[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Perezhivanie and Dewey's concept of experience


Yes, we have various riffs here on the notion generally attributed to Brentano - that experience is "intentional," not in the sense of being deliberate but that it is "directed" to the world. Consciousness is always 'consciousness of...'

When Vygotsky writes of the importance of experience within the social situation of development he is presumably drawing on Kurt Lewin. In 1937 Lewin wrote an obituary for Carl Stumpf, who had been his dissertation advisor, describing the latter's debt to Brentano and his influence on Husserl.

My reading of Husserl is different from yours. Perhaps more important is that Shpet's interpretation (quite creative, in my view!) of Husserl, in his Appearance and Sense, was very much along the lines you describe - that consciousness reaches out to grasp the empirically given individual thing and penetrate it. Each object “forces us to cognize it just as it is and not otherwise, i.e., to recognize only the being actually peculiar to it and not another." Published around 1917, before Vygotsky attended Shpet’s seminars. Shpet was proposing ways to avoid subject-object dualism.

As for Sergei Rubinstein, I would be happy to learn more about his work. A little googling discloses that he too studied in Germany, with Paul Natorp, who is considered another important influence on Husserl. In his "Consciousness in the light of dialectical materialism" (1946) Rubinstein argues against idealist approaches to consciousness, and proposes that consciousness is concrete, practical and social. But he doesn't get much further than quoting Marx and Lenin. Though he ends by quoting Aristotle!  :)


On Mar 4, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin,
> This way of understanding experience, striving to overcome the dualism that
> keep retuning/recurring introduced as a *unity* of consciousness seems to
> be playing in the same field as Husserl overcoming the dogmatism of an
> immanent consciousness. Husserl attempted to show that consciousness IS
> intentionality which means we are *in* the matter and not enclosed within
> ourselves. The primacy of self-consciousness is an error,
> phenomenologically speaking. Self-consciousness occurs/recurs only insofar
> as there is consciousness of objects. Gadamer points out that was clear to
> Aristotle and to Franz Brentano, who revived/recollected Greek psychology
> and was Husserl's teacher.
> Gadamer also points out when Heidegger wrote *being and time* it was
> mistakenly assumed Heidegger was overcoming Husserl. Gadamer understands
> Heidegger as elaborating and extending the husserlian genre in a creative
> expansion internal to phenomenology. Heidegger developed the finite
> structure of human interpretation/translation which is not inconsistent
> with phenomenology. However Heidegger did introduce new questions such as
> the notion of *care* which explores anticipation of the future in contrast
> to the presencing of Husserl's  notion of  consciousness as *in* matter.
> One further fragment on Aristotle as an ancestor. A friend of Luther, named
> Melanchthon, reintroduced the whole tradition of Aristotelian philosophy
> into the protestant schools in Wittenberg as foundational to learning to
> READ and understand. Gadamer believes here at this turning point in history
> schooling shifted. In the 1850's in the USA we turned to the Prussian state
> who had introduced public schooling as a way to modernize.
> The question of experience as expression *within* settings seems to run
> through dilthey, with multiple currents and recurring rhythms. Victor
> turner explores the metaphor of pilgrimage and quest/questions within
> experience as expression/understanding.
> A long meandering thread triggered by reflections on Aristotle. It may be
> off base, or I may be on the wrong field of play, but it is where my
> questions invited me to travel.
> Martin, thank you for your continuing leads into within this way of
> dwelling within the world. Much appreciated.
> Larry
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
>> Larry,
>> Seems to me that in the Lectures on Child Psychology, where LSV introduces
>> the term 'experience' in a discussion of the importance of grasping the
>> social situation of development, he was striving once again to overcome the
>> dualisms that keep returning. He wrote that "In modern theory, experience
>> is introduced as a unity of consciousness, that is, a unity in which the
>> basic properties of consciousness are given as such, while in attention and
>> in thinking, the connection of consciousness is not given." He's building
>> here on the line of Romantic philosophy (Dilthey held the chair of
>> philosophy at the University of Berlin that Hegel had held) that insisted
>> that there is a level of human existence and understanding that is prior to
>> the subject/object split; a way of knowing the world that doesn't require
>> mental representations. Perhaps he was reacting to limitations he'd run
>> into in his own analysis of thinking (that in thinking "the unity of
>> consciousness as such disappears"). Perhaps he was returning to (or perhaps
>> he never lost sight of) the fundamental importance of emotion (the alpha
>> and omega) in human psychology.
>> If this is on the right track, then he'd have to see a potential for
>> change in experience, no? He'd have to understand experience as itself
>> dynamic: transforming and transformative. And he in fact wrote that a
>> developmental crisis "is most of all a turning point that is expressed in
>> the fact that the child passes from one method of experiencing the
>> environment to another," and in addition that "behind every experience,
>> there is a real, dynamic action of the environment" - this is what leads to
>> the crisis, a crisis that must still be understood as "internal" to the
>> child-environment system.
>> It seems to me that this brings us right back to the topic of the
>> Psychology of Art - or perhaps better to say that LSV's central interest
>> never changed. The work of art is an environmental 'mechanism' that we
>> become lost in, in an engagement that at its best is deeply emotional and
>> that can be profoundly transformative. A good play, a good book, a good
>> movie, is an experience, an event, a rupture in everyday routine
>> experience, that grabs us and shakes us. This phenomenon seems not to fit
>> into the categories of subject and object, and this means that grasping
>> intellectually how it works can help us develop theory that avoids those
>> pestilent categories. If that took him back to Aristotle, why
>> not?Dialectics was also a Greek word!
>> Martin
>> On Mar 2, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Martin
>>> This was a fascinating new thread you opened up. I appreciate how you
>>> weaved Aristotle and catharsis into our exploration of experience and
>> *an*
>>> experience.
>>> Larry
>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for that Martin. All very interesting indeed.
>>>> I always tend to presume that wherever an ancient source is cited for
>> some
>>>> concept, unless the citing author is a classical scholar, there was some
>>>> *mediating* source which is the *proximate* source of the concept. The
>>>> attached excerpt which I think I took from the CW of Freud, explains
>> where
>>>> I got the idea that Freud got it from Josef Breuer (mediated via a
>> friend
>>>> who is au fait with Freudian thought). But, maybe Vygotsky was studying
>>>> Aristotle. I'l have a look at that section of "The Psychology of Art".
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> But sources aside (I defer to you on that, Martin), the descriptions you
>>>> have provided of catharsis square with my understanding as well. I
>>>> appreciate how you have made the connection between the usual Feudian
>>>> meaning of catharsis, and the aesthetic process which was central for
>> the
>>>> young Vygotsky - and Dewey too apparently! But I don't see this in
>>>> Vygotsky's later work anywhere. Would be interested if you can find
>>>> anything about catharsis in this vein post-1924.
>>>> Also, I can't recall where I read something about art which explained
>> why
>>>> art is necessary to communicate an experience directly, by allowing the
>>>> audience to "re-experience" the experience, rather than an explanation
>> of
>>>> it. Dewey? Stanislavski? Vygotsky? Do you know?
>>>> Andy
>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>> Here's Victor Turner, in the book I mentioned in my previous message,
>> on
>>>>> what for Dilthey makes a difference between 'experience' and '*an*
>>>>> experience':
>>>>> "These experiences that erupt from or disrupt routinized, repetitive
>>>>> behavior begin with shocks of pain or pleasure… Then the emotions of
>> past
>>>>> experience color the images and outlines revived by present shock. What
>>>>> happens next is an anxious need to find meaning in what has
>> diconcerted us,
>>>>> whether by pain or pleasure, and converted mere experience into *an*
>>>>> experience. All this when we try to put past and present together"
>> (36).
>>>>> "Aesthetics, then, are those phases in a given structure or processual
>>>>> unit of experience which either constitute a fulfillment that reaches
>> the
>>>>> depths of the experiencer's being (as Dewey put it) or constitute the
>>>>> necessary obstacles and flaws that provoke the joyous struggle to
>> achieve
>>>>> the consummation surpassing pleasure and equilibrium, which is indeed
>> the
>>>>> joy and happiness of fulfillment" (38).
>>>>> I'm not sure why Andy attributes Vygotsky's notion of catharsis to
>>>>> Bleuler and considers Aristotle irrelevant. It is to Aristotle's
>> writing
>>>>> that LSV himself attributes the concept, in the Psychology of Art.
>>>>> Catharsis for the Greeks was "a sudden emotional breakdown or climax
>> that
>>>>> constitutes overwhelming feelings of great pity, sorrow, laughter, or
>> any
>>>>> extreme change in emotion that results in renewal, restoration, and
>>>>> revitalization" (as Wikipedia has it).
>>>>> Viacheslav Ivanov, who LSV refers to in the Psych of Art, considered
>>>>> catharsis (a la Aristotle) to be the way a novel, for example, grips
>> and
>>>>> affects its readers and leads them to self- knowledge. Catharsis is not
>>>>> only an aesthetic affect, it is the engine of positive historical
>> action.
>>>>> Vygotsky's own definition of catharsis spells out this dynamic and
>>>>> transformative character in some detail, reminiscent of both Ivanov
>> (though
>>>>> he didn't accept Ivanov's Symbolism) and Turner on Dilthey. Catharsis
>> is "a
>>>>> complex transformation of feelings," an "affective contradiction" that
>>>>> results in resolution: in short, a dialectical process on the level of
>>>>> emotion. Feeling alone is not sufficient to bring about the
>> psychological
>>>>> transformation that Vygotsky is interested in; it is the work of art
>> that
>>>>> has the power to initiate "the creative act of overcoming the feeling,
>>>>> resolving it, conquering it."
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2013, at 4:13 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Re boundaries of experience and Dewey. In his book on education and
>>>>>> experience he quotes "the poet" in a relevant way
>>>>>> I am a part of all that I have met;
>>>>>> Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
>>>>>> Gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades
>>>>>> For ever and for ever when I move.
>>>>>> The poet was Tennyson, the *I*, Ulysses.
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>> I find this topic very fertile ground which may need to be
>> *reworked*.
>>>>>>> Robert mentioned Dewey was criticized for not having an
>> understanding of
>>>>>>> the *tragic soul*   Andy mentioned that an experienced must be
>>>>>>> *bounded*.
>>>>>>> I would like to add further reflections from Tom Leddy's article you
>>>>>>> attached on Dewey's Aesthetics. I am referring to page 34 & 35 where
>>>>>>> Dewey
>>>>>>> is exploring the common substance of the Arts. This section is a
>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>> to the *tragic soul* and *bounded* experience.
>>>>>>> The creative process BEGINS with a "total seizure", a "mood", which
>>>>>>> determines the development of art into parts.  THIS *element* Dewey
>>>>>>> refers
>>>>>>> to as a *penetrating quality* which is immediately experienced in all
>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>> of the work. It is so pervasive we take it for granted. Without this
>>>>>>> penetrating quality the parts would only be mechanically related.
>> The
>>>>>>> organic whole IS the parts PERMEATED by this penetrating quality. It
>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>> called the SPIRIT of the work. It is also the work's *reality* in
>> that
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> makes us experience the work AS *real*  This penetrating quality is
>> the
>>>>>>> BACKGOUND that qualifies everything in the foreground.
>>>>>>> What are the *boundaries* of this background which Dewey calls *the
>>>>>>> setting*?  Dewey's answer is thought provoking. He assumes that
>> although
>>>>>>> experiences have bounded edges like those of their objects, the
>> whole of
>>>>>>> *an* experience, and especially its qualitative penetrating *spirit*
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> the object, EXTENDS INDEFINITELY. This penetrating quality of the
>>>>>>> experience is THAT which is not focused within the experience.  The
>>>>>>> margins
>>>>>>> of our experience shade into that indefinate expanse.  This
>> experiential
>>>>>>> penetrating backgound is only made CONSCIOUS within the specific
>> objects
>>>>>>> that form the focus.  Behind every explicit experience there is
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> implicit that we call *vague* but this vagueness was not vague in the
>>>>>>> ORIGINAL experience for this penetrating quality is a FUNCTION of the
>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>> *situation*  An experience *is mystical*, Dewey believes, to the
>> extent
>>>>>>> this feeling of a penetrating background is INTENSE. This penetrating
>>>>>>> quality is particularly intense in certain works of art, for example
>> IN
>>>>>>> TRAGEDY.  A work of art must include something not understood.
>>>>>>> I am not sure if Vygotsky shares a *family resemblance* with this
>>>>>>> expansive, penetrating sense of *substance* which makes reality FEEL
>>>>>>> *real*. The question of the boundedness of *an* experience, from
>> Dewey's
>>>>>>> understanding certainly was reflecting on the *tragic soul* within
>>>>>>> *settings*.
>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:17 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It all moves so quickly it is hard to take it all in, Larry, let
>> alone
>>>>>>>> find time to comment.I am still
>>>>>>>> back on rhythmicity which I am thinking of from the perspective of
>>>>>>>> someone who thinks of
>>>>>>>> communication as patterns of coordination over time.
>>>>>>>> In this regard, it seems to me that many of Durkheim's ideas in
>>>>>>>> Elementary Forms of Religious
>>>>>>>> Experience are highly relevant. Durkheim's pluses and minuses are, I
>>>>>>>> know, a matter of important
>>>>>>>> debate in themselves, but they come down to me through my engagement
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> cross cultural
>>>>>>>> research through Levy-Bruhl and Piaget.
>>>>>>>> And now, toss in the Bakhtin (the liar or the seer) and it should be
>>>>>>>> enough to think about when we are being absent minded.
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>>>> This months themed issue linking felt experience with Bahktin's
>> notion
>>>>>>>>> of genre's and cultural-historical-activity theory wiil keep the
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>> dialgue with Dewey alive.
>>>>>>>>> I'm anticipating a lively encounter.
>>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:20 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> We will be re-posting the articles for discussion poll a little
>> later
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> morning and
>>>>>>>>>> restarting the balloting so that the full menu is out there for
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>>> AND COMMENT ON!
>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ------------
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>>>> http://marxists.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<
>> http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> 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