Yes, it makes sense. I laugh when you say that "You don't need to
delve into the depths of the body to find this". Yes, I see your
point, but this delve into the depths of the body have some meaning to
this investigation. It is not a pre-modern, mystic thing, it can add a
lot, I think, to the understanding of activity (or the why we act the
way we do). But this a whole new discussion. But "This participation
in common activity is the secret to communication across cultural
difference" it's a wonderful diversity in communion that is not too
often emphasized.
In this context how would you define creativity as a function of
cultural development? How can we explain that different cultures
exists in the first place, or that different practices evolve over
time and others don't, etc.?
Ivo
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
I'll take a look at that talk tomorrow if I can. But let me
respond to what you have said here.
On the one hand we are co-temporal with culture. How did we get
the anatomy to speak and use tools, except that for millions years
we did so without adequate "equipment"? But this does not mean we
are "only" culture. Cultural practices always build artefacts out
of nature-given material, according to its laws. To be an artefact
is always to be subject to the laws of nature. There is no
dichotomy between nature and nurture, material and ideal. In both
cases, the categories fully overlap.
But on the other hand, the "postmodern" idea of an absolute
noncommunication given cultural different is an absurd lie. The
fact is that despite cultural difference, people always manage to
work together, live in the same states under the same governments,
exchanging products and collaborating in shared products. This
participation in common activity is the secret to communication
across cultural difference. You don't need to delve into the
depths of the body to find this. Wave after wave of migration
across the world has seen to it.
Of course we do have a lot in common in our physiology, but how
far that goes is hard to tell. Practice, and the undertsanding of
that practice, is the way to resovle these mysteries.
Make sense?
Andy
Ivo Banaco wrote:
Hi Andy,
Thanks for this piece. First I have to say that I've been
reading your book "An interdisciplinary theory of activity"
which is been a wonderful intellectual journey for me. Thank
you and congratulations!
You said Andy that "People interact with the world through
culture, and there were no human beings before culture, and no
children born into a culture-free world". And as an
ontological premise I would say that if culture is here from
the start so are We. We exist, interact and that is culture.
So there is no culture prior to human beings, nor human beings
prior to culture, but both simultaneously. And for me this is
important, because We neither become cultural or individualist
reductionists. My worries are centered in the way We, within
the cultural historical approach could avoid the postmodern
trap of extreme cultural relativism. What I find in Gendlin's
approach is a way to "rescue the human being" from 3rd person
artifacts, respecting at the same time his cultural and
historical structure. How can we explain otherwise cultural
evolution in the lasts couple of centuries or how can we
explain creativity if we cannot rescue the human being, our
first person experiences and processes? In a Gendlin's small
text that I would love you to comment called "On the new
epistemology"
(http://www.focusing.org/gendlin/docs/gol_2173.html) he says
"In the regular notion, human beings have lost their instincts
and are just culture products. It's true when you look at
human beings across cultures, we don't share anything like as
much as any animal species. Any given species of animals sleep
the same, have intercourse the same, eat the same things. We
have been varied and complexified, elaborated, made more
intricate and in different ways. We certainly have cultural
routines. This whole talk [this is in a conference] is going
on in a cultural routine; otherwise you wouldn't sit there and
let me talk nonstop at you. But the body starts out already as
tissue with a great deal of internal organization and then
becomes an animal , in a evolutionary way of talking, in which
tissue processes are organized so the animal can move around
and go after something, and then it becomes culturally human."
You see, the way of looking at culture is different, the
emphasis on human beings as creators and molded at the same
time by culture is the main point here. In what degree we
"exceed culture" or move the culture forward?
Ivo
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
Ivo,
Never having heard of Gendlin I consulted WIkipedia, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Gendlin and on this slender
basis I could venture a few comments.
That concepts are ways of understanding the world, rather than
things existing in the world is hardly news. You would have
to go
back 500 years to find a "philosopher" to argue against
this. The
question is where you go with this.
The example Wikipedia gives is gravity. Gendlin takes the
observation "things fall" to be the basis of all concepts of
"gravity" and says that this is the basis for gravity and the
various historically arising theories of gravity, which
modify the
concept of gravity. Thus "Gendlin insists that 'gravity' is a
concept and that concepts can't make anything fall. Instead of
saying that gravity causes things to fall, it would be more
accurate to say that things falling cause [the different
concepts
of] gravity. Interaction with the world is prior to
concepts about
the world."
The thing is that more recent theories of gravity do not arise
from the observation that things fall, but rather from much
more
developed systems of activity which have become possible
only in
recent times. Such theories co-exist with mundane concepts of
gravity, just as developed scientific forms of activity
co-exist
with mundane forms of activity. So we would say it is not the
_passive observation_ that things fall which underlies all
concepts of gravity, but rather the historically and culturally
developing _forms of activity_ which continuously cause the
idea
of gravity to be recast in new theories. "Interaction with the
world is prior to concepts about the world" means "culture is
prior to concepts about the world." People interact with
the world
through culture, and there were no human beings before culture,
and no children born into a culture-free world.
Vygotsky showed in his study of ontogenesis that the
nature-given
mental functions are recast and recombined in new Gestalten
under
the influence of participation in the social activity
around them.
Their minds are restructured, but still made up from the same
nature-given functional units at base. If I have this wrong,
others will correct me. I am not a child psychologist or even a
psychologist of childhood. But I think this gives an opening to
see how Gendlin's interesting innovations into therapy work.
Another example, according to Vygotsky, "the subconscious"
exists,
but it is a construct which arises only in the course of later
development. It does not - as it seems - preexist conscious
awareness. It's a bit analogous to inner speech, which
onotgenetically arises on the basis of speaking aloud. Even
though
everyone was quiet and nonetheless intelligent before they ever
spoke, both onto- and phylo-genetically. It seems to me that
Gendlin may well have a good technique for therapy, but that
doesn't mean that the ontology and epistemology and theory
of mind
by means of which he systematises his understanding of it
stands
up to criticism.
Does that make any sense to you Ivo?
Andy
Ivo Banaco wrote:
Hi Michael and all,
Thank you for your interest and quick reply. I am
studying in
Lisbon,
Portugal in ISPA (Higher *Institute of Applied
Psychology). I
have a
background in Economics (my undergraduate studies and
master
degree is in
Economics) but I did not quite fit in the mainstream way of
looking for
economic issues. My long time interest in Psychology
drove me
to study on my
own all that kept my attention in a rather random way.
Discovering Vygotsky
was like discovering a golden mine that could start to
structure my thoughts
about some issues, namely the relationship between mind,
behaviour,
artifacts, economic and cultural structures, and how
can all
fit in some
dynamic Whole. *
*
*
*This quote about Gendlin came under a certain
psychological
tradition
related to the humanistic wave of Carl Rogers. Eugene
Gendlin
was a close
collaborator of Rogers and then carried forward his own
original thought,
what can be called a existential humanistic and
experiential
psychology. His
first book was "Experiencing and the Creation of
Meaning" *
http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Creation-Meaning-Philosophical-Psychological/dp/0810114275/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293031026&sr=8-3
<http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Creation-Meaning-Philosophical-Psychological/dp/0810114275/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293031026&sr=8-3>
<http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Creation-Meaning-Philosophical-Psychological/dp/0810114275/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293031026&sr=8-3
<http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-Creation-Meaning-Philosophical-Psychological/dp/0810114275/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1293031026&sr=8-3>>
where
he talks about constructs like felt sense, or edge of
awareness, where
language emerges from nonlanguage, from the intricacy
of the
bodily felt
felt meaning.
So in a sense he gives emphasis to experience and
interaction
first and
before culture. It's a living thing that is formed first,
which is pre
cultural, cultural and more complex than culture. He
says that
the body, the
human body is always more than any define form, from the
start. He tries to
find a 1st person science, that cannot be reducible to
neuroscience,
economics, culture. He points directly to experience, the
bodily felt
experience which allows human to act in the first place. So
here the unit of
analysis is the continuous experiencing.
I don't know if this helps to put Gendlin in context. My
question is how can
we avoid to be reductionist approaching the cultural
dimension
of the human
being, that is not reducing humans to culture and
vice-versa.
Ivo
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:53 PM, mike cole
<lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Ivo--
Where are you studying? gmail is such a general
address!!
If you have no existential doubts or gordian knots,
start
to get concerned
about your state of mind. Perfectly normal and healthy.
Existential
uncertainty seems the lot of human kind.
Without knowing a lot more, I can offer no
interpretation,
let alone a
reply, to Gendlin's statement about big things and
little
things. Is
reference being made to neuroscientific 50 millisecond
little things and
100 millisecond big things?
In light of issues discussed here (feel free to
buzz the
past decade or so
in the archives for context) where do this fit?
mike
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Ivo Banaco
<ibanaco@gmail.com <mailto:ibanaco@gmail.com>
<mailto:ibanaco@gmail.com <mailto:ibanaco@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear xmcaonaughts,
As a new kid on the block, recently researching in
Cultural Psychology and
wanting to do my Phd thesis in this area, I
still have
"existential doubts"
and big gordian knots. Having read different
kinds of
literature in
different traditions in Psychology I still have
troubles in replying to
sentences like this by the existential
philosopher and
psychologist Eugene
Gendlin:
"Any little thing, any big thing is precultural,
because it is tissues and
it is animal life, and it's culture and it's also
after culture, more
complicated than culture. The body is this much
more
complex, much more
intricate system from the start."
Any thoughts?
Best regards,
Ivo Banaco
PS: I wish you all a merry Christmas and a
great 2011.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:03 AM, mike cole
<lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Several of the articles on show below appear of
interest to various
xmcaonaughts.
mike
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Teachers College Record
<no-reply@tcrecord.org
<mailto:no-reply@tcrecord.org> <mailto:no-reply@tcrecord.org
<mailto:no-reply@tcrecord.org>>>
Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Transitioning From an Innovative
Elementary to a Conventional
High
School
To: Recipient <mcole@ucsd.edu
<mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu
<mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>>
[image: Title]
[image: Subscribe Today]
<http://www.tcrecord.org/Subscriptions.asp>
[image: transparent 13]
Freely-Available This Week
Articles
Smuggling Authentic Learning Into the School
Context: Transitioning From
an
Innovative Elementary to a Conventional High
School<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=15227>
by Renée DePalma, Eugene Matusov & Mark Smith
Analyzing the discourse of eighth-grade
graduates
from an innovative
elementary school as they transition to
conventional high schools
revealed
distinct response patterns characterizing
concurrent projects of
self-actualization and institutional
achievement.
Our analysis suggests
that
a certain critical ambivalence toward
credentialism and competition can
be
part of a healthy strategy for school success,
particularly for those
from
marginalized groups who do not wholly buy
into the
(predominantly White
and
middle-class) historically rooted traditions of
conventional schooling.
Designing Transparent Teacher Evaluation: The
Role of Oversight Panels
for
Professional Accountability<
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=15053>
by Jennifer Goldstein
This article explores a policy intended to
improve the quality of
teaching
by improving the quality of teacher
evaluation. It
examines a Peer
Assistance and Review (PAR) program, and
specifically one aspect of the
program-its oversight panel-asking how an
oversight panel alters the
practice of teacher evaluation. The core
argument
of the article is that
oversight panels have the potential to
fundamentally alter the
transparency
of the teacher evaluation process and, in turn,
the nature of
accountability.
Book Reviews
Multiliteracies in Motion: Current Theory and
Practice<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16226>
by David R. Cole and Darren Lee Pullen (eds.)
reviewed by William Kist
------------------------------
Citizenship Education and Social
Development in
Zambia<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16227>
by Ali A. Abdi, Edward Shizha, and Lee
Ellis (eds.)
reviewed by Monisha Bajaj
------------------------------
Persuading Fred: An essay review of recent
books
by Stanley Fish, Louis
Menand, and Martha
Nussbaum<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16228>
by
reviewed by James Donald
------------------------------
Someone Has to Fail: The Zero-Sum Game of
Public
Schooling<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16229>
by David F. Labaree
reviewed by Floyd M. Hammack
<http://www.tcrecord.org/voice.asp>
Henry Braun discusses his paper,
co-authored with
Irwin Kirsch and
Kentaro
Yamamoto, "An Experimental Study of the
Effects of
Monetary Incentives on
Performance on the 12th-Grade NAEP Reading
Assessment."<http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16008>
Commentaries
In Praise of Slow Reading<
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16238>
by Thomas Newkirk
This commentary argues against the high
valuation
schools place on
reading
speed, particularly on high sakes tests
like the
SAT. In penalizing
slower
readers, these and other tests put at a
disadvantage students who
approach
their reading in a deliberate and thorough way.
The ideal should not be
speed but the *tiempo guisto*, the pace at
which
we are most attentive
and
effective-and this pace will vary depending
on the
individual and the
task.
2010 NSSE Yearbooks and Call for Proposals
for Future
Yearbooks<http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16120>
by
The editors of the Teachers College Record
announce the yearbook topics
for
2010 and issue a call for new proposals.
------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please
browse to:
https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520
<https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520>
<https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520
<https://www.tcrecord.org/MyAccount.asp?uid=100293&pwd=1384520>>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>
MIA: http://www.marxists.org
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
MIA: http://www.marxists.org
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca