[xmca] Re: expression of gratitude

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Haydi
Thanks for your kind remarks and thank you for the attached article.  You
mention in your post that there are many contrasting approaches to CHAT and
some even drop the activity. Andy also suggests that Activity should be
re-focused as a concept.  However, it is Martin's approach which has given
me permission to attempt to read chat theory through a lense that also
engages with phenomenology [specifically cultural-historical forms of
phenomenology.  I would recommend you go to XMCA "papers for discussion" and
read John Shotter's way of "reading" or interpreting Vygotsky's legacy. It
is after reading Martin [who I assume is one stream of interpretation, then
reading Anna Stetsenko's work on subjectivity, and linking it to John
Shotter's work, that is the thread I'm underlining.  Fernando Rey's article
is expressing this theme of the location of "emotion" "character" "situation
of development" and SENSE as an ASPECT of Vygotsky's legacy that is focusing
on the subjective side of activity.  From Rey's perspective the Western
focus on the objective "side" of the theory is under representing the other
side of Vygotsky's legacy [the subjective].
In the spirit of "conversation" I hope you can tolerate my often going off
course. Haydi, I personally struggle with truly trying to "read" each
approach from the perspective of the other tradition [CHAT to phenomenology
and phenomenology to CHAT]  This is a particular method of "knowing" and I
hope that at some point I will have the ability to integrate the
perspectives in a way that Martin is able to articulate.
Fernando Rey makes a distinction between "internalization" OF the social as
an objective moment in Vygotsky's legacy and Fernando contrasts
"internalization" with the notion of "production" in Vygotsky's shift to
"sense".  Others may reject Rey's interpretation an
d say he is mis-representing Vygotsky, but I think this type of disagreement
is welcome in the CHAT community.  Mike suggests some on CHAT would agree
with Rey's direction and others will be strongly oppossed. Such is the
development of a LIVING legacy.

Haydi, do you disagree with Shotter's approach?

Larry
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Hi Larry
> The best is to appear on xmca . However , I have reasons not to . My firm
> stance has been to know about where one could find a trace of A (Activity)
> in the messages that are posted to xmca . Nikolai Veresov , I suppose , has
> altogether omitted this letter from CHAT . He uses CHT . To tell the truth ,
> I have not been able to see this trace in your writings , either . We have
> Andy who still talks about AT and one is able to see in his (PROJECT
> CONCEPT) traces of sort of Activity as defined by Leontiev and his disciples
> from the Kharkov Tradition . In short , even with Martin who is supposed to
> be a follower of AT , things are not so clear . If his order of Numbering
> the 6 tropes is a genuine order , then the second half must , of necessity ,
> be secondary and submitted to the first . AT says man first got involved
> with Nature , changed it and just , within the process , changed himself and
> even reached his Manhood and it was the NATURE of the involvement which
> necessitated first COMMUNICATION , then DIALOGUE and SPEECH through the
> medium of TOOL , then , SIGN / CULTURE . A.A.Leontiev and his co-thinkers
> thought Vygotsky began with reflexology and reactology but progressively
> went towards a shadowy gesture of the AT . But Semiocicists and Culturalists
> (Mike) give precedence to Sign and Culture and avoid speaking out about the
> loci of Activity . However , I continue to read your messages and if they
> are like this last one , I can sort of put myself within and it will be very
> beneficial for me as well as others . Flattery aside , you have proved
> you're so keen , smart , very clever , skilful in short-reading many books ,
> translating between the not-so-convergent ideas as well as expressing them
> into some language of your own . Willing to understand you CHATlike . One
> article is attached which I suppose could be of interest and to your taste .
> Zinchenko Junior (son) and partners are paving the way to reach you from the
> other side : MISREPRESENTATION OF AT .
> Best
> Haydi
>
>  *From:* Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> *To:* Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 3, 2011 8:33 PM
> *Subject:* Re: expression of gratitude
>
>  Hi Haydi
>
> I appreciate your reflections and I will attempt to be briefer, or spell
> out the "system" or tradition I'm trying to link to.  The central topic that
> John Shotter is exploring is if it is possible to have a DIRECT awareness of
> another [as one aspect or form of consciousness] that is experienced.  This
> aspect of sense then intertwines with  reflective forms of knowing.  I
> wonder if others in the CHAT tradition accept that this direct form of
> "knowing" as awareness is a key aspect of social practices.  If this form of
> consciousness is accepted as existing , then exactly how the 2nd person and
> 3rd person ways of knowing intertwine is still to be elaborated.  I'm trying
> to find out what others think of this basic assumption?  Haydi, go to the
> XMCA "papers for discussion" section ad John Shotter's article is now posted
> there.  It is in particular that paper that has me exploring this idea.
> I also read Martin as engaged in linking phenomenology [as a tradition]
> with CHAT
>
> Larry
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>  Dear Larry
> This was sent to the xmca as a reply several times several days ago ;
> however it did not appear on the list . Now I have to send it to your
> personal adress . hope it reaches you . The problem might have been due to
> the type of color I had used .
> Best
> Haydi
>
>
> Hi Larry
> First , thanks for the encouraging reply !
> Second , in my message I forgot to say by "personal meaning" , Leontiev and
> I mean "sense" .
> Third , the following paragraph of yours says in clear words what the
> problems at least with some readers are :
>  The use of particular words in different traditions make sense within
> different SYSTEMS of meaning and one approach would be to attempt to stay
> within that traditions system of terms [1i.e. "operations" below awareness,
> "action" under conscious intentional volition, "activity" etc.]. This would
> create less confusion. However, there is a case to be made for attempting to
> "translate" BETWEEN traditions. Confusing, I agree. However, though
> challenging and causing predicaments, this latter approach allows some
> flexibility in shifting perspectives and seeing with binocular vision if the
> eyes can bring into focus the alternative perspectives or traditions. David
> Ke in describing Vygotsky as pouring new meaning into old terms was a master
> at this strategy.
>  Quite true ! I have not had and do not have any problem with David Ke's
> writing . Thanks if you , too , come up with briefer notes which , in turn ,
> would help us figuring out what you intend to say as well as regard a
> BALANCE between each lens of the binocular with the other .
> Fourth : Any of the xmca people to give me a piece of Smirnov's writing on
> "memory" . Anton has been so generous in this regard !
> Best
> Haydi
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca