suggestions:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Feeling is a broad enough category to get back to the
phenomenology
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>>> affect/emotion, whereas "emotion" is too narrowly defined
within
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> tradition of animal-like and universal.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There are a LOT of different feelings, and that is more
important
> > >>>>>> than
> > >>>>>> efforts to identify some small number of basic emotions.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Many feelings are associated with evaluative judgments and
this may
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>> a key link to re-unify affective and cognitive.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Feelings do differ significantly across cultures, and are
part of a
> > >>>>>> larger system of meanings-and-feelings specific to a community.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You can't make meanings across any longer term process of
reasoning
> > >>>>>> without feelings and evaluative judgments.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It is likely that feelings have histories, both in cultures
and in
> > >>>>>> individuals.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Feelings are often reliable guides to survival, to adaptive
action,
> > >>>>>> and to finding ways to meet our needs.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Feelings are just as situated and distributed as are
cognitions.
> > >>>>>> And
> > >>>>>> just as active and actively made and produced.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In short -- pretty much everything in our dominant tradition
about
> > >>>>>> emotions and feelings is exactly wrong -- and for the worst
> > >>>>>> possible
> > >>>>>> ideological-political reasons, I believe.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> JAY.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Jay Lemke
> > >>>>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
> > >>>>>> Educational Studies
> > >>>>>> University of Michigan
> > >>>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> > >>>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Visiting Scholar
> > >>>>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
> > >>>>>> University of California -- San Diego
> > >>>>>> La Jolla, CA
> > >>>>>> USA 92093
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 8:08 AM, mike cole wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> With so much interest in achieving an integrated
understanding of
> > >>>>>>> emotion,
> > >>>>>>> cognition, and development, Achilles, your focus on this topic
> > >>>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>> helpful
> > >>>>>>> reminder of its continued importance.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Seems like one of those many areas in psychological
research where
> > >>>>>>> we cannot
> > >>>>>>> keep from murdering to dissect.
> > >>>>>>> mike
> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> > >>>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e muito
> > >>>>> mais. Conheça!
> > >>>>>
http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
> > >>>>> 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
> > >>>
> > >>> _________________________________________________________________
> > >>> Novo windowslive.com.br. Descubra como juntar a galera com os
> > >>> produtos Windows Live.
> > >>>
http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Você já ama o Messenger? Conheça ainda mais sobre ele no Novo
site de Windows Live.
> > >
http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Novo windowslive.com.br. Descubra como juntar a galera com os
produtos Windows Live.
>
http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chegou o Windows 7. Deixe seu computador mais simples e fácil. Clique
para conhecer.
<http://www.microsoft.com/brasil/windows7/default.html?WT.mc_id=1539>