FW: [xmca] emotions and general psychology

[Mabel Encinas <liliamabel@hotmail.com>]

Sorry this message was meant to everybody... this is how I was pushed by Andy ;) to discuss publicly (as he thoguth one message was for everybody and not for him) this one is the other ways round, but I sent it only to him...

 





From: liliamabel@hotmail.com
To: ablunden@mira.net
Subject: RE: [xmca] emotions and general psychology
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:31:20 +0000



  

Hi, Andy. 
  
Emotions and history 
I disagree a bit with your claim that anyone on this list... I think it is in Western common sense (and Jay was pointing to this in a way). There is this idea that emotions can take us by surprise, make us irrational, and so forth. Personally, I find difficult sometimes to see things in a different way. The proof is in the pudding: Jay has been working from a sociocultural approach for many years, however, he says: 
"Many emotions are shared and distributed, and indeed arise only in dyadic or larger social group interactions. There are certainly also collective feelings of many kinds (mob frenzy being the most famous, but also collective religious mania/fervor and many others). As cognition is not purely individual, so affect is not either."
Implicitely, this assert could be a bit misleading (again, not that I do not produce misleading statements, I do it a lot!), because there would be the assumption that emotions are private or at least individual as only "many of them are shared and distributed... there are also (I would underline 'also') colective feelings". So if "many of them" are  so and so, what happens with the rest. Should we then think that the rest are internal and private? Would not this lead to the dychotomy individual/social. I would believe, that the way out of this is, again, history, the movement of emotions... Emotions always happen in social contexts. In the same way as cognition... (does anyone what to give me some help here?). Otherwise, we construct entities, and then we find difficult to understand how such independent entities come together and can communicate with each other. In brief, even myself that comes with this assert, I tend to de-historicise emotions.
 
Body as artefact
If the body is an artefact, we have another problem: were does the body start/finish? There is the famous example of the blind person and the stick (I think that is Bateson), where does the body begin, if the person 'sees' with the stick (studies about plasticity discuss these issues, and how the brain learns to 'see' or maybe to see with other brain regions, that are not the occipital part of the brain). Does the body finish in the brain, in the hand, or in the tip of the stick (or in the tip of other artifacts that help to have a better 'view' of the world by a person with visual imparements). Emotions happen in the body, but can we isolate the body from its context, namely social life? You would answer "no, that is why I put the body in the same category as other artifacts". But I am not sure then the identification of the body as artefact is helping us understanding something (some help here as well!). We can see the horse as an artefact, but has the same place as an artefact that a hammer? What is the similarity and the difference. We have to thame the horse... while the hammer we built it before (maybe we thamed the wood and the metal beforehand). What I try to point out is to the fact that something interesting to realise is that the body is at the same time the axe and the wood we are cutting, and while some wood can be easily transformed into toothsticks, for example, other woods are not - in that sense the body is complex, and also... it is so irremediable stuck to the mind, that we could have a un-solvable connundrum if we only walk this way through this problem of the body. What do you think?
 
Mabel


 

 


  
> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:41:42 +1100
> From: ablunden@mira.net
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: [xmca] emotions and general psychology
> 
> Wow! Lots there Mabel.
> 
> I don't think anyone on this list is questioning for a 
> moment the historical construction of all aspects of 
> psychology, and there is no exception with feelings. The 
> point has just been about exploring the specific 
> physiological basis of emotion. If we take Vygotsky to be 
> talking about the intersection of two objective processes: 
> human behavior and human physiology, this makes sense.
> 
> On artefacts and emotion: I take the body to be an artefact, 
> so I don't think you can have emotion without artefacts. 
> But yes, the ideal properties of artefacts are also 
> affect-laden, that is beyond question. Think of a picture of 
> a sunset, the face of an old friend, or a suffering child, a 
> toy from one's own childhood, Pascabelle's Canon, the smell 
> of wet straw, ...
> 
> Andy
> Mabel Encinas wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I have to take any tip of the thread to start posting otherwise, I will never be able to post. I have been writing something and trying to catch up. I know, though, that one cannot tug on the end of the string without having the entire skein unravel about my ears. So, I post some few ideas from here and there to start being in the discussion.
> > 
> > I consider that Vygotsky's way of dealing with emotions is quite consistent with the rest of his work (still, recognising that he had a process as well). However, as it has been pointed here, he does not finish his proposal. If we do not want to have a dychotomy, if the task is to create a general psychology, then how could/should we study emotions. Nowadays, still we have the same struggle in psychology: emotions have to do with the unconscious, or they have to do with cognition, or they have to do with the body functions. As it has been pointed out here, as well, all those apporaches can be reduced to two psychologies (The Crisis in Psychology, Collected works -CW- vol. 3), defined in philosophical terms, as materialist ('vulgar') and idealist psychologies (The Teachings about emotions, CW vol. 6), and again one of the biggest struggles is how to study them. Vygotsky gives an answer, and the answer could be taken only as the dream of a post-Rusian-Revolution psycholoists
> : in the light of applied psychology, and so, in the construction of the new society. However, this line I think can offer some points to think about the present, facing the problems you mention, Jay, and then understanding what is what psychology can offer to us today in the construction of the world (this implies a political agenda).
> > 
> > I think the issue of the dychotomies is in itself quite a big issue to deal with, and then there is the issue of how to move forward. Because one thing is to have the principle of 'rejecting dychotomies', the other thing is to start doing something practical with that premise, for example research. I supose you can see that I am breaking reality in two: one thing is 'to think', the other 'to apply'. However, I think that this practice of discussing is importants in the possible practices of researching. I supose, that this is the kind of problems one has to address at the end of research, if I could express what I say. I guess we cannot scape so easily the logics of certain dominant approaches. I guess as well that this is not by chance, because of the fact that consciousness in fact has a relative independence, and allows us to detach from the very present moment, and that is why it has a programmatic element that makes us so particular beings, and have history... Does th
> is make sense?
> > 
> > One important question that Vygotsky posed was how to understand both the continuity and the difference of humans and animals. To be honest, I am not interested in animal psychology. I think that the issue of 'continuity but difference' is an important reason for stuyding things historically. History is one important clue for understanding emotions. However, part of the problem that this entails are linked to Fodor's paradox. Michael Roth gently suggested that I studied Turner. Turner (it is J. Turner, for example in 'On the origins of human emotions. a sociological inquiry into the evolution of human affect) has done quite an important and consistent work in the study of emotions. He is a very productive and talented scholar in the field. He has been interested in solving the issues of biology and history in relation to emotions. However, because he focuses on the premise, that the only way in which we can feel, let's call them, 'sublime' emotions is thanks to the fact th
> at they were already hardwired when we came down the trees (otherwise we would have them appear? and Jay, you have pointed at this in a way in your recount on 'solidarity' feelings and the like). There is then something a-historical in this premise: emotions were hardwire once and forever, so, we should study the esential emotions that make us human. I think we could bring here, Vygotsky's criticism to James and Lange, because emotions depend and only depend on the body, then there seem to be no history. The question about dychotomies would be, why do we talk about dychotomy when we have such a plain explanation: we have a problem, and an answer, and it is unidirectional and 'transparent'. As I understand the issue of dychotomy is the fact that once one make such a big claim, lots of things are left aside. I remember, Andy, your discussion about the fact that we are brains. If we are brains, acording to the neurocientist you were quoting some few weeks ago, then when he is as
> ked: "but what about ethics and society?". His answer, as far as I remember, was: "ah, that is another thing". This phenomenon of the appearance of "the other thing", is what we call dychotomy, isn't it? Two separated things, and one explanation.
> > 
> > The other side of the coin is studied by approaches based in social construction: emotions are built socially, so they are diverse, and it is impossible to encapsulate. We can study their history. Nowadays we have so many references to emotions in social science (some people call them the affective turn, so many turns we have!). The most important aspect of them is the historisation of emotions. Emotions are social and historically constructed. Personally, I study a paradigmatic author, Hochschild and his study of emotional labour. Emotions are socially constructed, they have to be study in context, they have a history. Individuals sell their emotions to institutions. Then we can study for example the emotions involved in particular practices. This side, in psychology, the historical one, has been studied in psychology. Vygotsky mentions this about Freud. He recognises Freud's enormous contribution, when he studied emotions in the history of individuals. Hochschild, among 
> many, emphasizes the history of emotions. Is a sociocultural approach in coincidence with a socioconstructionist approach? I would think the answer is know. There is a difference between socioconstructionist or interactionist approaches with a sociocultural (or more concretely Vygotskian approach). This could be another thread of discussion. I am aware that this has been discussed here in the past, but it is still work in progress, I recon :)
> > 
> > I am not sure about how to think artefacts an emotions, but I guess, being consistent with the idea that artefacts are both, material and ideal, and if 'ideal' is not free of emotions (the neutrality is a view from positivistic approaches, in my understanding and one important element of those approaches is to eradicate all subjectivity, being emotions one of the most 'dangerous' subjective human features in the task of knowledge construction)... I was saying, if artefacts are both, material and ideal, and if 'ideal' can not be considered as separated from emotions, then artefacts involve emotions, even the emotions of being able to control a situation, but many others emotions at stake could be materialised, like the possibility of winning the market to a competitor or solving a family problem -and then linked to solidarity- and so on. However, the use of the artefact, is important, and emotions change. Driving the first engine car involved very different emotons than tho
> se involved in driving a car today; as it is different driving your first car, a car that is a bit broken, when you are in a trafic jam, while arguing with your partner, etc. I would not go by this track for the moment, though, but as this is the tip that I took to start posting, this is my little grain here, Andy. Also, I think a car is full of knowledge.
> > 
> > Some ideas to start being in. I will try to catch up with other ideas that have been expressed.
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > Mabel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:22:19 +1100
> >> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >> CC: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>
> >> In trying to formulate this question, it occurred to me that 
> >> our tendency to place the emotional content of an artefact 
> >> squarely in the person using the artefact, not the artefact 
> >> itself is correct, and when we ascribe knowledge to an 
> >> artefact, we are wrong. A book is not full of knowledge; 
> >> knowledge, like emotion, only arises in the social context 
> >> of its use. "Public or propositional knowledge" has neither 
> >> emotional nor cognitive content. The knowledge/affect only 
> >> arises in a context of use. (It was not the 'individual' or 
> >> 'social' I was on about, but the attribution to artefact or 
> >> human being.)
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> Jay Lemke wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> I had not thought about public or propositional knowledge having 
> >>> inherent affect. I think it depends on how it is construed by the person 
> >>> who comes to take up this knowledge. But in a cultural context, we could 
> >>> certainly imagine that some sorts of knowledge could provoke predictable 
> >>> affective responses by many people. I certainly doubt that I am alone in 
> >>> feeling depressed by knowledge of the state and trends of the global 
> >>> environment, endangered species, etc. Or knowledge of political and 
> >>> social injustice, etc. Which can also provoke anger, etc.
> >>>
> >>> But I do not think that emotion, feeling, or affect should be considered 
> >>> inherently aspects of strictly individual consciousness. Many emotions 
> >>> are shared and distributed, and indeed arise only in dyadic or larger 
> >>> social group interactions. There are certainly also collective feelings 
> >>> of many kinds (mob frenzy being the most famous, but also collective 
> >>> religious mania/fervor and many others). As cognition is not purely 
> >>> individual, so affect is not either.
> >>>
> >>> 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 30, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> Another thought: emotion is tied to (ontological, individual) 
> >>>> consciousness, isn't it? Or can we understand social knowledge, e.g., 
> >>>> science, as having inherently emotional significance? I mean, we often 
> >>>> talk as if knowledge in a book can be more or less true even before 
> >>>> someone reads it. But we don't say it is "excited" or "sad" rather 
> >>>> than "exciting" or "depressing"? And is this just a question or form, 
> >>>> or is content affective in that way? "a depressing fact" etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> andy
> >>>>
> >>>> Jay Lemke wrote:
> >>>>> Insofar as meaning, and so culture, comes to infuse all our feelings 
> >>>>> (even pain, much less fear or love) they are all "higher". HOW 
> >>>>> meaning/culture transforms the biological roots of feeling, and into 
> >>>>> what range of possibilities for feeling is what continues to 
> >>>>> fascinate me.
> >>>>> So, in general, I'm in agreement with what you are saying.
> >>>>> 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 30, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
> >>>>>> To Eric, Jay Achillies, and Andy
> >>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>> I wanted to pick up a thread you wrote about there not being higher 
> >>>>>> or lower emotions. It is just a reaction of the body responding.
> >>>>>> I agree whatever we label emotions is just the body responding which 
> >>>>>> then becomes reified in language (the map not the territory) However 
> >>>>>> I wonder if one of the central ways the body picks up cues and 
> >>>>>> responds through learned habits, patterns, to the social matrix in 
> >>>>>> particular ways is to monitor "attachment" (biological) and 
> >>>>>> "intersubjective"(psychological) needs for connection as primary to 
> >>>>>> being human. This way of viewing communication as connection (and 
> >>>>>> disconnection and re-connection) seems to me a central and primary 
> >>>>>> framework to "understand" (cognitive) the primacy of the 
> >>>>>> sociocultural contexts to the emergence of "self," "subjectivity," 
> >>>>>> or "identity" (different discourses which seem to me to be pointing 
> >>>>>> to the same horizon of understanding.
> >>>>>> Larry
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>> From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
> >>>>>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:01 am
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jay:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I believe this to be a great start to what I was thinking on the
> >>>>>>> issue.
> >>>>>>> eric
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>
> >>>>>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>> 11/28/2009 10:45 PM
> >>>>>>> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> cc:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca]
> >>>>>>> about emotions
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, would we begin with the simple contradiction: emotion is
> >>>>>>> society's
> >>>>>>> principal support? (vs. "nemesis"?)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reasonable on the grounds that "fellow-feeling" or primary
> >>>>>>> sociality,
> >>>>>>> our empathic bond to our fellow humans, is what counters any
> >>>>>>> notion
> >>>>>>> that the "state of nature" is ONLY "red in tooth, claw, and
> >>>>>>> nail". We
> >>>>>>> do not begin from a war of all against all, but from family
> >>>>>>> ties, and
> >>>>>>> cultural extensions of kinship feelings to notional kin, and
> >>>>>>> loyalties
> >>>>>>> and identifications with larger groups and with lineages, clans,
> >>>>>>> moieties, age cohorts, initiation cohorts, totemic subgroups,
> >>>>>>> etc. etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Without fellow-feeling, no society. Can the same be said as
> >>>>>>> convincingly of reason? Do we imagine that social systems cohere
> >>>>>>> because we rationally recognize our advantage from them? And
> >>>>>>> that that
> >>>>>>> bond is strong enough to stand the test of conflict? That we
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> sacrifice our lives to defend others solely out of rational
> >>>>>>> calculation? I doubt it. It seems clearly that sociality is
> >>>>>>> rooted in
> >>>>>>> feeling.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or, rather, in the unity and functional integration of kinds of
> >>>>>>> meaning making (e.g. to determine culturally who is in-group and
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>> is out-group) and kinds of feeling (loyalty, love, and alas
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>> opposites).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Emotions may be the nemesis of abstract and arbitrary, perhaps
> >>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>> ideologically suspect, social ties. The "rational" grounds of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> capitalist nation-state, and its efforts to recruit loyalty
> >>>>>>> emotionally (songs, flags, rhetoric) seem rather easily
> >>>>>>> interrupted by
> >>>>>>> the emotions of anger and resentment and the feeling of
> >>>>>>> righteous
> >>>>>>> wrath against the oppressor, not just of myself, but also of
> >>>>>>> others,
> >>>>>>> that leads to revolution, or at least to throwing a brick or two.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So I hope I am being a bit dialectical here in seeing even the
> >>>>>>> sense
> >>>>>>> in which emotions ARE the nemesis of society as also and more
> >>>>>>> fundamentally being the same sense in which they ground the very
> >>>>>>> possibility of society.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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 7:48 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hello All:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would like to point out that when I suggested that emotion
> >>>>>>>> appeared to be
> >>>>>>>> societies nemesis I did not bring in the dialectic but rather
> >>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>> the word
> >>>>>>>> dichotomy. Dichotomy does bring out the notion of
> >>>>>>> either/or where
> >>>>>>>> dialectic is rather a wholeness a both sidedness within the same
> >>>>>>>> 'gestalt' (for lack of a better word). I believe in the
> >>>>>>> dialectic and
> >>>>>>>> would like someone to stage this aspect of emotions in the
> >>>>>>> form of the
> >>>>>>>> dialectic. Does this make sense?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> much thanks and turkey gravy
> >>>>>>>> eric
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> >>>>>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>> cc:
> >>>>>>>> bcc:
> >>>>>>>> Subject: RE:
> >>>>>>> [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior <achilles_delari@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>> 11/28/2009 10:28 AM GMT
> >>>>>>>> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> >>>>>>> Activity" <font
> >>>>>>>> size=-1></font>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, now, compare the two contexts
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1926 - Fighting against general dualistic view in old psycholoy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
> >>>>>>>> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
> >>>>>>>> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
> >>>>>>>> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
> >>>>>>>> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
> >>>>>>>> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
> >>>>>>>> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
> >>>>>>>> every point nourished and permeated by these
> >>>>>>>> interdependences. NOT FOR A SINGLE MILLISECOND,
> >>>>>>>> PSYCHOLOGY TO MEASURE THE EXACT DURATION OF MENTAL
> >>>>>>>> PROCESSES, IS IT ISOLATED AND SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE
> >>>>>>>> WORLD ANDA THE OTHER ORGANIC PROCESS. Who claimsand studies
> >>>>>>>> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
> >>>>>>>> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
> >>>>>>>> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1931-33 - Fighting against specific dualistic view in theory
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> emotions
> >>>>>>>> Chabrier completely justifiably refers to the fact that a
> >>>>>>> feeling of
> >>>>>>>> hunger, usually
> >>>>>>>> considered in the group of lower bodily feelings in civilized
> >>>>>>> man, is
> >>>>>>>> already a
> >>>>>>>> fine feeling from the point of view of the nomenclature of
> >>>>>>> James,
> >>>>>>>> that the
> >>>>>>>> simple
> >>>>>>>> need of food can acquire a religious sense when it leads to
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> appearance
> >>>>>>>> of a
> >>>>>>>> symbolic rite of mystical communication between man and God. And
> >>>>>>>> conversely,
> >>>>>>>> a religious feeling, usually considered as a purely spiritual
> >>>>>>>> emotion, in
> >>>>>>>> pious cannibals
> >>>>>>>> bringing human sacrifices to the gods, can scarcely he
> >>>>>>> referred to the
> >>>>>>>> group
> >>>>>>>> of higher emotions. Consequently, THERE IS NO EMOTION THAT BY
> >>>>>>> NATURE
> >>>>>>>> WOULD
> >>>>>>>> BE
> >>>>>>>> INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY AND NOT CONNECTED WITH IT.Thank you
> >>>>>>> for the
> >>>>>>>> English
> >>>>>>>> version. Where in English is "Psychology to measure" in
> >>>>>>> Russian is
> >>>>>>>> "Psychologists"
> >>>>>>>> The Spanish is more correct - I don´t know about other mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: achilles_delari@hotmail.com
> >>>>>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:04:36 +0000
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course this view is a mistake, because this view do not consider
> >>>>>>>>> what he said after, that is that mind is not separate from
> >>>>>>> organism.>> He not only denying old psychology, he is making an
> >>>>>>> affirmation
> >>>>>>>>> againt
> >>>>>>>>> it. The same affirmation that I quote.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:53:47 +1100
> >>>>>>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>>>>>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
> >>>>>>>>>> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
> >>>>>>>>>> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
> >>>>>>>>>> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
> >>>>>>>>>> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
> >>>>>>>>>> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
> >>>>>>>>>> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
> >>>>>>>>>> every point nourished and permeated by these
> >>>>>>>>>> interdependences. Not for a single millisecond, used by
> >>>>>>>>>> psychology to measure the exact duration of mental
> >>>>>>>>>> processes, is it isolated and separated from the rest of the
> >>>>>>>>>> world and the other organic processes. Who claimsand studies
> >>>>>>>>>> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
> >>>>>>>>>> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
> >>>>>>>>>> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> LSW CW v. 3, p. 152-3.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Reading this together with the preceding 3 sections, I take
> >>>>>>>>>> it that "traditional psychology" means introspective, or
> >>>>>>>>>> subjective psychology, and the view that introspection
> >>>>>>>>>> provides direct access to a distinct part of reality (soul,
> >>>>>>>>>> spiritual beings, something nonphysical, above matter).
> >>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky is saying that this view is mistaken.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please Andy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please if you are with the text about Thonrdike,
> >>>>>>>>>>> The passage is in the part 2, paragraph 4th -
> >>>>>>>>>>> The paragraph immediately above has te following
> >>>>>>>>>>> reference (N. N. Langue, 1914, p 42)...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "The psyche and any its delicates and complex mechanisms,
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> inserted
> >>>>>>>>>>> in the general system of the human behavior, each one of its
> >>>>>>>> manifestations
> >>>>>>>>>>> is totally impregnated by this mutual relation. Do not appears
> >>>>>>>> isolated nor
> >>>>>>>>>>> separated from the rest of the world an from the process of
> >>>>>>>>>>> organism
> >>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>>> a millesinum of a second, that is the time that psychologists
> >>>>>>>> calculate to
> >>>>>>>>>>> the psychic process. Who sustains in their investigations the
> >>>>>>>> contrary, will
> >>>>>>>>>>> be studying an unreal configuration of the own
> >>>>>>> intelligence,
> >>>>>>>>>>> chimeras
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the place of facts, terminologicals constructs in the
> >>>>>>> places of
> >>>>>>>>>>> real
> >>>>>>>> authentic
> >>>>>>>>>>> facts"....
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> He is discussing methodological problem of definition of the
> >>>>>>>> psyche... Just
> >>>>>>>>>>> trying to posing about what king of things psychologist
> >>>>>>> want make
> >>>>>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>> questions.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And stating that a psyche without orgnism is not a real
> >>>>>>> thing about
> >>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>> make questions... because if you ask for something that doesn't
> >>>>>>>> exist, you
> >>>>>>>>>>> can find answers that can not exist too. Its what I
> >>>>>>> understand
> >>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>> formulation. And I guess that in "The teatching about
> >>>>>>> emotions" the
> >>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>> is methodological too. Let me say, about the own conditions
> >>>>>>> to you
> >>>>>>>> make a
> >>>>>>>>>>> good question related to emotions, at that time, and even
> >>>>>>> in our
> >>>>>>>> time, I can
> >>>>>>>>>>> conclude...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I will see a manner to type the Russian, for any adictional
> >>>>>>>>>>> checking
> >>>>>>>> about this
> >>>>>>>>>>> quoting. Because there are two problems:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) How it was translated from Russian to Spanish.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2) How, of course, I translate from Spanish to English...
> >>>>>>> (this
> >>>>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>> worse, of course)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Andy. Again.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry about my persistence.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:57:19 +1100
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Achilles, I am looking at the English version in LSV CW v.3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I can't find the passage you quote, but I see on p. 155 that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky puts "other somatic reactions that form the basis
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of emotion" in the same category as "the first component of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> an organism's perception of this environmental influence."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't think emotion has anything to do with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> instinct or higher vs lower mental functions. We perceive
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the reaction of our body and that affects our thinking and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> our whole process of perception, just like our vision does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky compares it to inner speech actually. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Vygotsky was trying to solve the problem of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dualism in theory of emotions. He worked with the principle
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of "psychophysical unit" - the "main principle of Soviet
> >>>>>>>> psychology"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the words from Rubinshtein. The difference between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the cognitive and the instinctive is not because the cognitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have not physiological conditions, but the complexity of that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions and it mediated character... Vygotsky said that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "the psyche do not appears isolated from the world or from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the process form organism neither for a 0,001 second"
> >>>>>>> (1926/1991>>>>>> - Prólogo a la versión russa del libro de E.
> >>>>>>> Thorndike
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Principios
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> de enseñanza basados a la psicología - this is the Volume I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Works in Russian and Spanish, I don't remeber the number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in English, because they do not follow the Russian numeration).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see that psyche are not isolated from the
> >>>>>>> organism and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not isolated from the world. In fact human beens are
> >>>>>>> constituted>>>>>> by the same substance that the world, we are
> >>>>>>> not an "Impire
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inside
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the impire" - but to be the same substance do not means
> >>>>>>> that we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are in the same way... the same "mode" - I Spinoza´s words.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky fight against a dualistic approach to emotions.
> >>>>>>> And to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> him James is an "involuntary disciple of Descartes"
> >>>>>>> because his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> especial emphasis in cultural feelings as spiritual
> >>>>>>> process. Much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> common even today.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I only don't uderstand why you say that there is a
> >>>>>>> problem that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am trying to solve. If cognition have not material
> >>>>>>> support what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of substance is cognition? This is not a problem,
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is how to understand ideological, historical, conscious,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cultural,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> constitution of human emotions in his/her whole
> >>>>>>> personality
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> repeat a dualistic approach. I understand this problem is
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mine... this is a problem posed by Vygotsky himself. And
> >>>>>>> I only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> agree that is good question... I don't if Damasio already
> >>>>>>> answer> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you tell me who did?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Achilles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:56:10 +1100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you still need a distinction between a physiological
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaction and a cognitive disposition, don't you, Achilles?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the specific problem you are trying to solve?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> ---------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Agora a pressa é amiga da perfeição. Chegou o Windows 7. Conheça!
> >>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/brasil/windows7/default.html?WT.mc_id=1539_______________________________________________>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> ---------
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> -- 
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you. 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook.
> > http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_2:092009_______________________________________________
> > 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



Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail: Your friends can get your Facebook updates, right from Hotmail®.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_4:092009_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca